Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship

Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship Angela Creese *, Adrian Blackledge with Tas¸kin Barac¸, Arvind Bhatt, Shahela Hamid, Li Wei, Vally Lytra, Peter Martin, Chao-Jung Wu, Dilek Yağcioğlu MOSAIC Centre for Research on Multilingualism, School of Education, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 17 February 2009 Received in revised form 30 March 2010 Accepted 5 October 2010 Available online 19 November 2010

Sociolinguists have long recognized that language is a social construct, and have found elusive any firm definition of what constitutes a language in relation to overlapping varieties. On the other hand, it is long established that language is recruited by nations, communities and individuals for its symbolic value and distinctiveness. Whereas the first of these positions views language as fluid and changing, with permeable boundaries, the second stresses the fixed, rigid nature of language. This paper describes how these two positions are played out in the multilingual contexts of four English cities, in complementary schools where young students learn Bengali, Cantonese, Gujarati, Mandarin, and Turkish. In the research reported here we observed a broad range of multilingual practices across a variety of settings in schools, and at the boundaries of school and home. From these practices we identify two seemingly contradictory positions in relation to participants’ bilingualism: an ideology which argues for ‘language separation’ and one in which ‘flexible bilingualism’ flourishes as a practice. These two positions can be said to illustrate the dynamic tension described in sociolinguistic research, which has often viewed language as fluid and overlapping, while at the same time acknowledging language as a social construct which demarcates and reifies identities. The paper looks at how students and teachers simultaneously lived both ‘separate’ and ‘flexible’ positions, and navigated between them interactively and discursively. Our analysis suggests that relations between ‘language’ and ‘ideology’ are far from straightforward for the young people and teachers in complementary schools. The heteroglossic reality of multilingual practice, with its flexible movement across and between ‘languages’, is underpinned by the social structures of which such interactions are a part. ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bilingualism Culture Language Heritage Heteroglossia Translanguaging

1. Introduction This paper describes the range of linguistic practices of multilingual students and teachers in the setting of complementary schools (also known as ‘heritage language’, ‘community language’, ‘supplementary’ schools) in the UK. We look across a four case-study research project to develop our earlier work on bilingualism and linguistic repertoire

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Creese), [email protected] (A. Blackledge). 0378-2166/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.006

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

1197

(Martin et al., 2004, 2006; Creese et al., 2006a,b). Two constructions of bilingualism are described, in which some teachers argue for language ‘separation’ in complementary schools, while on the other hand both teachers and young people practise a flexible bilingualism, in the course of which they call into play diverse sets of linguistic resources. We refer to the first of these positions as ‘separate’ bilingualism. We use the term ‘separate’ bilingualism to describe what Heller (1999:271) has called parallel monolingualism, or bilingualism with diglossia (Baker, 2003; Fishman, 1967), what Grosjean (1985) describes as a monolingual view of bilingualism, and Gafaranga (2000) calls a language separation approach. We use the term ‘flexible’ bilingualism to refer to what Garcia calls ‘translanguaging’, which ‘‘normalizes bilingualism without diglossic functional separation’’ (Garcia, 2007:xiii), and Bailey (2007), following Bakhtin (1994, 1986), describes as ‘heteroglossia’ – the simultaneous use of different kinds of forms or signs. This body of work has connection with Grosjean’s early work (1985) on a bilingual view of bilingualism, and what Gafar[1_TD$IF ]an[2_TD$IF ]ga (2005:288) has referred to as language use ‘‘for all practical purposes’’. We argue here that theorising the use of linguistic signs as processes of translanguaging and heteroglossia provides a better understanding of participant identities in complementary schools. In this paper, we demonstrate that these two seemingly contradictory constructions of bilingualism are performed alongside each other in complementary schools. We will argue that these two different conceptions of bilingualism are linked to conflicting political, pedagogical and sociolinguistic discourses on language. In particular, we suggest that ‘separate bilingualism’ is associated with powerful and pervasive political and academic discourses which view languages as discrete, and tied to nation and culture in simplified and coherent ways. Such a view places emphasis on linguistic and social categories and classifications. We will suggest that this construction of bilingualism is performed in complementary schools to reproduce essentialist views of culture, but also to challenge them. An ideology and practice of separate bilingualism allows teachers to articulate, organize and assemble resources to counter the hegemony of other ‘mainstream’ institutional accounts of nation, history, culture and language. However, in doing so, teachers in complementary schools themselves sometimes settle on simplified cultural narratives. ‘Flexible bilingualism’ represents a view of language as a social resource (Heller, 2007a,b) without clear boundaries, which places the speaker at the heart of the interaction. It stresses individual agency and understands language use as predicated on using all available signs (themselves socially constituted) in the performance of different social subjectivities. Participants’ awareness of ‘language’ or ‘code’ is backgrounded, and ‘signs’ are combined and put to work in the message being negotiated. Flexible bilingualism captures the heteroglossic nature of communication in the bilingual context of complementary schools. It leads us away from a focus on ‘languages’ as distinct codes, to a focus on the agency of individuals in a school community engaging in using, creating and interpreting signs to communicate to multilingual audiences. We will look at how students and teachers use linguistic resources to break down boundaries between languages in performing the routine activities of complementary schools. 1.1. Language and ideology Heller (2007a,b) points out that the study of bilingualism is situated in the domain of studies of ideology, social practice and social organisation. Language is a fundamentally social phenomenon, and linguistic practices are not separate from the beliefs and attitudes relating to languages in societies. Nor are language ideologies always fixed or straightforward. Recently, studies of multilingualism in societies have drawn attention to the social positioning, partiality, contestability, instability and mutability of the ways in which language uses and beliefs are linked to relations of power and political arrangements in societies (Blackledge, 2005; Blackledge and Pavlenko, 2002; Blommaert, 1999; Blommaert and Verschueren, 1998; Gal, 1998; Gal and Woolard, 1995; Kroskrity, 1998; Woolard, 1998). Hand-in-hand with our investigations of language practices and resources, there is a need to enquire into the relations between these practices and resources and the construction of social difference with which they are associated (Heller, 2007a,b:15). Positioned in, and subject to, their social, political and historical contexts, language ideologies constitute the larger social, economic and political systems which play a role in structuring dominant-subordinate, majority-minority relations. However, the role of language ideologies in relation to practices is not always straightforward, as ‘‘their impact on everyday experience cannot easily be predicted’’ (Rampton, 2006:19). Rampton argues for a perspective which does not view culture exclusively as an elite canon, or as a set of static ethnic essences, or as a simple reflection of economic and political processes. Rather, he considers that ‘‘the reality of people’s circumstances is actively shaped by the ways in which they interpret and respond to them’’ (Rampton, 2006:19). Actions, attitudes and linguistic practices are not merely a reflection of the communities or societies into which speakers are born. Rampton proposes instead a frame in which ‘‘here-and-now social action is seen as playing at least some part in the formation of potentially consequential solidarities and divisions’’ (2006:23). In the research reported here the relations between ‘language’ and ‘ideology’ are far from straightforward. The complementary schools exist in relation to, in response to, and perhaps even in spite of, a strongly felt public discourse of monolingualism and homogeneity in the multilingual, heterogeneous state. This impetus towards the erasure of minority immigrant languages is resisted where complementary schools have been set up by communities which have gathered whatever resources are at their disposal to teach and maintain the heritage/ community language. At the same time, the complementary schools often appear to argue for a static, reified version of ‘culture’ and ‘heritage’, which may be remote from their students’ experience (Blackledge and Creese, 2008). In this complex ideological context complementary schools become sites where subtle, nuanced negotiations of identities

1198

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

frequently occur. We will see that negotiations are performed using a range of linguistic resources which do not fit a neat categorization into one language or another. 1.2. Language and bilingualism ‘Language separateness’ is a well known perspective in studies of bilingualism, and is common in language educational settings where ‘language as content’ is the institutional aim (Gafaranga, 2000). Instructional endeavour of this kind adopts a ‘monolingual’ ideology (Grosjean, 1985) especially where the educational aim is language maintenance (Gafaranga, 2007). In contrast, language-as-communicative-action cannot adopt such an ideology, and requires an explanation predicated on the fluidity and simultaneity of language use, whether it is bilingual or monolingual. An analysis of language practices requires a view of language as both reflecting and shaping the social context. This allows us to view social structure as occasioned in interaction, while also considering how the interaction plays its part in (re-)establishing social structure (Gafaranga, 2005). In the study of bilingual interaction however, there is a problem with what constitutes ‘a language’. Gumperz (1982) suggested that we might be wrong to think of bilingual interactions in terms of the grammarian’s notion of language, and that practices might be better understood in terms of speakers’ own code. Gafaranga (2005:289) makes a similar point: The concept of ‘language’ has often been understood as referring to things such as English, French, Swahili and Kinyarwanda. In turn, those things with names are assumed, not only to be delimitable, but also to correspond to equally delimitable groups of people. Gafaranga goes on to illustrate how linguistic phenomena with specific names do not always correspond to what grammarians would call one ‘language’. Indeed much of the existing research on language alternation and code-switching makes a distinction between language and communicative code (Alvarez-Caccamo, 1998), and more recently ‘medium’ (Gafaranga, 2005, 2007). ‘Code’ and ‘medium’ are different from ‘languages’ because they can be monolingual and bilingual, linguistic and non-linguistic, and come with their own rules and regulations (Auer, 1984). Makoni and Pennycook (2007) propose the ‘disinvention’ of languages, arguing that languages are discursive constructions which perpetuate social inequities. Makoni and Mashiri (2007) suggests that rather than developing language policies which attempt at hermetically sealing languages, we should be describing the use of vernaculars which leak into one another to understand the social realities of their users. Lemke (2002:85) argues: We need to welcome a renewed scepticism regarding the autonomy and coherence of ‘‘languages’’. The notion of ‘‘a language’’ seems to me little more than a Platonist relic. I cannot see it as a cogent unit of analysis, neither behaviorally nor socially. . . . It is not at all obvious that if they were not politically prevented from doing so, ‘‘languages’’ would not mix and dissolve into one another, but we understand almost nothing of such processes. Stressing the user rather than the code or language is central to this argument. Auer (1984) has argued that bilingualism is not a property of the mind, but rather action which is displayed. Rampton’s (1995, 2006) work on heteroglossia in urban contexts among adolescents shows how individuals may appropriate and invent linguistic practices to negotiate their identities. Rampton (2006:27) refers to ‘stylisation’ as a particular kind of performance in which speakers produce ‘an artistic image of another’s language’ (Bakhtin, 1981:362). Hess-Lüttich (1978, in Androutsopoulos, 2007:207) speaks of bilingualism as a ‘style resource’. Viewing language use as a styling process places the social actor at the centre of analysis. Rampton argues (1998:8) instead of being the product of forces that actors neither control nor comprehend, human reality is extensively reproduced and created anew in the socially and historically specific activities of everyday life. Such a social constructivist approach works with the agency of a situated speaker and is interested in explaining language use as contextually embedded. Bilingualism as a ‘style resource’ necessitates moving away from an emphasis on languages and their different codes towards an account which describes the individual as engaged in meaning making and identity work. At the same time, this approach acknowledges that not all speakers have equal access to all linguistic resources at different times and in different places. What we saw in and beyond the complementary schools was a constant process of negotiation, as power relations, politics, and histories at local, national, and transnational levels shaped the way people accessed linguistic resources. Joseph (2006:44) points out that linguistics has tended to treat languages as though they were unitary entities, either ignoring variation or relegating it to a secondary plane. Joseph draws on the work of Bakhtin to argue that the discrete systems that linguists normally study co-exist with a multiplicity of different ways of speaking that are constantly intermingling with each other, a condition for which Bakhtin introduces the term ‘heteroglossia’. Heller (2007[4_TD$IF]a,b:8) also proposes that utterances can best be understood as inherently heteroglossic, that is, a multiplicity of voices underlies linguistic variability in any given stretch of social performance. Garcia further argues that monoglossic ideologies of bilingualism and bilingual education treat each language as separate and whole, and view the two languages as bounded autonomous systems. In contrast ‘‘a heteroglossic ideology of bilingualism considers multiple language practices in interrelationship’’ (2009:7).

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

1199

Bailey (2007) makes a clear distinction between code-switching and heteroglossia. Following Bakhtin (1981, 1986, 1994) he acknowledges that within every utterance there are traces of the social, political, and historical forces which have shaped it. For Bakhtin the utterance: is entangled, shot through with shared thoughts, points of view, alien value judgements and accents, weaves in and out of complex interrelationships, merges with some, recoils from others. . .and having taken meaning and shape at a particular historical moment in a socially specific environment, cannot fail to brush up against thousands of living dialogic threads. (Bakhtin, 1981:276) For Bakhtin a unitary language is not something given, but is always posited, and ‘‘at every moment of its linguistic life is opposed to the realities of heteroglossia’’ (1994:74). At the same time, however, the unitary language ‘‘makes its presence felt as a force for overcoming this heteroglossia, imposing specific limits to it’’ (Bakhtin, 1994:74). Bailey shows that rather than confining signs to different languages as would be typical in an account of ‘code-switching’, heteroglossia encompasses both monolingual and multilingual forms simultaneously, allowing for theorizing of social and historical contexts of the utterance. Moving beyond conventional code-switching research, Bailey argues that: heteroglossia can encompass socially meaningful forms in both bilingual and monolingual talk; it can account for the multiple meanings and readings of forms that are possible, depending on one’s subject position; and it can connect historical power hierarchies to the meanings and valences of particular forms in the here-and-now. (Bailey, 2007:267) Bailey demonstrates that the perspective of heteroglossia allows one to distinguish between local functions of particular code switches, and their functions in relation to their social, political, and historical contexts, in ways that formal codeswitching analysis does not. He convincingly argues that the perspective of heteroglossia ‘‘explicitly bridges the linguistic and the sociohistorical, enriching analysis of human interaction’’ (2007:269), and is ‘‘fundamentally about intertextuality, the ways that talk in the here-and-now draws meanings from past instances of talk’’ (272). 2. Methodology and project design The research reported in this paper is a comparative sociolinguistic study of four interlocking case studies with two researchers working in two complementary schools in each community. These are non-statutory schools, run by their local communities, which students attend in order to learn the language normally associated with their ethnic heritage. The case studies focused on Gujarati schools in Leicester, Turkish schools in London, Cantonese and Mandarin schools in Manchester, and Bengali schools in Birmingham. The project design is of four linking ethnographically informed case studies with data collected simultaneously and shared by the full team over a [5_TD$IF]10-week data collection period. Each case study identified two complementary schools in which to observe, record, and interview participants. We also collected key documentary evidence, and took photographs. After four weeks two key participant children were identified in each school. These children were audio-recorded during the classes observed, and where possible also for 30 min before and after each class over a six-week period. Key stakeholders in the schools were interviewed, including teachers and administrators, and the key participant children and their parents. In all we collected 192 h of audio-recorded interactional data, wrote 168 sets of field notes, made 16 h of video-recordings, and interviewed 66 key stakeholders. The specific aims of the project were: 1. To explore the social, cultural and linguistic significance of heritage language schools both within their communities and in the wider society. 2. To investigate the range of linguistic practices used in different contexts in the heritage language schools. 3. To investigate how the linguistic practices of students and teachers in heritage language schools are used to negotiate young people’s multilingual and multicultural identities. We have reported the findings of each separate case study elsewhere (Creese et al., 2007a,b,c,d) and the full research report in Creese et al. (2008a,b). Our methodological and theoretical frame was linguistic ethnography (Rampton et al., 2004; Rampton, 2007; Creese, 2008; Tusting and Maybin, 2007). Linguistic ethnography emphasises the advantages of combining discourse analytical approaches with ethnography, rather than relying only on one approach or framework (Rampton et al., 2002; Zuengler and Mori, 2002; Stubbe et al., 2003; Creese et al., 2008b). We find linguistic ethnography of value in looking at the ‘‘complex relationships between local meanings (improvised representations) and translocal (patterned, regulated) social processes’’ (Eisenhart, 2001:21). Our intention is to consider how the social context of complementary schools endorses the translanguaging practices of teachers and participants but also how the practice of flexible bilingualism plays its part in structuring complementary schools as institutionally bilingual spaces. Data extracts are taken from fieldnotes, interviews and audio recordings. It is the balance of these data methods which defines linguistic ethnography. We retain ethnographic fieldnotes as primary (and authoritative) data alongside recordings of interactional data and interviews. In

1200

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

linguistic ethnography interpretive assessments of interactional and interview data are built on locally or context-specific background knowledge recorded in fieldnotes. In this paper, we look across our four case studies to illustrate the patterned nature of separate and flexible bilingualism. Elsewhere we have reported other aspects of the research (Creese et al., 2007a,b,c,d; Creese and Wu, 2008; Blackledge and Creese, 2008, 2009a,b, 2010). Our intention in the following discussion is to illustrate the patterned nature of separate and flexible bilingualism across all four case studies and the eight schools. We start by looking at some of the ways in which those we met in the complementary schools reinforced the notion of ‘separate bilingualism’. 3. Separate bilingualism The default mode in the classrooms is that the teacher mainly speaks the community language, and students mainly speak English (Creese et al., 2007a,b,c,d, 2008a,b). This is in keeping with a previous study of Gujarati complementary schools conducted in Leicester (Martin et al., 2004, 2006). Myers-Scotton’s (1993) notion of ‘‘unmarked codeswitching’’ is important here. This concept, also known as ‘‘unreciprocal code-switching’ and as ‘the parallel mode’ under the ‘bilingual medium’ (see Gafaranga, 2005, 2007) sees participants carry on a conversation in which the speaker uses a different language from the listener. This pattern of language use is similar to what others have called dual lingualism (Lincoln, 1975) ‘‘in which two (or more) persons would carry on a conversation in which each speaks in a different language but is able to listen to the other(s) in whatever language they speak’’ (Scollon, 2002:131). Martin et al. (2006) have described this practice in complementary schools with reference to ‘label quests’ (Heath, 1986) and ‘bilingual label quests’ (Martin et al., 2006), in which the teacher gives a word in one language and expects to receive feedback in a different language. However, although this pattern was common and indeed accepted and expected by teachers in our research, they would often call upon the students to speak in the community language when they felt English was being used ‘too much’. Across the different case study schools it was not uncommon to hear:[6_TD$IF] ‘Türkc¸e Konus¸’, ‘Bangla-e maato’, ‘[TD$INLE] ’ (Cantonese) ‘[TD$INLE] ’/‘[TD$INLE] ’ (Mandarin) ‘Gujarati bolo’ which in all cases translates as a request to use the community language and not English. In the following fieldnote extract, a teacher in a Turkish complementary school insists that students use Turkish and not English: Homework comprises of three parts and seems like a lot, learning words and using them in sentences, answering questions. One child asks in English after many attempts to understand in Turkish, ‘can you tell me what number two means in English please’, and the teacher responds, in Turkish, ‘Neden Ingilizce? (why English?). The child says, ‘because I don’t understand’. But still there is no English. Only slower Turkish with more examples. (Fieldnotes, Turkish school) When questioned about this observation, the teacher argued that: ‘‘I˙s¸in icinde I˙ngilizce varsa o derste kesinlikle I˙ngilizcenin konus¸ulmasl lazim’’ . The teacher is advocating a clear separation between English and Turkish, and appears to allow very little interactional space for the juxtaposition and mixing of sets of linguistic resources. We can see in these fieldnotes and interview extracts that the teacher would prefer the young people to speak Turkish rather than English. In many ways, we can link this view to orthodoxies found in the fields of education and language teaching. Communicative language teaching methodologies (CLT) in both English as a second language (ESL) and modern foreign language (MFL) contexts have long argued that the best way to learn a language is to use a language. We come across similar arguments in bilingual education: Bilingual educators have usually insisted on the separation of the two languages, one of which is English and the other, the child’s vernacular. By strictly separating the languages, the teacher avoids, it is argued, cross contamination, thus making it easier for the child to acquire a new linguistic system as he/she internalizes a given lesson. . . . it was felt that the inappropriateness of the concurrent use was so self-evident that no research had to be conducted to prove this fact. (Jacobson and Faltis, 1990:4) Keeping languages separate, the pedagogic argument goes, allows for maximum exposure to the target language. Although the pedagogic possibilities of separate and flexible bilingualism are beyond the scope of this paper (but see Creese and Blackledge, 2010), these orthodoxies lend support to the separate bilingualism found in complementary school classrooms. The eight schools in which we conducted extensive observations and interviews varied considerably in size, scope, curriculum, and resources. What the schools all had in common was a focus on teaching young students to become literate in the community language – a language which in all cases was associated in one way or another with the ‘heritage’ or ‘culture’ of the migrant group. The school in which ‘Excerpt One’ was recorded was no more than a borrowed room in a Muslim community centre, which had itself been converted from a small terraced house in a poor, inner-city area of Birmingham. There were 21 students in attendance on this Sunday afternoon, all of them learning Bengali in groups with two teachers. The only teaching and learning resources available were pencils and photocopied worksheets, and a white board for one of the teachers. Here the teacher is a woman who had trained as a teacher in Bangladesh, but had not worked in the mainstream

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

1201

school system in England. Shopna and Shahnaz (not their real names) are [7_TD$IF]10-year-old girls, born and raised in Birmingham, UK. Their parents had migrated from Bangladesh around [8_TD$IF]15 years earlier. Excerpt One1 Teacher:

Bangla-e maato etaa Bangla class khaali English maato to etaa Bangla class khene

Shopna:

miss you can choose

Shahnaz:

I know English

Shopna:

why?

Teacher:

because tumi Bangali

Shahnaz:

My aunty chose it. She speaks English all the time. (Classroom audio-recording, Bengali school)

Here the teacher tells the students to use ‘Bangla’, and connects the speaking of Bangla to being Bengali. However, the students question this statement by the teacher and suggest that they have a choice about which languages they speak. Shahnaz’s ‘aunty’, herself of Bangladeshi heritage, is offered as an example of someone who has resisted the notion of ‘onelanguage-equals-one ethnicity/culture’. The two constructions of bilingualism are in play here. On the one hand the teacher insists on a construction of bilingualism in which languages have separate functions, with Bengali given the status of classroom language. On the other hand both languages are used flexibly by the teacher to interact with her pupils. This kind of negotiation was common in the eight schools, as the English-dominant students did not always accept their teachers’ insistence that they use only the community language in the classroom. Across the four case studies, teachers moved in and out of a position which insisted that languages be kept separate and that the classroom be a place where only the community language could be used. Teachers expressed their fear that the young people would lose their language and identity unless they insist on separate bilingualism. One teacher in the Gujarati school said, ‘‘I’m proud of my language. Our identity is our language. It is our mother tongue and if we don’t speak it, who are we?’’. Another teacher from the same school said: We must all speak Gujarati in class and in the school – Gujarati is learnt if it is spoken. I’m strict about speaking Gujarati in class. Parents should speak Gujarati with their children but there is not much support from them. (Interview with teacher, Gujarati school[9_TD$IF]) Some teachers and parents expressed anxiety about language shift and loss of the community language and heritage identities in the face of the dominance of English. However, this institutional ideology of separate bilingualism was often at odds with the multilingual practices of the teachers, young people and parents, who found ways to neutralize and avoid such strictures. We now turn to look at how ideologies of separate bilingualism are refuted in practice in complementary schools by those who are unable or unwilling to keep their languages separate in practice. Here teachers recognise the need to use language flexibly in engaging their students, and use a range of available signs to perform varied identities and subjectivities. 4. Flexible bilingualism In this section we discuss examples of flexible bilingualism in a range of settings and contexts in relation to complementary schools. These include formal teaching interactions between teacher and students; informal conversations between students while in class; an assembly in which a head teacher speaks to students and parents; and interactions as young people prepare to leave for complementary schools while still at home. We provide examples from each of our four case studies (Gujarati, Chinese, Bengali and Turkish). We analyse these interactions to demonstrate the usual practices of heteroglossic bilingual language use in complementary schools. We present examples of speakers moving frequently between their two or more languages and consider how this flexibility itself acts as a community identity marker in complementary schools. An important point here is that what we are calling flexible bilingualism is in itself defined by considerable diversity. This is not a single, fixed phenomenon, but a characterisation of heteroglossic, translanguaging practice. Despite an institutional discourse which advocates monolingualism in the community language, classrooms are multilingual, using a wide range of linguistic resources in the act of teaching, learning and social performance. In the following example children in one of the Gujarati schools have been asked to create a story in Gujarati. This school was much larger than the Bengali school in Excerpt One, with more than two hundred pupils on roll. Students travelled to the school from all parts of the city of Leicester, whereas the Bengali students in Birmingham tended to go to a school close to their home. Here PB is the teacher: Excerpt Two PB:

. . .chalo, tame taiyar chho?. . .[talks to other Ss]. . ..ek diwas. . .chalo. . ..

Ss:

what?

1202

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

PB:

[inaudible]

Ss:

we’re still writing. . .we have written that much [shows book to PB]. Not much, is it?

PB:

shena upper banawi chhe?

Ss:

Kootro ane wandro

PB:

Kootro ne wandro? Shu banawi chhe warta?

Ss:

they make friends and they go out

PB:

be mitro chhe ane-

Ss:

they are going out

PB:

e bai mitro chhe, kootro ne wandro ne bai farwa jay chhe



Ss:

they are going out

PB:

kya farwa jay?

Ss:

junglema

PB:

junglema, wandrabhai junglema jai shake?

Ss:

no, they are going out [laugh]

PB:

sssh! Pachhi shu thyu?



(Classroom video recording, Gujarati school) Despite the teacher’s return to Gujarati at each turn, the students respond in English. We also see that the students’ colloquial use of English creates two different interactional frames. Whilst the teacher’s aim is the production of a traditional folk story, the students aim is to give the story a more modern meaning. They use the phrase ‘going out’ to create a different meaning from that intended by the teacher, turning the monkey and dog into lovers. The teacher does not, or chooses not to, understand this implication. Across the eight schools we saw many examples of students using their linguistic awareness of English in creative ways with their teachers (Blackledge and Creese, 2009b; Lytra and Barac¸, 2009). Underlying any discussion of linguistic practices in complementary schools is the fact that the teachers are generally more proficient in the community language than in English, whereas students are generally more proficient in English. What happens, as can be seen above, is that two languages are used to accomplish lessons. This is because both sets of linguistic resources contribute to meaning-making, which becomes more than the sum of its parts, in ways that language separation would not allow (López, 2008). Teachers and students can carry on a conversation in which each speaks in a different language but is able to listen to the other(s) in whatever language they speak (Scollon, 2002; García, 2007). We also see how linguistic resources are accessed and brought to bear on the interaction, for example in the word ‘junglema’, which is introduced by students and accepted by the teacher, and which she continues to use in her focus on the production of the story. There is a certain pragmatism connected to this position, with teachers recognizing that to engage students, they need to accept flexible bilingualism. In the following interview the researcher, W, is speaking with the deputy head teacher of the Cantonese school. W:

Do you encourage teachers to, say, only speak Cantonese at school?

D:

We’ve got the policy to tell them that all the time.

W:

Right.

D:

But, you see, the kids tend to be paying attention as soon as they use their mother tongue, English, in class. I think that’s the tendency. (interview deputy head teacher, Chinese school)

This teacher uses a definition of mother-tongue based on proficiency and expertise, and describes English as the students’ mother-tongue. He argues that using both languages is a resource to engage the students. Teachers often described the mixing of languages as a resource to include young people in the Gujarati schools:

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

1203

We’re always comparing – it is nice to do things in Gujarati but we love you to do things in English as well. . . . How are we going to separate those things? No. Actually we are giving more. You don’t have to change the way you are to mix with others. You can enjoy both worlds, both lives (Interview with head teacher, Gujarati school) The languages are getting mixed so a new language is emerging–the language of Leicester! (Interview with teacher, Gujarati school) Since this is a Gujarati school, I will mix English and Gujarati . . . if you don’t understand you can raise your hand and I will explain it. (Fieldnotes, Gujarati school assembly) In all three examples here teachers in the Gujarati schools endorse the ‘mixing’ of Gujarati and English. This is an alternative institutional ideology to that of separate bilingualism, and was particularly noticeable in the two Gujarati complementary schools. The school from which Excerpt Three is taken, Jalaram Bal Vikas (JBV), was founded in 1991. It is linked to the local Hindu temple. The premises used are owned by the local further education college which does not charge rent. The classes run on Saturdays from 9.30 a.m. to 11.15 a.m., after which there is an assembly until 11.45 a.m. There are 200 pupils on roll, and 12 teachers who conduct classes from 5[13_TD$IF] to 16 years, and adult classes in Gujarati. The pupils come from all over the city as well as the suburbs. The yearly fee is £40 per pupil, and the school receives a grant of £6 per pupil per year from the local government. The teachers are paid a nominal sum each term, depending on the funding situation. In Excerpt Three SB, the head teacher, uses both Gujarati and English to speak to a whole school assembly of students, teachers and parents. Excerpt three SB: . . .what’s going to happen here Jalaram Bal Vikasma? Holiday nathi, awata Shaniware apne awanu chhe. we’re coming here awta shaniware. . .[several Ss put up their hands]. . .Amar? [picks on Amar] Amare kidhu ne ke GCSE presentation chhe. . .awanu chhe. I know that we’re finishing on Friday in mainstream school, pun aiya agal badhayne awanu chhe. . ..I know, it’s a surprise. Khawanu etlu fine chhe, K warned me today. . .it’s something all of you will like, teachers will like. . .something for all of us. . . . [points to HB’s class sitting in front of her] a balko a varshe GCSE karwana chhe etle next year a badha awshe mehman thayne, mota thayne!. . .we’re not going to take much time, ‘cause I’ve got few other things to tell you as well. . . [assembly transcript] [assembly audio and video recording] SB is speaking to a diverse audience. The teachers, children and parents have different levels of proficiency in Gujarati and English. A code-switching analysis may categorize which languages are performing which functions, but this might not reveal a great deal about the speaker’s engagement with the audience. Rather than focus on the alteration of languages, we would suggest that SB uses her ‘language’ [14_TD$IF]– the semiotic bank of signs at her disposal [15_TD$IF]– to engage her audience. Her ‘languages’ do not appear separate for her in this social act, but rather a resource to negotiate meanings with her audience and include as many of them as possible. SB’s language indexes her knowledge of the social and linguistic complexity of the community she addresses. Her language, her system of semiotic signs, is available for the creation of new meanings and interpretations, and she puts it together uniquely in the social action of ‘doing’ an assembly. Here the meaning of the sign is not contained within it, but arises in its interpretation (Peirce, 1975). That is, meaning is actively created in the complex interplay of codes and conventions at work. SB’s interplay of signs is an example of heteroglossia and translanguaging rather than simply mixing of codes. The next example involves a group of children ‘off-task’ in the Cantonese Chinese school in Manchester. Like the Gujarati schools, the Cantonese school was much larger than the Bengali schools. This is a long-established Cantonese school, which has very strong links with the local Chinese association, which provides strong support in all areas[17_TD$IF] [18_TD$IF]– staff, resources and financial help. The school operates every Sunday from[19_TD$IF] 1.30 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. There are around 350 students on roll, and student recruitment is mainly through word of mouth. Some of the pupils live many miles away from the school. Around 30% of the pupils’ families come from mainland China (the Cantonese-speaking region) and 70% of parents originate from Hong Kong. There are forty teachers and teaching assistants. Towards the end of our time in the school a money box went missing. This was announced by teachers to their classes, and children were asked whether they knew anything about it. Teachers

1204

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

were shocked and concerned that this should happen in their school. At least one teacher searched the students’ bags. In the following extract, the children are chatting to one another and playing with the digital voice recorder at the end of the school session. Excerpt Four (S: non-specific student, G: non-specific girl, B: non-specific boy, T: teacher.) G1: Is this recording? G2: I think it is. [TD$INLE]

T:

, [TD$INLE]



G1: do get off. . . . just do. S:

why?

G1: it’s not yours. S:

so what?

G1: it’s not yours. do you want me to strangle you? B:

go on then. . . . oh, I’m going to toilet.

Gs: [giggles] Ss:

[gossip about someone smoking in the toilet (in English) They joke in Cantonese and English]

G1: Oh, no. The geek boy has arrived. [They fight for the recorder.] S:

Rachel said that she likes . . . nobody.

B1: Hello, hello, PC1661 (1661 in Cantonese). [TD$INLE] Ss:

[TD$INLE] something something. [TD$INLE]

B2: B:1



[chatting, very noisily. A boy picks up the recorder and speaks into it] , [TD$INLE]

, [TD$INLE]



[TD$INLE] [TD$INLE] Batman [TD$INLE] [TD$INLE] thank you. bye-bye. (Classroom audio-recording, Chinese school)]

We see the children use their multilingualism in this off-task interaction, moving between English and Cantonese. Overall the example evidences the young people’s ability and willingness to use their languages as they draw on their different experiences of language and genre in their mock news report. Here they use the ‘shock horror’ news headlines of tabloid media to spoof the searching of bags for a money box which has gone missing in the school, introducing the global superheroes Batman and Spiderman. The mimicry of the global media voices is ‘‘artful performance’’ (Rampton, 2006:27), when the act of speaking itself is put on display for the scrutiny of an audience. The recontextualised voices of the superheroes allows the introduction into the classroom of ‘‘two aspects of the world, the serious and the laughing aspect’’ (Bakhtin[2_TD$IF], 1968:96), as the students respond with humour to the incident of the missing money-box. In some ways this example lends itself to a functional code-switching analysis. The gossip and fight for the recorder is predominantly in English, whereas the missing money box ‘play’ is located in relation to the school, and in Cantonese. One might argue that English functions to perform the everyday banter of youth as they gossip and play fight, whereas Cantonese functions to mimic[23_TD$IF] [24_TD$IF]– good-naturedly[25_TD$IF] [26_TD$IF]– the voices of the teachers. However, we suggest that although such an analysis is valid, it may be limited. We would suggest that it is useful to think about the multiple signs that the young people have to hand in conjuring up this mock news report. Both ‘languages’, along with other linguistic signs (prosody, intonation, pitch) are put to work in performing and communicating this genre. It is a bilingual and heteroglossic text in which superheroes are called upon to save the day. For the young people attending complementary schools across the four case studies bilingualism was an everyday, unmarked practice. In the Bengali case study we were able to record the young people before they arrived and after they left the school. In Excerpt Five we see [27_TD$IF]11-year-old Tamim, the key participant child, using English to complain about his younger sibling, Naseem. His younger sister Shopna also joins in, using English and Sylheti: Excerpt Five Tamim:

Don’t man, shut up. . .is that..you can go upstairs, you can go upstairs do you wanna watch it. . .stop fighting all the time, I love it but. . .don’t, don’t, don’t

Shopna:

Naseem stop it. don’t man etaa khotaa honosnaani

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

1205

In the next moment the door bell rings, and Tamim asks his younger sister Tasmia to open the door: Tamim:

The man. . ..oh furi aaise She has to come back. khulo khulo, khulo Tasmia, don’t you. my hand is stuck like that (Home audio-recording, Bengali case study)

In this extract Tamim has a lot on his hands. He is responsible for looking after his younger brother while his two sisters also get involved. The doorbell rings and he must answer it while making sure his siblings are under control. His language use reflects the domestic scene, with a lot going on and with different siblings making different demands of him. His language expresses the urgency and informality of ‘being responsible’. He and his sister, Shopna, use their languages to impose order, to simultaneously discipline and encourage Naseem, open the front door and deal with a visitor in the absence of a parent. In the interaction linguistic resources are put to use to manage a domestic scene. Less apparent is the switching of languages, more apparent is a flexible use of linguistic resources. That is, rather than thinking of Tamim’s languages as distinct codes delivering different functions, it is more useful to consider the signs at his disposal to cope with the social context at hand as a responsible sibling. The last extract comes from a Turkish classroom in London, and includes three interactants: the teacher, (T), and two students, Barat (B) and Yildiz (Y). The school has about 250 children on roll and runs on Saturdays from 9.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. It uses the rented premises of a mainstream school. The school provides Turkish language classes from ages 5 years to 18 years. It has a thriving folk dance club and runs a homework club with English, maths and science support classes on Saturday afternoons. The majority of the children are of Turkish-Cypriot heritage, although there are some children whose families originated from mainland Turkey, and some children of mixed Turkish/Turkish-Cypriot background. Parents, especially mothers, actively support the school by, for instance, doing some volunteer teaching, running the school canteen and organising various fund-raising functions. The school has thirteen teachers and two volunteer teacher assistants. In the example here, formal and informal frames co-exist, as the teacher is engaged in whole class teaching, and the two boys converse with one another out of the teacher’s earshot. As the two boys move between formal and informal frames they use both languages to keep both sets of ‘conversations’ going. Excerpt Six Teacher:

parcanln ana düs¸üncesi

Barat:

hey hey, Bro

Teacher:

biz buradan ne mesaj aldlk

Barat:

mesaj. . . hic¸ yalan etmeyin

Teacher:

anlayamadlm bir daha so¨yler misin?

Barat:

yok.. flop yaptlm

Teacher:

demin so¨ylediğini so¨yler misin?

Barat:

korkuyom [to Yildiz] take it off man, now

Teacher:

[to Yildiz and referring to the mobile phone] kaldlrlyorsun

Yildiz:

tamam tamam kaldlrlyorum.

Barat:

haylr, al o¨ğretmenim telefon kullanma pislik who is the gayest person in your class? in school?

Teacher:

Aferin. Hayatta hic¸ yalan so¨ylemeyeceğiz.

Barat:

I will stab you Yildiz I’ll stab you

Teacher:

s¸imdi kaseti birlikte dinliyoruz

Barat:

what game did you get off me? What is it called? that’s poor crap [the teacher puts on a Turkish song] (Classroom audio-recording, Turkish school)

Barat seems to successfully move between informal peer talk and pupil-teacher talk. It appears that he is aware that Turkish is required to ‘deal’ with his teacher’s questions, whereas English seems to be preferred for the playful talk he engages in with Yildiz. However, Barat uses both English and Turkish at one point to respond to the teacher (flop yaptim), and Turkish in mock discipline and insult of Yildiz (telefon kullanma pislik ). This is ambivalent laughter, at once positive and negative, creating a ‘‘contradictory world of becoming’’ (Bakhtin, 1968:149) which allows Barat both to side with the teacher and to mock him. Again, we suggest that it is not the use of different languages or codes which is of importance here in understanding the social act and its local rationalities. Rather it is the agency of the social actors as they ‘make hay’ with an unrewarding subject (Rampton, 2006:3) and draw upon their linguistic resources to perform a range of identities, including attentive pupil, compliant student, friend, and ‘youth’.

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

1206

5. Conclusion Our argument in this paper has been that an ideology of ‘separate bilingualism’ is constructed in complementary schools, which establishes routines and policies not in keeping with the flexible bilingualism of participants as they make use of a range of linguistic resources. Separate bilingualism can be understood as constituting a response to anxiety about the potential loss of the community language, and the cultural knowledge it is considered to index. For the teachers separate bilingualism offers an opportunity to counter the structures and systems of mainstream discourses by insisting that a particular version of bilingualism, and the community language, continues to be valid, in the face of powerful English monolingual structures. It also allows them to link the community language to particular heritages and histories. We have suggested that flexible bilingualism can be viewed as heteroglossia rather than code switching, allowing the speaker rather than the language to be placed at the heart of the interaction, and linguistic practices to be situated in their social, political and historical conditions. Gutiérrez et al.[30_TD$IF] (2001:128) argue that ‘‘Hybrid language use is more than simple code-switching as the alternation between two codes. It is more a systematic, strategic, affiliative and sense-making process’’. In keeping with our understanding of flexible bilingualism as heteroglossia, we do not view this as a phenomenon which is unitary, or fixed. Rather, it represents considerable diversity in the use of linguistic resources. Examples in our corpus are diverse, from the use of two ‘languages’ in a single word (e.g. ‘junglema’), to movement between ‘languages’ in moving from formal to informal (or public to private) talk, to the appropriation of voices from the worlds of multimedia and digital communication. None of this supersedes existing analyses of similar phenomena. What we hope is that we can situate language use in changing transnational worlds, where new multilingualisms emerge, as young people use a vast array of linguistic resources which constantly change and develop. These are young people using linguistic features from a wide range of sources, including those associated with religious texts, the ‘homeland’ national heritage, diverse popular cultural forms, coarse, vernacular insults, academic English, non-standard English, and many more. Their complex linguistic repertoires bear the traces of past times and present times, of lives lived locally and globally. García (2009) points out that our complex multilingual and multimodal global communication networks often reflect much more than two separate monolingual codes, and that the complex networks in which students participate require a different vision from one which is linear and directional. She argues that ‘‘a heteroglossic ideology of bilingualism considers multiple language practices in interrelationship’’ (2009:7). We have seen examples of young people discursively negotiating paths for themselves which were in some ways contrary to the ideologies of the complementary schools, where teachers and administrators held the view that they ought to learn the standard, literate language of the home country because to do so was a practice which carried with it knowledge of that country’s cultural history, nationalism, and identity (Blackledge and Creese, 2008, 2009a). The young people’s attitudes to their languages, and their flexible linguistic practices, constituted a sophisticated response to their place in the world, as they negotiated subject positions which took them on a path through these language ideological worlds. Note on transcription In keeping with the theoretical approach to linguistic practice which emerged from this work, we make no distinction between different ‘languages’ in the transcribed data. We use romanized transliteration for all languages other than Cantonese and Mandarin, where we retain Chinese orthography. (.)

pause of less than a second

(2.5)

length of pause in seconds

speech

transcribed speech



translated speech

CAPITALS

loud

(

)

speech inaudible

[

]

‘stage directions’

References Alvarez-Caccamo, Celso, 1998. From ‘switching codes’ to ‘codeswitching’; towards a reconceptualization of communicative codes. In: Auer, P. (Ed.), CodeSwitching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. Routledge, London, pp. 29–48. Androutsopoulos, Jannis, 2007. Bilingualism in the mass media and on the internet. In: Heller, M. (Ed.), Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 207–230. Auer, Peter, 1984. Bilingual Conversation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Bailey, Benjamin, 2007. Heterglossia and boundaries. In: Heller, M. (Ed.), Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 257–276. Baker, Colin, 2003. Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: language planning and the Welsh national curriculum. In: Hornberger, N. (Ed.), Continua of Biliteracy. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 71–90. Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 1968. Rabelais and His World (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Indiana University Press, Indiana. Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 1981. Discourse in the novel. In: Holquist, M. (Ed.), The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays (C. Emerson, M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 259–422.

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

1207

Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 1986. The problem of speech genres. In: Emerson, C., Holquist, M. (Eds.), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. University of Austin Press, Austin, TX, pp. 60–101. Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 1994. Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. In: Morris, P. (Ed.), The Bakhtin Reader. Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov. Arnold, London, pp. 103–113. Blackledge, Adrian, 2005. Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Blackledge, Adrian, Creese, Angela, 2008. Contesting ‘language’ as ‘heritage’: negotiation of identities in late modernity. Applied Linguistics 29 (4.), 533–554. Blackledge, Adrian, Creese, Angela, 2009a. ‘Because tumi Bangali’: inventing and disinventing the national in multilingual communities in UK. Ethnicities 9 (4), 451–476. Blackledge, Adrian, Creese, Angela, 2009b. Meaning-making as dialogic process: official and carnival lives in the language classroom. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 8 (4), 236–253. Blackledge, Adrian, Creese, Angela, 2010. Multilingualism, A Critical Perspective. Continuum, London. Blackledge, Adrian, Pavlenko, Aneta, 2002. Ideologies of language in multilingual contexts. Multilingua 21, 121–140. Blommaert, Jan, 1999. The debate is open. In: Blommaert, J. (Ed.), Language Ideological Debates. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1–38. Blommaert, Jan, Verschueren, Jef, 1998. Debating Diversity: Analysing the Discourse of Tolerance. Routledge, London. Creese, Angela, 2008. Linguistic Ethnography. In: King, K.A., Hornberger, N.H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edition, vol. 10: Research Methods in Language and Education. Springer Science + Business Media LLC, pp. 229–241. Creese, Angela, Blackledge, Adrian, 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal 94 (1), 103–115. Creese, Angela, Wu, Chao-Jung, 2008. Classroom discourses in Chinese complementary schools. In: Budach, Gabriele, Erfurt, Jürgen, Kunkel, Melanie (dir.), E´coles plurilingues-multilingual schools: Konzepte, Institutionen und Akteure. Internationale Perspektiven. Peter Lang, Frankfurt M. et al., pp. 99–120. Creese, Angela, Bhatt, Arvind, Bhojani, Nirmala, Martin, Peter, 2006a. Multicultural, heritage and learner identities in complementary schools. Language and Education 20, 23–43. Creese, Angela, Martin, Peter, Blackledge, Adrian, Wei, Li, Lytra, Vally, 2006b. Investigating multilingualism in complementary schools in four communities. RES-000-23-1180, Unpublished proposal to ESRC. Creese, Angela, Bhatt, Arvind, Martin, Peter, 2007a. Investigating Multilingualism in Gujarati Complementary Schools in Leicester. University of Birmingham. Creese, Angela, Blackledge, Adrian, Hamid, Shahela, 2007b. Investigating Multilingualism in Bengali Complementary Schools in Birmingham. University of Birmingham. Creese, Angela, Lytra, Vally, Barac¸, Tas¸kin, Yağcloğlu-Ali, Dilek, 2007c. Investigating Multilingualism in Turkish Complementary Schools in London. University of Birmingham. Creese, Angela, Wu, Chao-Jung, Li, Wei, 2007d. Investigating Multilingualism in Chinese Complementary Schools in Manchester. University of Birmingham. Creese, Angela, Barac¸, Tas¸kin, Bhatt, Arvind, Blackledge, Adrian, Hamid, Shahela, Wei, Li, Lytra, Vally, Martin, Peter, Wu, Chao-Jung, Yağcloğlu-Ali, Dilek, 2008a. Investigating Multilingualism in Complementary Schools in Four Communities. Final Report. RES-000-23-1180. University of Birmingham. Creese, Angela, Bhatt, Arvind, Bhojani, Nirmala, Martin, Peter, 2008b. Fieldnotes in team ethnography: research complementary schools. Qualitative Research 8 (2), 223–242. Eisenhart, Margaret, 2001. Educational ethnography past, present and future: ideas to think with. Educational Researcher 30 (8), 16–27. Fishman, Joshua, 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23, 29–38. Gafaranga, Joseph, 2007. Talk in Two Languages. Macmillan, Palgrave. Gafaranga, Joseph, 2005. Demythologising language alternation studies: conversational structure vs. social structure in bilingual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 281–300. Gafaranga, Joseph, 2000. Language separateness: a normative framework in studies of language alternation. Estudios de Sociolinguística 1, 65–84. Gal, Susan, 1998. Multiplicity and contention among language ideologies: a commentary. In: Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K., Kroskrity, P. (Eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3–47. Gal, Susan, Woolard, Kathryn, 1995. Constructing languages and publics: authority and representation. Pragmatics 5, 129–138. García, Ofelia, 2007. Foreword. In: Makoni, S., Pennycook, A. (Eds.), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. xi–xv. García, Ofelia, 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford. Grosjean, F., 1985. The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 467–477. Gumperz, John, 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gutiérrez, Kris, Baquedano-López, Patricia, Alvarez, Héctor, 2001. Literacy as hybridity. In: de la Luz Reyes, M.,Halcón, J.J. (Eds.), The Best for Our Children. Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 122–141. Heath, Shirley Brice, 1986. Sociocultural contexts of language development. In Holt, D. (Ed.), Beyond Language: Social Change and Cultural Factors in Schooling Minority Students. Los Angeles Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, CA. Heller, Monica, 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. Longman, London and New York. Heller, Monica, 2007a. Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In: Heller, M. (Ed.), Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 1–24. Heller, Monica (Ed.), 2007b. Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Hess-Lüttich, E., 1978. Bilingualismus als Stimittel: Drogenkultur und Sprache. In: Nickel, G. (Ed.), Rhetoric and Stylistics. Stuttgart, pp. 69–82. Jacobson, Rodolfo, Faltis, Christian (Eds.), 1990. Language Distribution Issues in Bilingual Schooling. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Joseph, John, 2006. Language and Politics. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Kroskrity, Paul, 1998. Arizona Tewa Kiva speech as a manifestation of a dominant language ideology. In: Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K., Kroskrity, P. (Eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 103–122. Lemke, Jay, 2002. Language development and identity: multiple timescales in the social ecology of learning. In: Kramsch, C. (Ed.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. Continuum, London, pp. 68–87. Lincoln, P.C., 1975. Acknowledging dual-lingualism. Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Hawaii, vol. 7 (4), pp. 39–46. López, Luis Enrique, 2008. Indigenous contributions to an ecology of language learning in Latin America. In: Creese, A., Martin, P.W., Hornberger, N. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol. 9: Ecology of Language. Springer Science + Business Media LLC, pp. 141–158. Lytra, V., Barac¸, T., 2009. Multilingual practices and identity negotiations among Turkish-speaking young people in a diasporic context. In: Stedstrom, A.-B., Jorgensen, A. (Eds.), Youngspeak in a Multilingual Perspective. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 55–78. Makoni, Sinfree, Mashiri, Pedzisai, 2007. Critical historiography: does language planning in Africa need a construct of language as part of its theoretical apparatus? In: Makoni, S., Pennycook, A. (Eds.), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 62–89. Makoni, Sinfree, Pennycook, Alastair (Eds.), 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Martin, Peter W., Creese, Angela, Bhatt, Arvind, Bhojani, Nirmala, 2004. Final Report on Complementary Schools and their Communities in Leicester. University of Leicester/University of Birmingham, Unpublished Document (ESRC R000223949). Also available at: http://www.uel.ac.uk/education/ staff/documents/complementery_schools.pdf. Martin, Peter, Bhatt, Arvind, Bhojani, Nirmala, Creese, Angela, 2006. Managing bilingual interaction in a Gujarati complementary school in Leicester. Language and Education 20, 5–22. Myers-Scotton, Carol, 1993. Social Motivations for Code-Switching: Evidence from Africa. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Peirce, Charles, 1975. Collected Papers II. In: Buchler, J. (Ed.), Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Dover, New York. Rampton, Ben, 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents. Longman, London. Rampton, Ben, 1998. Language crossing and the redefinition of reality. In: Auer, P. (Ed.), Code-switching in Conversation. Language, Interaction and Identity. Routledge, London, pp. 290–317.

1208

A. Creese, A. Blackledge / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1196–1208

Rampton, Ben, 2006. Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an Urban School. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rampton, Ben, 2007. Neo-Hymesian linguistic ethnography in the United Kingdom. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (5), 584–607. Rampton, Ben, Roberts, Celia, Leung, Constant, Harris, Roxy, 2002. Methodology in the analysis of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics 23 (3), 373–392. Rampton, Ben, Tusting, Karin, Maybin, Janet, Barwell, Richard, Creese, A., Lytra, V., 2004. UK linguistic ethnography: a discussion paper, www.ling-ethnog. org.uk. Scollon, Ron, 2002. Cross-cultural learning and other catastrophes. In: Kramsch, C. (Ed.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. Continuum, London, pp. 121–139. Stubbe, M., Lane, C., Hilder, J., Vine, E., Vine, B., Marra, M., Holmes, J., Weatherall, A., 2003. Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction. Discourse Studies 5 (3), 351–388. Tusting, Karin, Maybin, Janet, 2007. Linguistic ethnography and interdisciplinarity: opening the discussion. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (5), 575–583. Woolard, Kathryn, 1998. Introduction: language ideology as a field of inquiry. In: Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K., Kroskrity, P. (Eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3–47. Zuengler, Jane, Mori, J., 2002. Microanalyses of classroom discourse: a critical consideration of method. Applied Linguistics 23 (3), 283–288. Angela Creese researches multilingualism in urban educational settings using linguistic ethnography. Recent publications include Multilingualism. A Critical Perspective (with Adrian Blackledge, Continuum, 2010), Teacher Collaboration and Talk in Multilingual Classrooms (Multilingual Matters, 2005) and Multilingual Classroom Ecologies (with Peter Martin, Multilingual Matters, 2003). Adrian Blackledge conducts research in the following areas: multilingualism; education of linguistic minority students; multilingual literacies; language ideologies; discursive negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts; critical discourse analysis. Recent publications include Multilingualism. A Critical Perspective (with Angela Creese, Continuum, 2010), Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World (John Benjamins, 2005), and Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts (with Aneta Pavlenko, Multilingual Matters, 2004).