Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 13 (2022) Issue 2
Pedagogical Strategies to Diminish Concepts of Language Privileging Among Pre-service Teachers
Anna Burnley (Tallahassee (FL), USA)
Abstract
Pre-service teachers are simultaneously replacing the English Learner’s home language with a foreign language for a significant segment of the student’s day, creating a situation of potential language endangerment. The literature examined concludes that monolingual privileging in the school setting can replace the student’s home language, with the result that the respective home language becomes, in this context, endangered. The English learner may express a preference for English even at home, further imperiling the use of his or her home language. To mitigate these circumstances, pre-service teachers can learn to view the English learner’s bilingualism or multilingualism as an additive factor, rather than as a deficit, by linking language loss to culture loss, or language endangerment to cultural endangerment. Among pre-service teachers, this shift in language philosophy can facilitate acceptance of the additive qualities of all languages. Additionally, this perspective can explore concepts of colonialism and language privileging, thereby encouraging a concept of language beyond geographic or cultural borders. Following a bibliographic survey, the paper examines current desired language teaching techniques and strategies that support the pre-service teacher in developing cultural and linguistic empathy and appreciation for the support of the home language during classroom acquisition of English as an additional or second or foreign language. A list of teaching resources to support the comprehension of language endangerment that can be incorporated at the university level when the instruction of pre-service teachers is included.
Keywords: Endangered languages, language endangerment, pre-service teachers, language pedagogy, English as an additional language
1 Introduction
Educators-in-training at the university level in the United States of America may not fully realize that when they teach the Commonly Shared Language as the Desired Language to their English Learners, they are simultaneously replacing the student’s home, or heritage, language with a foreign language. In 2000, Lily Wong Fillmore noted the following when discussing English language acquisition as an added language in U.S. schools:
The dilemma facing immigrant children, however, may be viewed as less a problem of learning English than of primary language loss. While virtually all children who attend American schools learn English, most of them are at risk of losing their primary languages as they do so. (Fillmore 2000: 203)
The literature examined concludes that the use of a Commonly Shared Language in the school setting can replace the student’s home language with the result that the home language becomes, in this context, endangered, as explained by Fillmore (2000: 203). The EL may express a preference for the Commonly Shared Language even at home, thereby further imperiling the vitality of the HL. In a conversation on 21 July 2020 (Krishna Baral, personal communication, 2020), the loss of the home language to English was described by Mr. Baral, whose first language is Nepali, as being a subtractive process in which first generation Nepali-American children decline to learn the HL, to the dismay of their bilingual parents (Baral 2020). To mitigate home language loss, teacher trainees can learn to view the EL’s bilingualism or multilingualism as an additive factor, rather than perceiving it through a language deficit ideology (Labov 1972); additionally, pre-service teachers can learn to link culture loss to language loss, or cultural endangerment to language endangerment.
Following a bibliographic survey, this paper provides multiple desired language instructional strategies designed to support the PST in developing cultural and linguistic empathy and appreciation for support of the home language during classroom acquisition of the Commonly Shared Language. The strategies are possible resources to teach comprehension of language endangerment in this context, and can be incorporated at the university level when teaching pre-service teachers.
2 Discussion of Language Endangerment
2.1 Language Endangerment in Context
Although language endangerment and extinction are not new phenomena, language shift is occurring at an accelerated rate in this era (Crystal 2014), as explained by Narayanan (2019), McGee (2018), and Anderson (2011). To better understand language endangerment and associated losses, multiple taxonomies have been developed, including the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (Fishman 1991), the Expanded Graded International Disruption Scale (EGIDS) (Lewis & Simons 2010), Crystal’s taxonomy (2014), and the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity’s Nine Factors Scale relating to language vitality, attitudes, policies, and documentation (UNESCO 2001). The Language Hotspots concept (Anderson 2011) further seeks to raise awareness of language endangerment and extinction throughout the public sector, and multiple countries have developed language planning and policy efforts to increase awareness of the issue (McGee 2018, Ioratim-Uba 2014, Narayanan 2019, Hultgren 2018), Moore 2019). In the U.S., pre-service teachers may believe that they live in a monolingual country since U.S. teachers tend to be overwhelmingly monolingual themselves (Pritchard 2011: 195). However, in the U.S., 10.1% of all public school students are English learners (USDOE NCES 2020), and 21% speak a language other than English at home (Samovar, Porter, McDaniel & Roy 2017: 266). As an essentially monolingual subculture, pre-service teachers and classroom teachers may attach language-deficit approaches to students who are plurilingual, without recognizing the additive nature of multilingualism (Pritchard 2011: 194-195). As pre-service teachers are focused on learning how to teach, they may view the home language as a deficit to be overcome through classroom practices that fail to perceive the benefits of plurilingualism. As English learners develop proficiency in the desired language, they may develop a preference for its use, even in their home, thus hastening the endangerment of a multitude of global languages.
This article is premised on the belief that university education faculty need background information about current understandings of why language endangerment and extinction occur. Additionally, instructors need actionable information providing agency to teach pre-service teachers connections between language endangerment and acquisition of the commonly shared language in the U.S. school setting. We will examine the current literature, and then consider the application of this information to the teaching of pre-service instructors with the hope of addressing resultant language extinction concomitant to acquisition of the commonly shared language. We include actionable instructional university-level strategies.
2.2 What is Language Endangerment?
Revisiting Kroch’s thesis on language prestige (1978), Subtirelu (2013) describes the concept of Language Endangerment in terms of the English language being privileged because it is the language used globally in research, education, business, politics, and social realms. Hegemony extends to varieties of world Englishes, too, so that prestige is affixed to certain Englishes and to levels of perceived proficiency. Accordingly, colonialism and its vestiges support language privileging, and we assert that privileging can lead to language endangerment.
There is support for this assertion: according to Sparks (2021), there are 245 known indigenous languages in the U.S., but 65 are already extinct and another 75 are nearly extinct. Marques (2017) reports that more than 1,700 languages existed in Mexico, Central America, South America, and the West Indies prior to European colonization. Marques (2017) explains that language was used by Europeans for the “naming and claiming” of land and resources. In Brazil, 1,300 languages existed before the Portuguese arrived, and 180 are still spoken (ibid.). In the US, genocide committed against indigenous persons included their languages in a campaign based on Western bias (ibid.). Language privileging exists beyond geographic and cultural boundaries, due in large part to colonization.
2.3 Supporting Pre-service Teachers in Addressing Effects of Language Endangerment: Instructional Strategies
University professors of pre-service teachers are uniquely positioned to provide actionable instructional strategies supportive of bilingualism as teachers-in-training enter primary, middle, and secondary classrooms during field experiences. To position multilingualism as an achievable outcome against language endangerment, a pull-out list of teaching strategies that can be shared with pre-service teachers by their university instructors is presented below:
Introduce the role of pre-service teachers in preserving the home/heritage language:
F2F Delivery: Share a video showing teachers who grew up learning the Commonly Shared Language at school while also speaking the home language at home. Follow up with Fillmore’s (2000) article and elicit whole-class ideas regarding the need to include multiple languages in today’s K-12 classrooms while respecting the home language.
Online Delivery: Post the video and article to the course prior to the due date. Elicit peer commentary for individual student essays through the discussion board.
Raise Social Awareness of the Value of the home language:
F2F Delivery: Using small groups, incorporate digestible articles such as From Tagalog to Korean, these Asian Americans are using quarantine to learn their families’ languages (Escobar 2020) or Mongolians stage rare protests in China against plans to remove language from schools (Suliman et al. 2020). After reading an assortment of articles in small groups, ask each group to chart the advantages of fostering retention of the home language. Following charting, each small group shares their findings with the whole class.
Online Delivery: Small groups locate, digest, discuss, and then present their findings to the whole class via a slideshow posted as a journaling assignment to share remotely.
F2F Delivery: Direct students whole-class to use their mobiles to find any local schools maintaining tribal sovereignty in the teaching of indigenous languages. Lead students through a discussion of K-12 tribal schools and the tribal colleges and universities system; use websites to visually direct students’ attention to these education institutions. Assign students to read, via the carousel method, a scholarly article discussing the rights of indigenous persons to maintain their home language, to possibly include McCarty & Lee (2014) and/or Moore (2019). If possible, collaborate with the Social Studies / History methodologies professor to create a thematic teaching unit emphasizing the protection and revitalization of endangered indigenous languages.
Promote Recognition of the Benefits of Plurilingualism:
F2F Delivery: Introduce the concept of plurilingualism as an additive feature by incorporating a visual, such as the OELA “Benefits of Multilingualism” (OELA 2020) infographic. Throughout the semester, students note benefits, and then create their own posters or infographics to share using a program such as Canva (canva.com) or Easel (easel.ly) or other appropriate visual information technology.
Online Delivery: Follow the same procedure as noted, with end-of-semester class presentations via synchronous Zoom or other technology.
Link Colonialism to Language Endangerment:
F2F Delivery: Assign reading of a scholarly article to students, possibly to include Moore (2019), Narayanan (2019), and/or Ng-A-Fook (2010). Students reflect via journaling regarding the factors supporting colonialism that led to language endangerment and/or language extinction.
F2F Delivery: Task students with generating a whole-class listing of bilingual, cross-cultural, and multicultural books to include in their future classroom library. Facilitate students’ understanding of the role of colonialism in determining which books are published (and which are not) in various racial and ethnic groups by sharing statistics websites with the class. Share a teacher’s perspective on language privileging through either a video, or through a scholarly article such as Lagunas’ work (2019).
Understand the Role of Micro-variables in Language Endangerment:
F2F Delivery: Each small group will read one article discussing the concept that multiple variables and factors, when combined, can hasten language endangerment. Consider including Ioratim-Uba (2014), McGee (2018), Hultgren (2018), and/or Larsen-Freeman (2018). To create a thematic unit, consider collaborating with the Social Studies / History methodologies professor to link linguistic aspects of micro-variables in other countries with similar historical occurrences within the students’ home country. Each group is tasked with creating a slideshow to be shared with the whole class, demonstrating the parallel results in both countries when micro-variables contribute to language endangerment.
Recognize the Role of Language Policy Planning in Language Endangerment:
F2F Delivery: With three or four volunteer students acting as recorders, the whole class will share instances they’ve noted in their neighborhood of language planning and policy. The volunteers will record the shared verbalizations using markers and chart paper, whiteboard, or other visually available surfaces that the whole class can see. Instances can be as simple as noting that in the U.S., traffic signs are heavily governed to provide consistency regardless of location. Following whole class charting, task students with using their mobiles to locate images of language policy planning in their city, town, or village. Lead a whole-class discussion regarding how language policy planning can limit language use and privilege one language over others spoken in a country. Follow up with scholarly readings, such as Morgan (2015), Sayers & Láncos (2017), Narayanan (2019), Ioratim-Uba (2014), Ng-A-Fook (2010) and/or country or regional regulations regarding governed language.
Online Delivery: Continue with the collaborative format, asking small groups to share their findings via YouTube videos or through live, synchronous whole-class discussion.
Conceptualize the Marginalization of Oral Tradition Languages in Cultures Where the Written Language is Privileged:
F2F Delivery: In small groups, assign the class to search local school district websites to learn and note which home languages are spoken by K-12 students in the district. After compiling a list of all of the languages, divide them and assign a list to each small group. Students are then tasked with searching online to learn which languages are oral tradition, and which languages also include a written component. Engage student groups in sharing their findings with the whole class. Following sharing, students read and reflect upon scholarly articles such as Lagunas’ work (2019), Suina (2004), and/or King et al (2014), or students view a video designed to demonstrate the privileging of written-component languages over oral tradition languages.
Online Delivery: The instructor posts school district languages website, scholarly readings, and/or videos prior to the due date. Collaborative groups or individuals discern oral tradition / written component languages and share findings via Zoom or other platforms.
Visually Link Language Endangerment Taxonomies to Prior Knowledge:
F2F Delivery: Using visuals, the professor can consider lecturing on a commonly understood taxonomy, such as Bloom’s (2001), and show a side-by-side comparison with a language endangerment taxonomy, such as Fishman (1991), Lewis & Simons (2010), UNESCO (2001), or Anderson’s Language Hotspots concept (2011). Task students in small groups to locate an endangered language in their home country, and rank it using one of the taxonomies. Small groups reflect upon the justification for their ranking and then share their findings with the whole class.
Online Delivery: Post visuals, particularly taxonomies, and lecture videos to the course prior to the due date. Task small groups with completing the same assignment, sharing via the creation of a visual demonstrating their findings.
Create Awareness of Language Endangerment as a Global Issue:
F2F Delivery: Consider showing a documentary, such as The Linguists (Anderson & Harrison, 2008) or another accessible video or TED Talks, that provides students with a visual understanding of the global nature of language endangerment and language extinction. Following the video, elicit individual written reflections and provide feedback.
Online Delivery: TED Talks are available and can be assigned prior to the due date. Elicit individual student feedback following the TED Talk via the “journal” function of the online platform.
Promote Empathy and Culturally Responsive Teaching Among Pre-service Teachers for Learners of the Commonly Shared Language:
F2F Delivery: After reading a scholarly article that examines learner perspectives on second or multiple language acquisition of the commonly shared language, such as Sultana’s work (2012), assign students to conduct ethnographic interviews with adult language learners (in the U.S. these would be Adult ESOL Students). Questions should include asking these adult learners about their perceptions of learning the commonly shared language, their motivations for doing so, and any fears or hesitations they might hold regarding the use of both the home language and the commonly shared language. As the ethnographic interview process can vary from one culture to the next, this strategy can proceed throughout the semester and culminate in a written report from each student, with feedback from the professor. Consider including scholarly articles such as Odango (2015), Sherris (2017), and/or Jester et al (2013).
Promote Pre-service Teachers’ Agency When Teaching Plurilinguistic Learners:
F2F Delivery: Introduce via lecture and slideshow the concept of teacher agency and teacher identity as it relates to the teaching of students who are learning the commonly shared language and educational content at the same time. Include definitions and vocabulary related to bilingual education. Divide the class into small groups and assign them to read, discuss, and then share findings from scholarly articles discussing these aspects. Consider possibly including Reading et al. (2019), Del Carpio (2020), and/or Delany-Barmann (2010) to reinforce concepts of teacher agency, and, by extension, learner agency in the plurilinguistic classroom.
3 Cultural and Historical Forces Fostering Language Endangerment
3.1 Language Endangerment and Colonialism
As language and culture are inseparable, the complexities of language endangerment and/or language extinction contain culture-based explanations specific to local and societal norms. Language death is woven into a culture’s visible and invisible aspects, so the phenomenon of language endangerment is both global and local. Ng-A-Fook examines perceptions of L1 endangerment during L2 acquisition by focusing on the loss experiences of indigenous language speakers and by educating pre-service teachers to teach through and with an indigenous curriculum (2013).
Indigenous cultures can experience language endangerment and/or death from many factors. Moore (2019: 1) notes that colonization has hastened language loss through the history of government-operated boarding schools and language planning that favors global languages over regional or community languages. Colonial legacies dilute the identity of indigenous communities through policies devaluing tribal, community, or regional languages, creating a psychological disconnect that can result in higher rates of suicide among non-conversant heritage language speakers (ibid.: 2). Because the familial culture of a community is expressed through its language, Moore notes that kinship terms can be another casualty of heritage language loss (ibid.: 3), thus adding detrimental health issues.
Narayanan (2019) also discusses causes of language shifts or loss, explaining that natural disasters or war can, rarely, contribute to the problem as it presents in India. However, the author explains that in India, vestiges of colonialism and classism contribute to language endangerment, most notably through the
flawed educational policy (that has) until recently restricted the use of minority language in educational institutes. (Narayanan 2019: 128)
Known as the 1956 All India Council for Education Policy, it recommended the Three Language Formula (ibid.: 128), supporting the colonial institutes of Hindi, English, and either a South Indian or a regional language (Narayanan 2019). Following the Three Language Formula, Narayanan (2019) notes factors in the increase of language endangerment: urbanization, globalization, social / cultural dislocation, the nature and number of the language’s speaker base, domains of language use, governmental attitudes, and community attitudes (ibid.: 129-130).
Expanding on the role of war and violence as factors contributing to language endangerment and/or demise, Ioratim-Uba (2014) examines the role of ethnic conflict and violence in the region of Middle Belt Nigeria, explaining that
the role of language as a constructor and marker of ethnic identity is at the same time psychologically powerful in motivating the actions of groups to safeguard themselves and their interests, with such actions often becoming violent. (ibid.: 558)
This ethno-linguistic study notes that regional languages, which include geographic proximity, are viewed as contributing to violence in Middle Belt Nigeria (Ioratim-Uba 2014).
In examining the speaker base of a language, McGee (2018) states that proximity is also a factor that contributes to language endangerment because,
if the population speaking one language is scattered around a large city, the chances of maintaining that ethnic language are minimal. (ibid.: 28)
This indicates a need to reexamine the precept that the last speaker of a language signals its death since. According to McGee (2018),
the population size of a language does not provide an accurate indicator of the situation of a language. (ibid.: 28)
In the case of Irish Gaelic, McGee further holds that few families are culturally rearing their children to speak the language (ibid.: 28).
As language loss is also cultural, micro-variables found in each language community, such as intergenerational transmission within the home, familial identity, and colonial economic patterns of use, must also be considered as contributing factors (ibid.: 29-32).
Additionally, micro-variables can include the perception of the endangered language itself, the usefulness of the language, and utility vis-à-vis English or other languages. Hultgren (2018) examines the perceptions of scientists working in higher education in Nordic countries, stating that studies of linguistic domain loss tend not to include perceptions or views of all language community members (ibid.: 5). Because it is not culturally possible for any one language to adequately express all cultural factors found in all global societies, each language functions as an incomplete construct of its own (ibid.: 5) and will necessarily contain lexical gaps. After surveying ethno-linguistic perceptions expressed by scientists in Nordic countries, we believe that the author’s stance refutes the argument that lexical gaps in the Nordic languages contribute to domain loss, particularly when lexical borrowing is utilized (ibid.: 6-9). Zeitgeist is then posited as a micro-variable in language death
Larsen-Freeman (2018) analyzes influences of the zeitgeist in the current era. In the case of language endangerment, the author examines the use of a holistic ecological perspective, stressing non-linear thinking about languages, which can be viewed as important to the issue (ibid.: 6). Indeed, linear thinking has produced a marked belief in the U.S. that it is monolingual, in spite of profound evidence to the contrary (ibid.: 7). Much as Ioratim-Uba expressed (2014), Larsen-Freeman (2018) asserts that multiple myths contribute to monolingual bias, including notions of speaker proficiency targets, cultural insensitivity, and a lack of understanding about how second (or plural) language acquisition occurs (ibid.: 9).
According to Morgan (2015), insensitive top-down language planning approaches can also contribute to language endangerment. In examining the phenomenon of lingua-centric solutions used to address both educational and economic problems, the author suggests that such remedies serve to reduce home language use by heritage speakers. Top-down language planning is a colonial legacy, and such efforts fail to offer educational curricula that encourage the use of the home language, tend to ignore cultural knowledge expressed through the home language, and encourage economic dependency through a devaluation of the home language (ibid.: 90-91). Language planning policies focusing on assimilation rather than on acculturation or multilingualism limit socioeconomic opportunities, predominantly to speakers proficient in the global language, while engendering marginalization in home language speakers (ibid.: 92). Such effects are reductionist in nature and contribute to a loss of home language speaker agency in favor of the desired language.
When the home language is devalued, a speaker may attempt to compensate by acquiring the desired language, thus contributing to language endangerment or loss of prominence in daily use. Sayers & Láncos (2017: 43) state that
the legislative act governing language use in EU institutions effectively reinforces secondary status for regional and minority languages
while providing an official language status to only four languages for all EU member states (p. 43). If regional or home languages are to be used in national governments or EU institutions, the national governments will be tasked with bearing all costs incurred for the use of these languages (ibid.: 47), even though distinct cultural concepts can only be related through the language with which they are associated. The authors assert that a language not recognized by law will have no status at all, and certain languages, such as Vlach and Macedonian, can be banned (ibid.: 47-48).
Status is a function embedded in the cost of producing publications in lesser-known languages, which can be prohibitive for communities with small populations. Lagunas (2019) states a colonial legacy in that literature favored in community or academic settings often does not value cultures other than the dominant culture and is typically written only in the language of the dominant culture (ibid.: 3). Languages characterized as oral tradition may have very little existent literature, and there is a likelihood that the printed page will not adequately convey cultural connotations found in the spoken language only. Such privileging of languages positing supremacy of written components over oral tradition languages can be viewed as a status-based factor that may contribute to language endangerment.
3.2 Applications to Practice in the K-12 Classroom
In the PK-12 U.S. public school system, the task of home language protection during the acquisition of the commonly shared language resides in large part with the classroom teacher. In the role of instructor to the English learner, the classroom teacher will simultaneously teach both grade-appropriate educational content and the commonly shared language, which, in this paper, refers to Standard American English, the language used in textbooks and academic discourse. Since classroom teachers begin as pre-service teachers under the educational guidance of university education faculty, then instructional strategies supporting the vitality of the home language and the language learner must be negotiated but often are not. Kagan (1992) made clear this disconnect after synthesizing developmental models of pre-service teacher concerns and expertise and then applying them to student-driven knowledge necessary to the pre-service teacher's development of self-actualization, classroom management skills, and curriculum decisions. Kagan found that the developmental models were lacking as it relates to understanding students, which can include English learners. Here we examine actionable research results synthesized from the current literature to narrow this gap.
Making connections between the pre-service teacher's knowledge of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom 1956/2001) and the various taxonomies describing language endangerment is supportive because the background knowledge of what constitutes a taxonomy, and why it is important, may already be known to U.S. pre-service teachers. Language taxonomies previously learned can be helpful to non-linguists, such as pre-service teachers. The Ethnologue website (Eberhard, Simons & Fennig 2020) provides information to undergraduates and non-linguists regarding language status, and when presented as a side-by-side visual with Bloom’s Taxonomy, the language endangerment taxonomy selected by the university instructor can be utilized as an introduction to the concept of language endangerment. Anderson & Harrison’s documentary The Linguists (2008) can also be viewed to provide an ethnographic portrait showing data collection as a step in the process of language preservation. Vocabulary relating to language endangerment can be explicitly taught for the video. Explaining to pre-service teachers the sense of urgency underlying language revitalization is an important aspect of agency and the professional growth of pre-service teachers, and such visuals can help.
Pre-service teachers can visually explore language endangerment and extinction found in their home country. In the U.S., this concept can be seen and taught through the World Atlas website (Pariona 2017). By assigning small groups to select an endangered or extinct language from the site, students can share their findings about the language, including sound clips, if available, and side-by-side translations of written works introducing the class to multiple endangered languages. The combined use of the information from the website and available language samples can promote empathy in the pre-service teacher for language preservation while moving from theory to real-world losses, including health implications.
Moore (2019) examines the health-based implications of learning the home language as an additional language in an indigenous teacher education program. The data from his case study reveal several findings, including that the sense of belonging to a collective identity is integral to the health and wellness of indigenous language speakers in the program (ibid.: 5); learning the home language as an adult has facilitated the formation of pre-service teachers’ personal connections to, and with, the environment; creates a richer understanding of the traditional culture; nurtures relationships with elders; values pride through identity; and stimulates a sense of cultural inclusion (ibid.: 3-4). For pre-service teachers, awareness and exploration of local adult education programs that focus on teaching Adult ESOL students (or substituting videos focusing on the teaching of Adult ESOL learners) could be an activity followed by ethnographic interviews of adult English learners, or if such is not possible in the university setting, then viewing interview videos of adult English learners. Additionally, pre-service teachers can share study-abroad experiences in which they, as foreigners, were required to read and speak, using the commonly shared language of the country where they were studying. In the U.S., instructors in tribal schools and colleges teach in indigenous languages, which can involve literacy contexts stemming from genocide and colonialism. McCarty & Lee (2014) examine issues of tribal sovereignty when teaching indigenous languages in tribal schools. By referencing the earlier-noted website (Pariona 2017), pre-service teachers can be introduced to the U.S. K-12 tribal school system as well as the U.S. tribal colleges and university system. Moving pre-service teachers beyond the monolingual cocoon and into the diversity of plurilinguistic ecology creates awareness of the U.S. as being a nation of many peoples who speak many languages. The chapter by McCarty & Lee (2014) can serve as a shared assignment with a social studies methods class, with a follow-up by a small group exercise in which pre-service teachers locate and share group-curated information regarding tribal schools, colleges, or universities.
Thematic units taught in tandem with the social studies methods professor might include learning about the legacy of forced education through the Native American boarding school system. Historically, in these schools, children were deprived of the use of their home language, an aspect of history that may not be background knowledge to many pre-service teachers. On the basis of Moore’s (2019) and McCarty & Lee's (2014) work, pre-service teachers can learn about teaching thematic units while simultaneously learning about sociocultural aspects of language endangerment in their home country.
Eckert (2017) examines parallels between Romani in the Czech Republic and Afro-American English/Ebonics (AAE) in the U.S. from a sociolinguistic perspective. Pre-service teachers in the U.S. can receive cultural, historical, and legal viewpoints regarding speakers of AAE, while noting similarities in the systemic racism experienced by speakers of Romani. By examining articles such as Eckert’s (?), and videos or lesson plans designed to assist teachers in learning about AAE, comparisons can be made, which can lead to awareness raising. As Eckert notes, educators must understand that
the thesis is that recognizing the irreplaceable role of home language […] is the way to successful socialization strategies (ibid.: 45)
for all children, including English learners. Teaching pre-service teachers about the Lau v. Nichols Scotus Ruling (1974), upholding the right of speakers of other languages to learn English in U.S. classrooms, has been fundamental to the right of speakers of AAE to learn Standard American English. Eckert notes that:
since education is typically organized through the national or official language, children who have grown up on the periphery cannot share readily in the dominant culture and education. Although a national culture may be constructed around its standard, in practice every culture is pluralistic”. (Eckert 2017: 47)
Pre-service teachers can begin to recognize concepts of bias supporting nationalism favoring monolingualism and the continued hegemony of the dominant culture. Teaching pre-service teachers to recognize language bias against English learners’ home language can promote multiculturalism in classrooms and further classroom social inclusion of English learners.
Olaoye (2013), who examines greetings in Yoruba language and culture, also discusses the social role of language. The author looks into three areas of contact language prestige, including linguistic genocide, linguistic imperialism, and linguistic opportunism (ibid.: 670), explaining that each of them can erode traditional cultural patterns of social behavior constituting elements of Yoruba paralanguage. Linguistic hegemony is endangering multiple greeting forms of Yoruba, including festival greetings, marriage greetings, childbirth greetings, season’s greetings, burial greetings, house warming greetings, occupational greetings, and Oriki Orile (pedigree greetings) (ibid.: 674-5). As an inclusive behavior, pre-service teachers should be encouraged to learn a standard greeting in the English learners’ home culture for use in welcoming parents / guardians to school functions. Teaching pre-service teachers to view greetings as both words and gestures can move them beyond simplistic translation substitutions and into authentic support of bilingualism in the classroom.
While Hultgren (2018) asks for linguistic perceptions from scientists, Odango (2015) encourages the gathering and use of youth perspectives as it relates to language use. Sultana (2012), too, encourages input from young language users and discusses issues of language perception, including colonialism viewed through nationalism, post-colonial attitudes regarding language use, and beliefs about linguistic contamination of the prescribed standard language. Sultana (2012) explains that prescriptive language use and the declaration of a national language fail to include indigenous languages, traditional cultures, and the malleability of language, while being prescribed mostly by government agencies. In U.S. university settings, pre-service teachers can learn to study the everyday language practices of English learners to better gauge young learners’ linguistic needs. An ethnographic interview conducted with the English learner can inform the pre-service teacher to listen objectively to the language needs described by the English learner, rather than to ascribe to the
domain specific artificial separation of the use of language, i.e., English for educational and professional purposes and Bangla for local social and cultural activities. (Sultana 2012: 59)
When pre-service teachers understand that English learners live in, and use, multiple languages for multiple purposes, monolithic constructs propping up a preference for monolingualism fall apart. Educators-in-training can be asked to chart linguistic terms used by their grandparents or other elders, and then state whether or not their own use of language matches that of the elders, recognizing that language change allows the pre-service teacher to engage more empathically with an English learner whose English is changing as it is being learned. Managing reasonable expectations for second language acquisition is one way of demonstrating caring, welcoming, and positive attitudes toward English learners.
Shin, Sailors, McClung, Pearson, Hoffman & Chilimanjira (2015) remind pre-service teachers that positive attributes of bilingualism do not always support the objectives of globalization, where specific languages retain hegemony while other languages are being marginalized and endangered (ibid.: 256). At the university level, pre-service teachers need to be explicitly taught that “cross-language literacy transfer” will occur between the home language and English (ibid.), provided that the home language contains a system of writing. Additionally, variations of transfer that occur between the home language and English depend on multiple factors, including whether the English learner is learning to read or to write in Standard American English, and the grade level of the English learner as these learning tasks are undertaken (Shin et al. 2015: 256). Furthermore, pre-service teachers need to be explicitly taught that, as the authors note (Shin et al. 2015: 260), literacy proficiency, either textual or lexical, in the home language is a predictive factor that contributes to L2 literacy acquisition. Utilizing whole-class discussions, faculty can assist pre-service teachers in recalling their own sequence of learning their home language and support them in building a holistic approach to promote multilingualism.
Failed or imperfect examples of language planning and policy can foster monolingualism. Morgan (2015) views language planning and policy as an avenue toward augmenting and growing teacher agency through identity. Teachers-in-training may not recognize instances of language planning and policy, so a simple classroom activity for pre-service teachers can include an ungraded ‘quiz’ over examples of language policy, followed by a whole-class discussion. On the ‘quiz’, pre-service teachers can be asked whether the words stop or yield on traffic signs are examples of language planning and policy, whether the U.S. or their state has an official language (and which one it is), etc. Recognizing the fact that countries have a robust set of policies that govern language use is likely to come as a surprise to pre-service teachers, merely because they might never have considered a traffic sign as being an example of governed language. Promoting dialogue regarding whose English is being taught, and whose English or other language is not, provides pre-service teachers agency while allowing recognition of the unique beauty of each language, without a need to privilege only one.
In providing agency to pre-service teachers, Larsen-Freeman (2018) advocates an ecological approach (Haugen 1971/1972) that includes the recognition and the addressing of issues of social justice in language use.By intentionally creating a welcoming, linguistically diverse classroom, pre-service teachers can curate a selection of bilingual books to keep in their future classrooms. This activity can be easily modeled in the university classroom when the professor brings to class a selection of multicultural and cross-cultural books for students to read in small groups. Following reading, each group’s designated speaker can share with the whole class a summary of the book, applicable education standards for its use, and a follow-up activity that would help the English learner to develop proficiency in some domain of the commonly shared language. The classroom library is an excellent place to make visible the inclusion of multiple languages, as can be viewed through Lagunas’ (2019) explanation of how she felt when her school was not able to provide texts in her home language which reflected her cultural identity.
While cultural identity can, in part, be validated through the inclusion of bilingual word walls and bilingual books in the classroom library, pre-service teachers need to recognize that English learners require agency. As explained by Del Carpio (2020: 139), the ideology of language deficit held by teachers can manifest itself in English learners, even though it is a highly subjective perception. Such perceptions reduce agency in learners. To increase learner visibility and learner agency, Del Carpio notes
the need and importance of considering students’ first language and culture during the learning process so that what they learn in school makes sense and is meaningful to them. (ibid.: 141)
Professors, teachers, and adjuncts need to take the time to teach pre-service teachers about the benefits of bilingualism, and then also remind students of laws in their own states that govern the use of bilingual support for early learners. Each state’s Department of Education website is a resource for assisting pre-service teachers in learning about bilingual support for English learners, reiterating Del Carpio’s assertion that bilingual education can be a “powerful tool,” and when it
is used to respect, preserve and promote children’s native language and culture… (it can also) enrich them with another language. (ibid.: 142)
As a means of promoting linguistic social justice that sustains the home language, bilingual education is, indeed, a powerful tool.
In addressing indigenous language sustainability in South Africa, Reading, Khupe, Redford, Wallin, Versland, Taylor & Hampton (2019) note that teacher education remains grounded in a monolingual view, although
teachers are best positioned to recognize and draw on students’ multiple language abilities, to promote learning and to salvage the languages from impending extinction. (ibid.: 45)
The authors propose academic teaching through use of a translanguaging approach (ibid.: 45), recognizing that students who learn in a language other than their own become “linguistically remote in terms of access to education” (ibid.: 44). The authors propose increasing inclusivity by allowing language and content learners to use their home language in combination with code switching and transliteration (ibid.: 45). In U.S. classrooms, pre-service teachers can provide bilingual and multilingual support to early learners through a variety of techniques already discussed, as well as include personal vocabulary journals for learners in multilingual classrooms. Vocabulary journals allow English learners to record meaningful, content-based, academically-tiered vocabulary in the home language, i.e. Standard American English, and in the languages spoken by the English learner. Additionally, pre-service teachers can encourage native speakers of the commonly shared language to record new vocabulary in Standard American English, along with a second language for which the student has shown an interest. Creating a vocabulary-saturated classroom that resonates with words and concepts from multiple languages, while still supporting acquisition of the Commonly shared language, proposes to the pre-service teacher that all languages have value and can be preserved through such rudimentary documentation as a vocabulary journal.
Delany-Barmann (2010) also advocates bilingual education as a vehicle of agency for additional language learners. Examining nine indigenous language teacher education programs in Bolivia (ibid.: 190), the author notes that teacher training programs can
sustain emphasis on maintenance, revitalization, and stabilization of languages and cultures… (such that) teacher trainers must also learn how to make Indigenous epistemologies, voices, and concerns a part of and not apart from bilingual intercultural teacher education programs. (ibid.: 188)
As U.S. interest in bilingual education waxes and wanes, the author’s salient point that bilingual intercultural education can be a vehicle for both socio-cultural justice and the revitalization / preservation of languages echoes tenets of U.S. pluralistic culture. Universities should approach foreign language students to encourage them regarding double or dual study programmes in both education and the student’s foreign language major. Departments should encourage dual major degree programs allowing graduates to teach in bilingual settings.
Azman (2016) points out that technology must meet the proficiency and sociocultural needs of teachers and learners (ibid.: 70). Additionally, he reminds readers of the need for authentic materials and meaningful experiences in learning (ibid. 74) as students acquire English, and extends this message to include a substantial degree of stakeholder and community involvement (ibid.). Teachers-in-training can observe their cooperating teacher’s use of technology with English learners during field experiences, recording anecdotally how, and why, the cooperating teacher chooses to use technology to teach English learners. Additionally, pre-service teachers need to recognize that technology works with face-to-face teaching of English learners in an authentic, meaningful way. Field experience observations and anecdotal notes of how and when the cooperating teacher utilizes technology to teach the commonly shared language provide a real-time scenario of the benefits and drawbacks of using technology with English learners.
Although many pre-service teachers are taught to use anecdotal notes as reflections, they also need to know that languages vary in their reliance upon the written word, and that the value of a language does not reside in whether or not it includes a written component. In describing the Ojibwe language, King & Hermes (2014: 274-279) state the multitude of passive approaches used to learn the language because of the strong cultural traditions associated with oral aspects of the language. In addition to literacy-based approaches, pre-service teachers must also learn multiple strategies for support of language acquisition by students whose prior academic experiences do not mirror those found in the majority of U.S. public schools. The pre-service teachers can complete a biography card asking their English learners about the latter's prior academic experiences, as well as their motivation to learn English, and then make good use of the collected information when planning for instruction. Multiple culturally and/or linguistically diverse learner biography cards are available online and can be distributed in the university classroom, allowing pre-service teachers to interview each other for practice in filling out the cards. Additionally, King et al (2014) mention throughout their article time and again that the mismatch between what the learner expects in terms of language use versus what the learner ends up with can be mitigated through the frequent provision of opportunities to use the desired language in authentic communication with other students.
Heritage language teaching is also examined by Suina (2004), who notes that there are five Pueblo languages in New Mexico, and like all languages, a myriad of dialects (ibid.: 282). Using the ethnographic interview, Suina examines home language language teaching practices used by native language teachers who are teaching the home language as an additional language. The findings indicate that, as an oral tradition language, the teacher (or, as adapted to in this article, the pre-service teacher) must have the support of stakeholders, including the family and the community, to encourage the continuing use and acquisition of the home language by the English learner (ibid.: 295). The author posits that governing bodies, at least for indigenous languages, should be allowed to retain control over school-based curriculum involving the teaching of the home language (ibid.: 296). To assist pre-service teachers in better understanding the important role of community stakeholders in supporting the maintenance of the home language, university professors can arrange for community speakers to visit their classroom to present the latter’s own perspectives on ethnography and language planning and policy.
The ethnographic interview is again examined as an instrument through which to study and/or preserve languages by Odango (2015), Sherris (2017), and Jester & Fickel (2013). While Odango (2015) examines language perspectives held by young people as a means to preserve endangered languages, Sherris (2017) holds that the experience can serve to examine language activism, promote the need for authentic and culturally relevant educational materials, and document oral tradition languages. These findings appear to correlate with earlier work by Thomas & Collier (2002: 324-335) in which the sociocultural aspects conducive to supportive classroom language learning for native speakers must be replicated for L2 learners, thereby preserving languages. For pre-service teachers, the ethnographic interview can be used to promote contact with the international student population at the university, providing an accessible way to learn about the importance of personal cultures in shaping personal identity, and the home language to culture. Jester & Fickel (2013) followed 53 pre-service teachers who spent two weeks in a culture-immersion field experience in multiple Alaska Native Village schools. As posited by the authors, pre-service teachers greatly benefit from immersion experiences because of the cultural mismatch between pre-service teachers and the students they teach (ibid.: 185-186). In university settings, pre-service teachers can be taught the components of culturally responsive teaching, as recommended by Jester & Fickel (2013), and do so through varying immersive experiences.
4 Conclusions
On school days, the English learners’ use of their home language during the many hours spent in the K-12 classroom is frequently overshadowed by educational, economic, and sociocultural needs that urge the acquisition of the commonly shared language. The research clearly connects language endangerment and/or death to additional language acquisition in the schools for many multilingual students. Additionally, substantial non-school issues relating to language endangerment and death are noted in the literature: language endangerment is occurring at an accelerated pace (Crystal 2014, Narayanan 2019, McGee 2018, Anderson 2011) in spite of the linguistic diversity found in the U.S. (USDOE NCES 2020); it is sustained through multiple dynamics and is addressed through varied approaches. The research examined in this article supports the need to provide immediate and actionable responses to the crisis of language endangerment and/or language death resulting from the privileging of American English in the classroom, particularly among pre-service instructors. Teacher educators in higher education and K-12 classroom mentor teachers are uniquely positioned to support English learners and multilingual learners by provisioning pre-service educators with efficient, respectful responses to the crisis of home language loss, and for this purpose, instructional strategies supporting this assertion are described.
While the deleterious and pervasive effects of colonialism, climate change, social injustices and other forms of inequity are examined through more sustained efforts by local, federal, and global governments, language endangerment will continue to imperil non-privileged languages. Diligence is required to prevent additional marginalization of humans as their voices, stories, and songs become further at risk of being silenced. Academia can and should do more than merely point to the issue of language death: teacher education programs in higher education offer immediate opportunities to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion through the teaching of instructional strategies that honor each voice and welcome each child to the classroom. We believe that the instructional strategies included in this article, bolstered by an understanding of what the research explicates so clearly, can provide a first step toward meeting this important objective.
References
Anderson, G. D. (2011): Language hotspots: What (applied) linguistics and education should do about language endangerment in the twenty-first century. In: Language and Education, 25(4), 273–289. (https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.577218 ; 28-09-2022).
Anderson, G. D. & Harrison, D. (2008): The linguists [DVD]. (www.livingtongues.org; 28-09-2022).
Azman, H. (2016): Implementation and challenges of English language education reform in Malaysian primary schools. In: 3LThe Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22 (3), 65-78. (https://doi.org/10.17576/3l-2016-2203-05; 28-09-2022).
Baral, K. (2020): Second generation heritage language loss and parental emotional reactions to such loss. (Personal communication, 21-07-2020).
Baker, C., & Wright, W. (2021). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (7th ed.). Multilingual Matters.
Bloom, B. S. (2001): A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing a revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longmans, Green & Co.
Chicago Cultural Studies Group (1992): Critical multiculturalism. Critical Inquiry 18 (3), 530–555. (https://doi.org/10.1086/448644; 28-09-2022).
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986): Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice. Longman.
Crystal, D. (2014): Language death. England: Cambridge University Press.
Del Carpio, K. (2020): Let’s create a harmonious and peaceful world through quality bilingual education! Indigenous Tsotsil children and their languages the solution! In: Journal of Language Teaching & Research 11(2), 139–144. (https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1102.01; 28-09-2022).
Delany-Barmann, G. (2010): Teacher education reform and Subaltern voices: From política to práctica in Bolivia. In: Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 9 (3), 180-202. (https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2010.486276; 28-09-2022).
Douglas, W. O. & Supreme Court of the United States (1973): U.S. Reports: Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563. [Periodical] (https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep414563/; 28-09-2022).
Eberhard, D., G. Simons & C. Fennig (Eds.) (2020): Language status. Ethnologue. (https://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status; 28-09-2022).
Eckert, E. (2017): The power of language, learning and socialization: Romani and Ebonics. In: Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16 (1), 45-58. (https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2016.1265451; 28-09-2022).
Escobar, A. (2020): From Tagalog to Korean, these Asian Americans are using quarantine to learn their families' languages. In: NBC-News (8 September 2020) (www.nbcnews.com. www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/tagalog-korean-these-asian-americans-are-using-quarantine-learn-their-n1239013; 28-09-2022).
Fillmore, L. W. (2000): Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? In. Theory into Practice 39 (4), 203-210. (https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3904_3; 28-09-2022).
Fishman, J. A. (1991): Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Haugen, E. (1971): The ecology of language. In: Linguist. (Later reproduced in The ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen: Selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil (1972). London: Oxford University Press.)
Hultgren, A. K. (2018): The Englishization of Nordic universities: What do scientists think? In: European Journal of Language Policy 10 (1), 77-94. (https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2018.4; 28-09-2022).
Ioratim-Uba, G. (2014): Language, ethnicity and conflict: Applying linguistic measures to prevent ethnic violence in Middle Belt Nigeria. In: International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 21(4), 557-590. (https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02104006; 28-09-2022).
Jester, T. E. & L. H. Fickel (2013): Cross-Cultural field experiences in Alaska native villages: Implications for culturally responsive teacher education. In: The Teacher Educator 48 (3), 185-200 (https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2013.793762; 28-09-2022).
Kagan, D. (1992): Professional growth among beginning and preservice teachers. In: Review of Educational Research 62 (2), 129-169 (https://doi.org/10.2307/1170578; 28-09-2022).
King, K. A. & M. Hermes (2014): Why is this so hard?: Ideologies of endangerment, passive language learning approaches, and Ojibwe in the United States. In: Journal of Language, Identity & Education 13 (4), 268-282 (https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2014.939029; 28-09-2022).
Kroch, A. (1978): Toward a theory of social dialect variation. In: Language in Society 7 (1), 17-36. (doi:10.1017/S0047404500005315; 28-09-2022).
Labov, W. (1972): The logic of non-standard English. In: Giglioli, P. P. (Ed.): Language and Social Context. Penguin: Harmondsworth.
Lagunas, R. M. (2019): Nahuatl in Coatepec: Ideologies, practices and management for linguistic and cultural continuance. In: International Review of Education 65 (1), 67-86. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09765-6; 28-09-2022).
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018): Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. In: Foreign Language Annals 51 (1), 55-72. (https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12314; 28-09-2022).
Lewis, P., & Simons, G. (2010): Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. In: Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 55 (2), 103-120.
Lytle, S. & M. Botel (1988) (rep.): PCRP II: Reading, writing and talking across the curriculum. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State Dept. of Education.
Marques, N. (2017): What languages existed before colonization in America, and which languages still survive. In: Babble.com, (https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/what-languages-existed-before-colonization-in-america-and-which-languages-still-survive; 28-09-2022).
McCarty, T. & T. Lee (2014): The role of schools in Native American language and culture revitalization: A vision of linguistic and educational sovereignty. In: Indigenous Education. Springer 341-360 (doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9355-1_17; 28-09-2022).
McGee, P. (2018): Endangered languages: The case of Irish Gaelic. In Training Language and Culture 2 (4), 26-38 (https://doi.org/10.29366/2018tlc.2.4.2; 28-09-2022).
Moore, S. (2019): Language and identity in an indigenous teacher education program. In: International Journal of Circumpolar Health 78 (https://doi.org/10.1080/22423982.2018.1506213; 28-09-2022).
Morgan, B. (2015): Language teacher education and the developing world: Exploring ‘Horizons of possibility’ for identity and agency. In: Linguistics & the Human Sciences 11 (1), 89-106 (https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v11i1.20508; 28-09-2020).
Narayanan, R. (2019): Assessing language endangerment: A methodological review. In: Language in India 19 (7), 128-145.
Ng-A-Fook, N. (2013): Fishing for knowledge beyond colonial disciplines: Curriculum, socialization projects, and indigenous communities. In: Contemporary Studies in Environmental and Indigenous Pedagogies A Curricula of Stories and Place. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 285-305.
Odango, E. L. (2015): Austronesian youth perspectives on language reclamation and maintenance. In: The Contemporary Pacific, 27 (1), 73-108. (https://doi.org/10.1353/cp.2015.002; 28-09-2022).
Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) (2020): Benefits of multilingualism. (https://ncela.ed.gov/.https://ncela.ed.gov/files/announcements/20200805-NCELA Infographic-508.pdf; 28-09-2022).
Olaoye, A. A. (2013): Languages in contact, a blessing or a scourge? A case study of Yoruba ethnography of greetings. In: Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3 (4), 669-677 (https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.4.669-677; 28-09-2022).
Pariona, A. (2017): Endangered native languages of the United States. (April 25) (www.WorldAtlas.com.https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/endangered-languages- of-the-united-states.html; 28-09-2022).
Pritchard, R. (2011): Monolingual teachers in multilingual settings: Changing attitudes and practices. In: The CATESOL Journal 23, 194-204.
Reading, C., C. Khupe, M. Redford, D. Wallin, T. Versland, N. Taylor & P. Hampton (2019): Educating for sustainability in remote locations. In: Rural Educator 40 (2), 43-53. (https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v40i2.849; 28-09-2022).
Samovar, L. A., R. E. Porter, E. R. McDaniel & C. S. Roy (2017): Communication Between Cultures. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Sayers, D. & P. L. Láncos (2017): (Re)defining linguistic diversity: What is being protected in European language policy? In: SKY Journal of Linguistics 30, 35-73.
Sherris, A. (2017): Talk to text Safaliba literacy activism: Grassroots Ghanaian educational language policy. In: Writing & Pedagogy, 9 (1), 163-195. (https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.30379; 28-09-2022).
Shin, J., M. Sailors, N. McClung, D. Pearson, J. Hoffman & M. Chilimanjira (2015): The case of Chichewa and English in Malawi: The impact of first language reading and writing on learning English as a second language. In Bilingual Research Journal 38 (3), 255-274. (https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2015.1091050; 28-09-2022).
Sparks, L. (2021): Preserving native languages: No time to waste. US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Native Americans. (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ana/preserving-native-languages-article; 28-09-2022).
Subtirelu, N. (2013). Language privilege: What it is, and why it matters. In. Linguistic Pulse, (https://linguisticpulse.com/2013/06/26/language-privilege-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/; 28-09-2022).
Suina, J. (2004): Native language teachers in a struggle for language and cultural survival. In: Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35 (3), 281-302.
Suliman, A., C. Radnofsky, & D. Liu (2020): Mongolians stage rare protests in China against plans to remove language from schools. (2 September 2020). (www.nbcnews.com. www.nbcnews.com/news/world/mongolians-stage-rare-protests-china-against-plans-for-remove-language-schools-n1239047; 28-09-2022).
Sultana, S. (2012): Problematising the popular discourses about language and identity of young adults in Bangladesh. In: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18 (4), 49-63.
Thomas, W. & V. Collier (2002) (rep.): A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. California: University of California, Santa Cruz.
U.S. Department of Education, NCES (2020). English Language Learners in Public Schools. National Center for Education Statistics NCES. (May 2020) (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp; 28-09-2022).
UNESCO. (2001): UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity: UNESCO. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. (2 November 2001) (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION; 28-09-2022).
Author:
Dr. Anna Burnley
Associate professor
ESOL Coordinator
Flagler College
Tallahassee
Florida
USA
Email: burnleya@flagler.edu