ethnography and language policy

Using this conceptual framework, the volume addresses the impacts of globalization, diaspora, and transmigration on language practices and policies; language endangerment, revitalization

Ethnography and Language Policy

“This book brings together some of the best scholars in the field to rebuild the connection between anthropology and linguistics that produced sociolinguistics, firmly establishing the relevance of an ethnographic and policy approach to education It will quickly become the standard course text.”

Bernard Spolsky, Bar- Ilan University, Israel

Illuminating, through ethnographic inquiry, how individual agents “make” language policy in everyday social practice, this volume advances the growing field of language planning and policy using a critical sociocultural approach From this perspective, lan- guage policy is conceptualized not only as official acts and documents, but also as language- regulating modes of human interaction, negotiation, and production mediated

by relations of power.

Using this conceptual framework, the volume addresses the impacts of globalization, diaspora, and transmigration on language practices and policies; language endangerment, revitalization, and maintenance; medium- of-instruction policies; literacy and biliteracy policies and practices; language and ethnic/national identity; and the ethical tensions in conducting critical ethnographic language policy research These issues are contextualized

in case studies and reflective commentaries by leading scholars in the field.

Extending previous work in the field, tapping into leading- edge interdisciplinary

scholar-ship, and charting new directions, Ethnography and Language Policy:

• Joins language policy research with ethnographic methods and analysis

• Takes a critical sociocultural approach to exploring how policy is enacted in social practice

• Is deeply local and broadly comparative, probing cases in depth while offering parallels and contrasts from the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Pacific, and South- Central Asia

• Exemplifies an ethnography for social justice allied with the interests of the munities with whom researchers work

com-Recognizing that language policy is not merely or even primarily about language per se, but rather about power relations that structure social- linguistic hierarchies, the authors seek to expand policy discourses in ways that foster social justice for all.

Teresa L McCarty is the Alice Wiley Snell Professor of Education Policy Studies, Professor

of Applied Linguistics, and Co-Director of the Center for Indian Education at Arizona State University.

This page intentionally left blank

Ethnography and Language Policy

Edited by

Teresa L McCarty

270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

Simultaneously published in the UK

by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2011 Taylor & Francis

The right of the editor to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted

in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Typeset in Minion by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Ethnography and language policy/edited by Teresa L McCarty

This page intentionally left blank

ENTRY INTO CONVERSATION

T E R E S A L M c C A R T Y

ETHNOGRAPHY AND LANGUAGE POLICY CASES AND

1 Critical Ethnography and Indigenous Language Survival:

Some New Directions in Language Policy Research and

T E R E S A L M c C A R T Y, M A R Y E U N I C E R O M E R O - L I T T L E ,

L A R I S A WA R H O L , A N D O F E L I A z E P E D A

2 “How Are You Hopi if You Can’t Speak It?”: An

Ethnographic Study of Language as Cultural Practice

S H E I L A H E N I C H O L A S

3 Diaspora Communities, Language Maintenance, and Policy

A S u r E S h C A n A G A r A J A h

4 Reconstructing Ethnography and Language Policy in

Colonial Namibian Schooling: Historical Perspectives on

R O D N E Y K H O P S O N

INTERLUDE – COMMENTARIES ON PART I 119

Language Ideologies, Ethnography, and Ethnology: New Directions

8 Critical Perspectives on Language- in-Education Policy:

A l E x A n d r A J A F F E

9 Languages, Texts, and Literacy Practices: An Ethnographic

Lens on Bilingual Vocational Education in Wales 231

m A r I l Y n m A r T I n - J o n E S

10 Researching- Texting Tensions in Qualitative Research: Ethics in

and around Textual Fidelity, Selectivity, and Translations 255

VA I D E H I R A M A N A T H A N

n A n C Y h h o r n b E r G E r A n d d Av I d C A S S E l S J o h n S o n

About the Contributors 290

Courtney Cazden

In the first commentary chapter for Ethnography and Language Policy, Perry Gilmore

harks back to Dell Hymes, to whom this book is dedicated, and reminds readers of

an earlier book, Functions of Language in the Classroom (Cazden, John, & hymes,

1972), which he conceptualized in his 46-page Introduction Gilmore suggests that it

was “an early precursor to the present volume.” As one of Hymes’s co- editors of FoL,

I am humbled by how much simpler our research task was nearly 40 years ago

We had a single focus on the micro level of face- to-face interaction within the classroom community We were responding in part to a call from President Johnson for research recommendations for the educational component of his War on Poverty program in the aftermath of the Civil Rights revolution Not sur-prisingly in that context, two- thirds of the 14 chapters located their research in mainland United States, not yet massively affected by economic forces of globali-zation, and our concerns were primarily students from long- standing minority communities – African American and American Indian

Ethnography and Language Policy retains the critical and democratic stance of

FoL, but its scope is immeasurably greater on all counts The ten research

chap-ters range the world, with only three located in the US More significantly, each setting is now more ethnically diverse due to the package of variables we gloss as

“globalization.” Evident in many chapters are the effects of those same globalizing forces on the marked increase in economic insecurity and its effects, in turn, on language planning and policy (LPP) at all levels – from the state through com-munities to individual students

In the intervening 40 years, linguistic theory and methodology have also

expanded In FoL, we were working with the hymes–Gumperz construct of the

“ethnography of communication,” then barely a decade old now, as James Collins discusses in the second commentary, the ethnography of communication, especially appropriate at the level of face- to-face communities, has been expanded and supplemented to meet the ethnographic tasks of these new research conditions

Finally, in roughly this same time period, LPP itself has grown from birth (often attributed to Norwegian American Einar Haugen) to now meriting a WWW listserv, as McCarty describes in her Introduction In the final discussion

and synthesis for Ethnography and Language Policy, Nancy Hornberger and David

Johnson place the chapters in that wider context

These changes do not mean that the narrower FoL concerns have disappeared

– certainly not the effects of pressures for “standard English” in the US (and standard languages elsewhere) Consider just one current example in the

“common academic standards” developed by a US consortium of Chief State School officers and the national Governors Association functioning as a unit of language policy formation even if subject to voluntary adoption, which were released in June 2010 Concerns had been expressed during their development about the difficulties that (largely immigrant) English- language learners (ELLs) would have in meeting the English language arts standards As a result of pres-sures by ELL specialists and advocates, changes were made, and the Introduction now includes a statement that “for students still acquiring English, ‘It is possible

to meet the standards in reading, writing, speaking, and listening without playing native- like control of conventions and vocabulary’ ” (zehr, 2010)

The history of this modest concession on standard language requirements is

an example of what Collins considers a fundamental question for all guistic inquiry, “Who gets to define what counts as language?” Any answer should

sociolin-be only the sociolin-beginning of ethnographic inquiry “Ethnographic monitoring” (Hymes, 1980) is well suited to the task of following ethnographically “the pat-terns and meanings that may emerge during the course of a program” and its implementations

I want to end on a more uplifting note and suggest to all readers a beautiful little book by Edith Grossman, an acclaimed literary translator, most recently of

Don Quixote According to Grossman in Why Translation Matters (2010), in the

US and the UK “only two to three percent of books published each year are ary translations,” while in Western Europe and Latin America, the numbers are from 25 to 40 percent At the end of her Preface, Grossman reminds us of the loss accruing from book publishers’ implicit language policy:

liter-[Translation] represents a concrete literary presence with the crucial capacity

to ease and make more meaningful our relationships to those with whom we may not have had a connection before Translation always helps us to know,

to see from a different angle, to attribute new value to what once may have been unfamiliar As nations and as individuals, we have a crucial need for that kind of understanding and insight The alternative is unthinkable.With his career- long commitment to the translation and poetics of Native American texts – in his words, “America’s first literature” – Dell Hymes would certainly agree

References

Cazden, C b., John, v P., & hymes, d (eds) (1972) Functions of language in the classroom

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, E (2010) Why translation matters New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Hymes, D (1980) Ethnographic monitoring In D Hymes, Language in education: Ethno- linguistic essays (pp 104–118) Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

zehr, M A (2010) Standards organizers leave English proficiency to states Education Week, June 9, p 10.

Several years ago I decided to offer a new graduate seminar I named Ethnography and Language Policy As I began searching for course texts, I could find no single volume that would enable my students and me to simultaneously explore the tenets of ethnography and language policy and apply those understandings across diverse cultural contexts I improvised, using selections from key texts on ethnog-

raphy – Harry Wolcott’s (2008) Ethnography: A Way of Seeing – alongside Bernard Spolsky’s (2004) Language Policy, Chris Shore and Susan Wright’s (1997) Anthro-

pology of Policy, Margaret Sutton and Bradley Levinson’s (2001) Policy as Practice,

and a few book- length ethnographic accounts: Kendall King’s (2001) Language

Revitalization Processes and Prospects, Vaidehi Ramanathan’s (2005) The English- Vernacular Divide, and my own (2002) A Place to Be Navajo And I determined

that one day soon, I would find a way to fit this content between the covers of a single book

Ethnography and Language Policy is that book It is, first and foremost, a book

about language policy Ask a neighbor or the passenger seated next to you on the plane or the bus to define policy, and you will likely hear a reference to some kind

of official text This definition is problematic in that it dehumanizes, alizes, and dehistoricizes official state policies, and in fact is part of the ideo-logical apparatus by which they are normalized Here, we train our gaze squarely

decontextu-on that ideological structure Policy is not a disembodied thing, but rather a ated sociocultural process – the complex of practices, ideologies, attitudes, and formal and informal mechanisms that influence people’s language choices in pro-found and pervasive everyday ways Sometimes these processes involve the crea-

situ-tion of the cultural artifacts typically associated with “policy”: legal proscripsitu-tions such as state English- only laws in the US or prescriptions such as the co-

officialization of French and English in Canada, or of Ma-ori, New zealand Sign Language, and English in Aotearoa/New zealand While this book is concerned with overt, declared policies such as these, we are equally concerned with covert, implicit policy processes and the social stratifications those processes reify and construct The role of language in structuring power hierarchies and the human interruptions of those social asymmetries constitute the heart of this book With its overriding concern with cultural interpretation, ethnography is ideally suited to critically examine these language policy processes, exposing grounded manifestations of explicit and implicit policy- making at multiple levels

of the system In keeping with an ethnographic perspective, our examination is both deeply local and broadly comparative, probing language policy cases in depth and offering parallels and contrasts from the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Pacific, and South- Central Asia And, in keeping with a critical perspective, the authors here question dominant policy paradigms and apply their ethnographic insights to illuminate alternative possibilities As Mary Carol Combs and her coauthors say in Chapter 7, this is “a moral discourse focusing on equity and justice.”

The book opens with an “entry into conversation” on ethnography and guage policy, in which I lay out the epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and praxis foundations for the chapters to come This is followed by ethno-graphic case studies that engage the pressing language policy issues of our times: language endangerment and revitalization; the impacts of globalization, diaspora, and transmigration on local language practices; language education planning and policy; literacy and biliteracy development; the role of language in ethnic and national identity formation; and the ethics and tensions inherent in conducting critical- ethnographic language policy research Near the book’s mid- point, we pause for commentary by Perry Gilmore and James Collins, and we close with a synthetic discussion of all the cases by nancy hornberger and david Johnson This is very much a conversation about the role of language in society Barometers of our intended audience are the chapter authors, who include socio/educational/applied linguists, linguistic and educational anthropologists, and scholar- activists in education, policy studies, and Indigenous/ethnic studies We do not intend this book solely for academics, though; we have also written with an audience of education practitioners and language planners and policy- makers in mind

So, to our readers: we hope what you find on these pages will engage you in furthering the conversation we have begun here and the transformative possibil-ities that conversation seeks to enjoin

Teresa L McCartyPhoenix, ArizonaJune 2010

This book is a team effort, and I want to begin by expressing gratitude to each chapter author who contributed ethnographic wisdom and passion to this project I am deeply honored to be the editor of your work Earlier versions of most chapters were presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in Philadelphia, USA, and at the 2009 Lan-guage Policy and Language Learning (LPLL) Conference in Limerick, Ireland I thank the 2009 Council on Anthropology and Education program chair for the AAA meeting, bryan mcKinley Jones brayboy, and the lPll conference chair Tadhg Ó hlfearnáin, for inviting sessions that served as book launchings I am also grateful to former Society for linguistic Anthropology president J Joseph Errington for co- chairing and co- sponsoring the AAA session In Philadelphia,

we were fortunate to have Courtney Cazden in the audience Her enthusiasm for the paper presentations led her to agree to write the book’s Foreword I thank Courtney for her contribution, and for her immensely valuable feedback on an earlier version of my introductory chapter At the same AAA session, Perry Gilmore and James (Jim) Collins became newly involved in this book project as discussants, and agreed, almost on the spot, to turn their excellent commentaries into the “interlude” chapters that follow Part I Their critical reflections add important insights into what Perry Gilmore calls the “ethnology of language policy” and what Jim Collins calls “the new policy studies.” I thank Perry and Jim for enriching the volume with these additions

My own inspiration for this volume – besides the immediate need presented

by the graduate seminar mentioned in the Preface – is my long- term work with Native American communities I came into that work through the beneficence of stellar mentors, and this book would not have come to pass without them: the late Sigrid Khera, whose invitation to join an oral history project for the Yavapai- Apache nation set my academic path; the late robert A roessel, Jr, a giant in the field of American Indian education who invited me to work at the Rough Rock demonstration School on the navajo nation and whose own life showed what a single person can do to transform official policy; the late Susanne M Shafer, a leading scholar of international comparative education who took an interest in

my work at Rough Rock and provided a powerful role model of women in academia; John W Tippeconnic III, eminent scholar of American Indian educa-tion and a national policy leader, who hired me for my first “official” language

planning and policy (LPP) role in the National Indian Bilingual Center and who has provided intellectual inspiration and moral support for 30 years; Bernard Spolsky, whose work on the navajo reading Study during the 1960s and 1970s shaped my thinking about policy in practice; Wayne Holm and the late Agnes Dodge Holm, who showed that changing a school’s language policy to reflect the language and culture of the community can reconfigure the sociolinguistic and educational landscape for generations to come; Richard Ruiz, who took a chance

on me when I applied for an academic position and drew me into LPP as a field

of study; and Yetta and Ken Goodman, who taught me how to be a professor and modeled what a lifetime of engaged scholarship can accomplish

I am indebted to many others who have influenced and supported this work

in ethnography and language policy: former colleagues in the American Indian Language Development Institute Lucille Watahomigie, Akira Y Yamamoto, Ofelia zepeda, Leanne Hinton, and the late Kenneth Hale; present and former col-leagues at Arizona State University Alfredo Artiles, Angela Arzubiaga, David Ber-liner, bryan brayboy, david beaulieu, Gene Garcia, Gene Glass, Elizabeth Kozleski, Kathy Nakagawa, Simon Ortiz, Mary Eunice Romero- Little, Beth Blue Swadener, Joseph Tobin, Caroline Sotello viernes Turner, larisa Warhol, doris Warriner, Terrence Wiley, and Denis Viri; colleagues in Abakan Action Tamara borgoiakova, bill bowring, Sonja novak- lukanovicˇ, and dónall Ó riagáin; col-leagues in Indigenous language education, Walkie Charles, Serafin Coronel- molina, the late Galena Sells dick and Ernest dick, michael Fillerup and diné teacher- leaders at Puente de hózhó˛ School, Sandra Fox, Perry Gilmore, mary Hermes, Nancy Hornberger, Kendall King, Tiffany Lee, Beth Leonard, Allan Luke, Kathryn manuelito, Stephen may, Jacqueline messing, Sheilah nicholas, Jon reyhner, monty roessel and diné educators at rough rock Community School, Christine Sims, Tove Skutnabb- Kangas, William Wilson, Laiana Wong, Lily Wong Fillmore, leisy Wyman, and Tarajean Yazzie- mintz; Judith Green, who steered me

to important literature for the book’s introduction; special friends Gella and Joshua Fishman, whose “life with Yiddish” offers a moral compass for language policy scholarship in practice; and my friend and writing partner on American Indian education policy, K Tsianina Lomawaima

To Naomi Silverman, the senior editor for this volume, I owe a huge debt of gratitude From our very first project together, I have been inspired by your con-viction that a single book can make a lasting positive difference in the world Your support goes beyond the editorial, although that is substantial Thank you for your intellectual guidance, your steady vision for the project, and your patience and goodwill It is an infinitely better project for having been under your care

I thank the reviewers of the original book proposal, Bernard Spolsky and James Tollefson We could not have asked for more expert advice on the book’s content and scope

Special thanks to Shearon vaughn of Chart room Graphics for researching and designing the book’s beautifully crafted maps, and to all who gave photo-graphic permissions To ASU doctoral student Ran Chen, I owe appreciation for superb editorial assistance The book also benefited greatly from the careful

attention of Routledge editorial staff members Sue Armitage, Emilie Littlehales, and Phillippa Nichol.

Financial support for my work on this project was provided by the Alice Wiley Snell Endowment in Education Policy Studies at Arizona State University Alice (Dinky) Snell and her husband, Richard Snell, believed that education policy could be enhanced by excellent scholarship embedded in communities and schools They invested tangibly in that belief This book is one reflection of their commitment to policy research and action

Finally, I am deeply grateful to family and friends who have watched, listened, and supported this work all of these years: my mother, the late Virginia Doulin;

my father, the late James l mcCarty; stepmother mildred mcCarty; sisters Julie McCarty and Valerie Mussi; nieces Amity Roebke, Kate Pitchford, and Casma mussi; aunt Jo Ann brinnon and cousins Jill and Ed bace; stepchildren Jennifer and Stuart Martin and their families; and my “Duck sisters” Caren Creutzberger, Karyn Gitlis, Jan Kegelman, diana Pardue, and diane zipley For my beloved life partner John martin, I save my ultimate expression of gratitude Your intellectual and emotional support has kept me on course; your abiding faith in the work assures me that it is worth giving a lifetime to

On the World Wide Web there is a listserv called Language Policy Established in

2001 by University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Professor Emeritus Harold man, who moderates it with frequent daily updates, the listserv posts articles, book notices, and other language- related information to subscribers around the world A sample of recent postings suggests the range of topics that fall under the list’s purview:

Schiff-• “Ukraine’s Premier Stumps for Her Turn at the Top,” a New York Times

article on an impassioned speech by the Ukrainian prime minister on the eve of a close election (Levy, 2010)

• “Language Policy Stifles Intellectual Curiosity,” an article by a University of Rochester (UR) student studying in South Africa, lamenting the fact that the

UR language department’s policy does not credit language courses it does not offer, including 10 of 11 co- official South African languages (Otis, 2010)

missioner of Non- Resident Indian Affairs Eduardo Faleiro, who opined that Konkani, an endangered language, “is essential for preservation of the Goan identity” (Daijiworld Media Network, 2010)

report on a speech commemorating India’s Official Language Day by Com-• “Estonia Stuck Between Wage Range Trends and Inequalities,” introducing data from the Estonian Tax and Custom Board showing that Russian- speaking women in Estonia earn about half of what an “average Estonian man” earns, and a third of what an “average Estonian woman” earns (Angioni, 2010)

• “Saving Endangered Languages from Being Forgotten,” a story about the documentation of Mansi and Khanti, related Ob- Ugrian languages spoken

by a few thousand people in northwestern Siberia (Science Daily, 2010).

• “Irish Schools Need Not Teach English to Junior Infants,” a report on the Irish Department of Education’s withdrawal of a controversial directive that all Irish schools provide at least 30 minutes per day of English instruction (Ó Caollaí, 2010)

American language newspapers, the Cherokee Phoenix, on Web postings of

Cherokee translations of popular Facebook terms (Good Voice, 2009)

• “NHL Potty Mouth Policy,” relaying a US National Hockey League randum prohibiting players and coaches from using “inappropriate and profane language in media interactions,” particularly press conferences (Email Razor, 2010).

memo-• “Wisconsin: Demand for English- Only,” a political constituent complaint to

US President Barack Obama and Wisconsin Democrats alleging that billions

of dollars are being “waist[ed] (sic) printing our information in dozens of foreign languages Why do you keep catering to foreigners when you should

be making them abide by our laws?” (Letters to Leaders, 2010)

• “Outrage Over English- only Policy at Connecticut Bookstore,” reporting public backlash against a 2010 policy issued by a bookstore near Yale Univer-sity prohibiting employees from speaking any non- English language (read Spanish) on the main floor or behind the sales counter (Berman, 2010) This is but a tiny sample of conversations about language being engaged around the world Yet, in these few selections, we can see the pervasive and con-tested role of language in the political arena, the economy, the workplace, educa-tion, sports, technology, the media, and in the construction of individual, group, and national identities Language is the “architecture of social behavior itself,” Blommaert writes (2009, p 263) This book investigates how that social architec-ture is designed, engineered, and regulated through explicit and implicit language policies

sual, dynamic, and in motion To rephrase Heath, Street, and Mills’s (2008) dis-cussion of “culture as a verb,” policy too is best understood as a verb; policy

To do this, we take as a starting point the notion of language policy as proces-“never just ‘is,’ but rather ‘does’ ” (p 7; cf Levinson, Sutton, & Winstead, 2009,

p 771) One crucial implication of this approach is that we do not restrict our analysis to or even focus primarily on official policy declarations and texts This

is not to dismiss the gravity of official policy or government acts, but to place these in context as part of a larger sociocultural system Here, we take an expanded view of language policy as overt and covert, top- down and bottom- up,

de jure and de facto (Schiffman, 1996, 2006; Shohamy, 2006) Language policy

“exists even where it has not been made explicit or established by authority,” Spolsky writes, and can be inferred from people’s language practices, ideologies, and beliefs (2004, p 8)

Covert language policies may emerge in resistance to overt, official ones, as in the case study in Chapter 7 of this volume, by Mary Carol Combs, Norma González, and Luis Moll, of teachers and students who create “third spaces” in which bilingualism thrives, even in language- restrictive environments (cf Menken & García, 2010; Ramanathan, 2005) Policy- making also occurs at the level of families and local linguistic ecologies, as in the case study of Quichua in Ecuador by Kendall King and Marleen Haboud (Chapter 5), where top- down policies guaranteeing bilingual intercultural education are “trumped” by family fissures attending migration and its impacts on child language socialization for the children left behind (see also King, Fogle, & Logan- Terry, 2008a) And language policy operates at the level of face- to-face interaction, as exemplified in

Perry Gilmore’s commentary on an American and a Samburu child who resist colonial language hierarchies and create their own language, and in the Native American youth profiled in Chapters 1 and 2 who resignify their heritage lan-guages in ways that both counter and yield language shift A primary goal of this volume, then, is to critically analyze how these implicit, de facto language policies emerge and work in the course of everyday interaction At the same time, the authors here tie these interactions to larger policy discourses, drilling beneath the surface of official policy texts to illuminate the power relations through which they are created and naturalized.

In their book Policy as Practice, Levinson and Sutton (2000, p 1) ask what

edu-cation policy studies might look like if policy were reconceptualized as “a complex social practice, an ongoing process of normative cultural production” – that is,

“policy as a practice of power” (see also Levinson et al., 2009) Similarly, the authors

in this volume ask what language policy studies would “look like” if we investigate policy as a practice of power that operates at multiple, intersecting levels: the micro level of individuals in face- to-face interaction, the meso level of local com-munities of practice, and the macro level of nation- states and larger global forces This approach enables us to “study up,” critically analyzing the “culture of power” (Nader, 1974), and to study “down” and “through,” tracing power networks to expose the historical contingency and inventiveness of language policies as they are realized in practice (Shore & Wright, 1997, pp 14, 17)

Our lens into these policy processes is ethnography, a “way of seeing” that is situated and systemic, and a “way of looking” that is grounded in long- term, in- depth, first- hand accounts (Wolcott, 2008) Participant observation, in- depth interviews, and document analysis are the primary methods in the ethnographic toolkit Some authors in this volume supplement these methods with sociolin-guistic surveys and student achievement data (e.g., Canagarajah, Chapter 3; Hill and May, Chapter 6; McCarty, Romero- Little, Warhol, & Zepeda, Chapter 1) These methods can uncover the “situated logic” of implicit and explicit policy- making, offering insights into “why practice takes shape the way it does” (Stri-tikus and Wiese, 2006, p 21) At its core, an ethnographic analysis is a cultural analysis – a peeling back of tissues of meaning to answer the question, “What is going on here?” (Wolcott, 2008, pp 73–74) This “is what a sociolinguistic, ethno-graphic analysis can bring us,” Heller points out in her account of what it means

to be a Francophone for French- language minority adolescents in Ontario: “an understanding of how things happen, and some sense of why they happen the way they do” (1999, p 275)

Education in and out of school is a key domain in which language policies perform their social role We concur with Spolsky’s (2008) assertion that “the major changes in language practices and beliefs are the results of management activities concerning education” (p 3) Within this domain, the authors here focus on minoritized languages and speech communities: those facing rapid shift toward dominating languages (Indigenous languages in the Americas and Pacific, and Corsican and Welsh in Europe); those caught up in a global diaspora (Sri Lankan Tamil in North America and the UK); those in postcolonial states (Namibia and India); and officially “forbidden languages” (Gándara & Hopkins,

2010), such as Spanish in parts of the US Social, linguistic, and educational quality is a theme of this work Equally important, the authors foreground the human interruptions of those inequalities and the emancipatory possibilities these interventions release.

Within this overarching framework, seven key questions guide our inquiry:

1 What does language education policy “look like” in social practice? Who does it, with what purposes, to and for whom, and with what consequences?

2 How do policy processes normalize some languages and speakers, and ginalize others?

mar-3 How are language users and practices “disciplined” or regulated through explicit and implicit policies?

4 How are people and communities defined through these policy processes?

5 Whose interests are served by these policy- making processes?

6 How do minoritized speech communities exercise agency in the face of oppressive language policies? And finally,

7 How can we use our ethnographic work to create a more socially just world?This chapter is an entry into conversation about these questions, which percolate through every chapter in the book Recognizing that readers may have more, or less, familiarity with how ethnography and language policy have been engaged as individual lines of inquiry and in union, my goal is to lay a foundation for the chapters to come I first situate this approach within the broader field of language planning and policy I next examine what a critical sociocultural, ethnographic lens adds to research and practice in this field, and the unique contributions of the present volume To launch this discussion, I begin with an ethnographic vignette

Language Policy as a Field of Study and Practice

One of my first language policy- making encounters occurred while I was working

as a community- school liaison for an American Indian community in the US Southwest Each weekday, shortly after dawn, 20 of the community’s youth boarded a school bus that transported them across circuitous desert mountain roads to their mostly White suburban high school, and late each weekday after-noon they boarded the bus for the hour- long ride home The youth represented the generation following linguistic “tip,” or abrupt shift into English (Dorian,

1981, 1989) Still, all the youth possessed some facility in their heritage language, claiming it, in their words, as “our own language.” In the course of my ethno-graphic work with the community and the school, I had observed four school contexts in which the youth deliberately switched from English to the Native lan-guage, each of which signaled an affirmation of Indigenous identity and group solidarity With a few exceptions, educators at the school appeared to be oblivi-ous to these communicative acts and their meaning School authorities made no provision for teaching the Indigenous language, and in fact the school had no Native studies program at all

Concerned that their children were spending most of their waking hours in school or en route to and from school, with little time for family- and community- based socialization, tribal leaders asked a team composed of three community educators, a non- Native teacher at the school, and me to design a curriculum that would simultaneously support the youth in learning their herit-age language and heighten cultural awareness among non- Native students at the school Although we did not label it as such at the time, we were planning lan-guage and constructing a language education policy for the community and the school (cf Corson, 1999).

I open this section with this vignette to highlight four key themes developed throughout the volume First, the vignette situates language policy within the process of language planning, famously defined by Cooper in a seminal book on the topic as “deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language codes” (1989,

p 45) Today, the field of study of which language policy is part is commonly referred to as language planning and policy, or LPP (sometimes language policy and planning, suggesting a superordinate role for policy – a topic discussed later

in this chapter) Second, this example illuminates the grounded, improvisational, and grass- roots nature of LPP as it is realized in everyday social practice As Hornberger writes in an early exploration of these bottom- up processes, this reflects a shift in scholarly attention “toward the individual and the local com-munity as active agents” in LPP (1996a, p 11) – a perspective that other biogra-phers of the field have identified as distinctive to a critical/postmodern approach (Ricento, 2000, p 208; Canagarajah, 2005a) Third, the vignette foregrounds the ever- present power dynamics inherent in these processes, and the role of schools

in structuring linguistic and educational inequalities – issues taken up in detail throughout this volume And finally, the vignette hints at the need for a theoret-ical perspective and set of methods capable of making sense of these fraught sociocultural and sociopolitical processes “Hence the growing popularity of eth-nographic approaches in LPP,” Canagarajah observes (2005b, p 195) I turn now

to a fuller exposition of these themes

The Planning–Policy Interface

As a field of scholarly inquiry, language planning and policy is relatively young, having grown out of pragmatic concerns with solving language “problems” in decolonizing, multilingual polities during the second half of the 20th century As Wright recounts, “among the many and complex problems left by the departing colonial powers [was] a requirement to solve the logistics of communication in order to govern and to modernize, to provide the minimum needs of the population” (2004, p 8).1 Thus, the principal questions were which languages to develop (colonial/Indigenous/other lingua francas) for which purposes in the context of nation- building (Ricento, 2000, pp 197–200; 2006, p 13) In an early treatment of the topic, Joshua Fishman, a co- founder of the field of sociolinguis-tics, presented the issues confronting the branch of that field dealing with lan-guage policy this way:

A widespread problem of new nations is that their political boundaries correspond rather imperfectly to any pre- existing ethnic- cultural unity Thus language may and has become a symbol of supralocal ethnic- cultural identification at the nationality level just as it may become a symbol

of contranational ethnic- cultural identification on the part of smaller groups who develop a localized nationality consciousness of their own

(Fishman, 1968a, p 6)Fishman’s description suggests an enduring debate in LPP research and practice: competing ideologies of “one nation/one language” versus the value of individual and societal multilingualism The issues surrounding this debate reverberate in our seven guiding questions and the chapters to follow

In addressing these issues, early LPP scholarship reflected a general belief in the efficacy of language planning (Wright, 2004, p 9) Norwegian American lin-guist Einar Haugen, the first to introduce the term “language planning” in the scholarly literature, described it as the “exercise of judgment in the form of choices among available linguistic forms,” and the “evaluation of linguistic change” (1972a[1966], p 512) Language planners, according to Haugen, were fundamentally decision- makers (1972a[1966], p 517) This framework was later

ence what behaviors of which people for what ends under what conditions by what

elaborated by Cooper as a multifaceted question: “What actors attempt to influ-means through what decision- making process with what effect?” (1989, p 98).

With the focus on solving language “problems,” early approaches to LPP were largely linear and technocratic (identify the problem, formulate the policy, imple-ment and evaluate it, and revise accordingly) This approach can be described as

rationalistic, its premise being that LPP involves the weighing of alternatives by

rational agents “The agent commonly evaluates competing language plans within the framework of cost/benefit analysis,” Ricento and Hornberger say (1996,

p 406) Tollefson (1991) characterizes this approach as neoclassical in that LPP is

assumed to be ideologically neutral and the primary unit of analysis is the toricized and decontextualized individual (see Hopson’s discussion, Chapter 4 in this volume) This approach is still common in policy analysis; as Levinson and Sutton critique this approach, policy is viewed as “a kind of fuel rod for the body politic: put the policy in and watch the machine run” (2001, p 5)

In departure from these earlier assumptions, more recent scholarship gates the ideological, social- structural, and historical bases of LPP, emphasizing the relationships among language, power, and inequality (e.g., Fairclough, 2001; Heller & Martin- Jones, 2001; Jaffe, 1999; Kymlicka & Patten, 2003; May, 2001; Phillipson, 2000; Tollefson, 1991, 2002a, 2006) As Wiley points out, in any LPP decision- making “there is usually more at issue than just language, because decisions about language often lead to benefits for some and loss of privilege, status, and rights for others” (1996, p 104) Drawing on the work of critical theo-rists Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Anthony Giddens, and Jürgen Habermas,

interro-critical approaches view policies as ideological constructs that both reflect and

(re)produce the distribution of power within the larger society (see Hopson’s cussion of this, Chapter 4) Tollefson (1991, 2002b, 2006) characterizes this as an

dis-historical- structural approach, tying it to critical language studies and critical

lin-guistics.2

According to Tollefson (2006, pp 42–43), critical approaches entail an implicit and explicit critique of mainstream, rationalist ones The goal is to critically

“read” language policies as a means of understanding their social, political, and economic meanings within particular historicized contexts (Tollefson, 2002b,

p 4) For instance, Wiley (1996) asks, “How does attributing higher status to some varieties of language over others through language planning affect the status of the speakers of each variety?” (p 105) The critical perspective is com-mitted to praxis, recognizing that even as LPP is a mechanism for majoritarian control, it can crack open policy- making “windows of opportunity” to galvanize social change (Hamann, 2003, p 215; McCarty, 2002, pp 122–123; see also Skutnabb- Kangas, 2000; Tollefson, 1991, 2002b, 2006)

ationalized in research and practice? In their comprehensive treatment of the subject, Kaplan and Baldauf define language planning, similarly to Cooper’s defi-nition above, as an “attempt by someone to modify the linguistic behavior of some community for some reason” (1997, p 3) Language policies, they say, arise from these interventions, and can be conceptualized as a “body of ideas, laws, regulations, rules and practices intended to achieve the planned change in the society, group or system” (1997, p xi) This is similar to Ball’s notion of policies

With this as background, how has the planning–policy relationship been oper-as “textual interventions into practice” that “create circumstances in which the range of options available in deciding what to do are narrowed or changed or particular goals or outcomes are set” (2006, p 46)

These definitions raise the question of whether policy should be viewed as superordinate to language planning, or a subset thereof Again, it is important to locate the policy–planning relationship within the temporal landscape in which it has evolved According to Shohamy, language planning as used in the 1950s and 1960s was considered a “sweeping intervention and control of language behavior”; policy, on the other hand, referred “to a set of principles regarding language behav-ior Language policy attempts to be less interventionist and to refer mostly to principles with regard to language use” (2006, p 49) Reflecting this view, Fishman

maintains that language planning “come[s] after language policy decisions have

ilarly positions language policy as a “superordinate term which subsumes language planning” (p 209), and describes language planning as the “development, imple-mentation, and evaluation of specific language policies” (2006, p 18; see also Fettes, 1997) For Spolsky (2004), language policy – described as language practices, beliefs

been reached” (García, Schiffman, & Zakharia, 2006a, p 38) Ricento (2000) sim-or ideologies, and interventions – by definition encompasses language planning (p 5) Noting the lack of consensus on the planning–policy relationship, Hornberger (1996b, 2006) offers an integrative framework that cross- indexes language planning goals and activities (discussed below) with policy approaches “The truth is,” Horn-berger says, “that the LPP designation is useful as a reminder of how inextricably related language planning and language policy are” (2006a, p 25)

In this volume, we view language planning and policy not as separable acts but as mutually constitutive, interdependent, and co- occurring sociocultural

As we see in the chapters that follow, LPP is an integrated and dynamic whole that operates within intersecting planes of local, regional, national, and global influence Ricento and Hornberger use the metaphor of “unpeeling the onion” to describe these processes: LPP is a “multilayered construct,” they say, implicating multiple agents and levels that “permeate and interact with each other in complex ways” (1996, p 419).

This complexity has been conceptually elaborated in ecological models of LPP Voegelin, Voegelin, and Schutz (1967) and Haugen (1972b) are credited with introducing the ecology metaphor in the field of linguistics “The key property of any ecology is structured diversity,” Mühlhäusler observes, and “ecological lan-guage planning advocates the rebuilding of self- regulating diversity” (2000, pp

306, 310) Recognizing that in any sociocultural environment “some languages are more equal than others,” an ecological approach “draws attention to the role

of [LPP] in dynamic relationships among speakers, social contexts, and guages” (Hornberger & Hult, 2008, pp 282, 292) Phillipson and Skutnabb- Kangas (1996) include the promotion of human rights, multilingualism, and equality in communication in an ecology- of-language paradigm Linguistic ecology, then, can be thought of as a kind of supra- metaphor for the LPP onion Elsewhere I have characterized language policy as a complex sociocultural process: “modes of human interaction, negotiation, and production mediated by relations of power” (McCarty, 2004, p 72) The “policy” in these processes resides

lan-ative claims about legitimate and illegitimate language forms and uses,” thereby governing language statuses and uses (Skutnabb- Kangas & McCarty, 2008, p 9; see Hornberger and Johnson’s discussion, Chapter 11 in this volume).3 All of this

in their language- regulating power; that is, the ways in which they “express norm-boils down to choice: what language(s) will be learned, by whom, for what

pur-poses, and with what individual, group, and societal consequences (Spolsky, 2004,

p 42; 2009, p 1) As this volume and the growing LPP literature attest, language choices are never unfettered, but rather play out within larger power regimes that structure individual agency and institutional constraints If language is, as Blom-maert and other scholars maintain, the “architecture of social behavior” (2009,

p 263), then language policy is one of the most sensitive barometers of the freedom to choose

Ideology and LPP

Decisions about language are always context- dependent, and hence can be both hegemonic and counter- hegemonic LPP scholars have used the notions of lan-guage orientations, language attitudes, and language ideologies to theorize these processes In a classic treatment of the subject, Ruiz (1988) introduced the notion

of language orientations – dispositions toward the role of language(s) in society which are “largely unconscious and prerational because they are at the most fun-damental level of arguments about language” (p 4) For instance, what Ruiz calls

a language- as-a- problem orientation has been the hallmark of decades of US

bilingual education policy, which is aimed not at producing bilinguals but at guistic assimilation and ameliorating presumed deficits (“limited English profi-

lin-ciency”) in children learning English as a second language A language- as-a- right

orientation is concerned with the basic human right to education in the mother tongue as well as the language of wider communication (LWC) (Ruiz, 1988; see also Fishman, 1986; Hamel, 1997; Skutnabb- Kangas, 2000; Skutnabb- Kangas & Dunbar, 2010; Skutnabb- Kangas, Phillipson, & Rannut, 1994) In counterpoint to

these two orientations, Ruiz proposes a language- as-a- resource orientation as a

way of promoting bi-/multilingualism for all

Language orientations, Ruiz says, “constitute the framework in which guage] attitudes are formed” (1988, p 4) Language attitudes are the feelings indi-viduals have about their own and others’ language (Baker, 1992) The seminal work on language attitudes was undertaken by Wallace Lambert and his associ-ates, in which Canadian Francophone and Anglophone subjects were asked to rank different speakers on a variety of personality traits – height, intelligence, dependability, sociability, likability – the subjects believed could be detected from speech (Lambert et al., 1960) Both groups ranked English higher on these traits, while French was ranked higher on such traits as religiosity In a subsequent study of teachers’ ratings of African American and White children’s videotaped speech, Fasold (1984) found that teachers rated White students’ speech more highly More recently, Baugh (2000) has shown how race- and class- based lan-guage attitudes lead to linguistic profiling and discrimination

[lan- In[lan- a[lan- lecture[lan- published[lan- in[lan- 1979,[lan- the[lan- linguist[lan- Michael[lan- Silverstein[lan- introduced[lan- the[lan- notion of linguistic ideology, defining this as “any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (p 193) This definition has been elaborated by Woolard, who characterizes language ideologies as culturally mediated “ideas about language

Kroskrity (2009) define language ideologies as “beliefs and feelings about language

and discourse possessed by speakers and their speech communities” that

spectives, see Kroskrity, 2000a, 2000b)

Ideologies about language are largely tacit, taken- for-granted assumptions about language statuses, forms, users, and uses that, by virtue of their “common sense” naturalization, contribute to linguistic and social inequality (Tollefson,

2006, p 47) Like orientations and attitudes, language ideologies are not about language per se, but rather about identity, power, and “the very notion of the person and the social group” (Woolard, 1998, p 3; cf Kroskrity, 2000a, p 8) In Chapter 2, Sheilah Nicholas illustrates this with reference to her mother’s equa-tion of not speaking Hopi with not being “fully” Hopi “Our ideas about language(s) are, in other words, not neutral,” Heller says; “we believe what we believe for reasons which have to do with the many other ways in which we make sense of our world” (2007, p 15) These beliefs are perhaps most evident in the education sphere, where debates surrounding the medium of instruction have long dominated policy discourses As McGroarty (2002) points out, these debates are less about language (and, we can add, education) than about widespread assumptions linking competence in the national language to national loyalties (pp 19–20; see also Crawford, 1992; McGroarty, 2008; Tollefson, 2002a; Combs

et al., Chapter 7 in this volume)

The chapters in this volume illuminate the ways in which language tions, attitudes, and ideologies shape and are shaped by language policies as they are constructed in social practice As the authors here show, decisions about lan-guage, whether officially sanctioned or not, are, at their core, contests over polit-ical and economic participation, democracy, and human rights In the next section, I explore how ethnography – the quintessential “science of the people” (Blommaert, 2009, p 258) – affords a means both to investigate these contests and to unsettle the “common sense” truths they represent

orienta-LPP from an Ethnographic Point of View

Ethnographic approaches to LPP research have their roots in anthropology This

is important, because it means that the premises informing this research

“already [contain] ontologies, methodologies, and epistemologies” that are integral to the anthropological tradition (Blommaert, 2009, p 262) That tradi-tion is characterized by the contextualization of cultural phenomena socially, historically, and comparatively across time and space: “There is no way in which language can be ‘context- less’ in this anthropological tradition,” Blommaert asserts (2009, p 260) It is also characterized by attention to the participants’ point of view – the emic or insider’s position we see both exemplified and prob-lematized by the contributors to this volume (e.g., Canagarajah, Nicholas, Ram-anathan).4 Finally, this is a tradition that seeks to understand the connections between micro, meso, and macro processes by critically inspecting the web of social meanings at their interface

A comprehensive review of ethnography in the anthropological tradition is beyond the scope of this chapter, and the discussion here is necessarily attenu-ated We can start, however, by situating ethnography within the work of early ethnologists, and in the US in particular, the methodological orientation of Franz

ering of descriptive and historical data” (Baker, 1998, p 119; see also Darnell, 1998; Stocking, 1974) This orientation remains central to the sub- disciplines of educational and linguistic anthropology that inform this volume

cross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- Fromcross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- educationalcross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- anthropologycross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- camecross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- across- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- viewcross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- ofcross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- educationcross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- ascross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- across- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- culturalcross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- processcross- cultural comparison and inductive reasoning based on “the empirical gath- – a perspective apparent as early as 1928, when Boas’s student, Margaret Mead,

published Coming of Age in Samoa In a seminal articulation of the relevance of

anthropology to education studies, George Spindler described education as “the process of transmitting the culture of the human being – where culture is used

as a verb” (2000a [1955], p 56).6raphy of communication pioneered by John Gumperz and Dell Hymes (1972), and a view of talk as “a constitutive feature” of human social life (Goodwin & Duranti, 1992, p 1) Situated within the emerging interdisciplinary field of socio-linguistics, Gumperz and Hymes proposed a “socially realistic linguistics” in which education was “a prime arena for sociolinguistic research” (Hornberger, 2003a, pp 245–246; see also Gilmore’s commentary, and McCarty et al.’s discus-sion in Chapter 1 in this volume) In a 1964 issue of American Anthropologist

From linguistic anthropology came the ethnog-dedicated to the topic, Hymes introduced the ethnography of communication this way:

For anthropologists and anthropologically- minded investigators from other

disciplines, ethnography of communication seems best to indicate the

necessary scope, and to convey and encourage the fundamental contribution they best can make: studies ethnographic in basis, and of communication in the kind of patterned complexity with which they deal

Classroom; Gilmore and Glat-raphy and Language in Educational Settings; Heath’s (1983) Ways with Words;

and Philips’s (1983) The Invisible Culture These and other sociolinguistically

oriented studies added an important dimension to the work on culture and cation, demonstrating the culturally specific ways in which talk is organized and the “sub- rosa literacies” and “language prowess” of minoritized students that are often invisibilized in school (Gilmore, 1983, 1986; Schieffelin & Gilmore, 1986)

edu-In keeping with an activist stance dating back to Boas (Baker, 1998),8 phy in this emerging tradition was committed to social justice and “the people for and with whom the ethnographic work was done” (Gilmore, cited in Horn-berger, 2002, p 2)

ethnogra- Moreethnogra- recently,ethnogra- theethnogra- linguisticethnogra- anthropologyethnogra- ofethnogra- education,ethnogra- introducedethnogra- byethnogra- Stantonethnogra- Wortham and Betsy Rymes (2003), and the sociocultural linguistics proposed by Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall (2005, 2008) have built on these foundations, emphasizing the ethnographic study of language use in practice and a

“progressive- political commitment” to research on minoritized languages (Bucholtz & Hall, 2008, p 423; Wortham & Rymes, 2003, p 4) At the same time, the anthropology of policy, introduced by Chris Shore and Susan Wright in 1997, has spawned new ways of conceptualizing and investigating policy “The study of policy,” Shore and Wright point out, “leads straight into issues at the heart of anthropology: knowledge and power, rhetoric and discourse, meaning and inter-pretation, the global and the local” (1997, p 4; see also Ball, 2006) Recent explora-tions of education policy from a critical sociocultural perspective include Sutton

and Levinson’s (2001) Policy as Practice, Levinson et al.’s (2002) Ethnography and

Education Policy Across the Americas, Levinson et al.’s (2009) elaboration of a

theory of policy in practice, Hamann’s (2003) The Educational Welcome of Latinos

in the New South, Stein’s (2004) The Culture of Education Policy, and a theme issue

of Anthropology and Education Quarterly devoted to ethnographic examinations

of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Valenzuela, Prieto, & Hamilton, 2007)

In tandem with these research currents is a burgeoning ethnographic ure in applied/educational linguistics (Hornberger, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2009a; Spolsky, 1978; Spolsky & Hult, 2008), applied anthropology (McCarty, Wataho-migie, & Yamamoto, 1999; Medicine, 1979, 1981, 1986), and the sociology of lan-guage (Fishman, 1968b; García et al., 2006a; Hornberger & Pütz, 2006) Naming these types of analyses the “ethnography of language policy,” Hornberger and Johnson (2007) stress its attention to human agency and the “varying local inter-pretations, implementations, and perhaps resistance” (p 51; Johnson, 2009) Much of this literature is summarized in Hornberger and Johnson’s concluding chapter to this volume, and I will not repeat that here Rather, in the sections that follow I highlight three key areas in which the chapter authors contribute to the ethnography of LPP, framing these areas in light of the seven guiding questions outlined in the introductory section of this chapter

literat-Language Education Policies, Inequality, and the Future of

Cultural- linguistic Diversity

As previous sections have shown, a core concern in LPP scholarship is the role of education inside and outside of schools in structuring social and linguistic ine-qualities A major stream of this work investigates the ideological and institu-tional forces that promote language shift, spread, maintenance, and revitalization – topics taken up at length in this volume (cf Fishman et al., 1966; Fishman 1991,

1996, 2001, 2006; Tollefson, 1991, 1995, 2002a, 2004) Hornberger (1988) was the first to offer a book- length ethnographic treatment of these issues in her study of bilingual intercultural education in two Quechua communities in highland Peru With the goal of understanding the relationship between official policy and local language practices, she asked: Can language maintenance be planned? And, can schools be effective agents for language maintenance? (1988, p 19)

Since the publication of Hornberger’s Quechua ethnography, a flourishing ethnographic literature has explored the role of bi/multilingual education policy

in language shift, maintenance, and revitalization (in order of publication date): Davis’s (1994) ethnography of communication in Luxembourg, Freeman’s (1998) study of discourse practices at the Oyster Bilingual School in Washington, DC, Aikman’s (1999) study of intercultural education and mother tongue literacy among the Arakmbut in the Peruvian Amazon, Jaffe’s (1999) examination of lan-guage politics and ideology on Corsica, Heller’s (1999) sociolinguistic ethnogra-phy of Francophone adolescents in Anglophone Canada, King’s (2001) study of Quichua language shift and revitalization in Ecuador, House’s (2002) exploration

of Navajo language shift, McCarty’s (2002) “critical life history” of bilingual– bicultural education in a Navajo community school, Patrick’s (2003) ethnogra-phy of language use among the Inuit of Nunavik

ˆ (Arctic Québec), Ramanathan’s (2005b) critical ethnography of vernacular- medium education in Gujarat, and Wyman’s (2011) study of Yup’ik youth culture and language survivance in the Far North Over the same period, numerous edited volumes offered ethnographic accounts of “bottom- up” LPP, many investigating the role of schools and medium- of-instruction policies in language endangerment and revitalization (e.g., Francis, 2006; Henze & Davis, 1999; Hornberger, 1996b, 2005, 2008; King & Hornberger, 2004; May, 1999; May & Aikman, 2003; McCarty & Wyman, 2009; McCarty & Zepeda, 1995, 1998; Rockwell & Gomes, 2009).9

What Does Language Education Policy “Look Like” in Practice? How Do

Policy Processes Normalize Some Languages and Speakers, and

Marginalize Others? How Are People Defined through These Policy

Processes?

The authors here add fresh empirical and theoretical insights to the existing corpus of ethnographic work Canagarajah, Nicholas, McCarty et al., King and Haboud, and Martin- Jones engage the new youth language studies, positioning youth as active agents in shaping their social and cultural worlds (Bucholtz, 2002,

p 530; see also Lee, 2007, 2009; Mendoza- Denton, 2008; McCarty and Wyman, 2009; Messing, 2009; Nicholas, 2009; Wyman, 2011) In Chapter 3, Canagarajah examines these processes among Sri Lankan Tamil youth in diasporic settings, noting that previous sociolinguistic approaches may not apply to socially and geographically “unmoored” communities “What do we say to youth who say they can be Tamil without the Tamil language?” Canagarajah asks In a striking parallel, Nicholas (Chapter 2) examines language ideologies within a deeply

“moored” Indigenous community – Hopi – where, although the “language has a home” in youth’s cultural worlds, they, like Sri Lankan Tamil youth, increasingly perform a Hopi identity through English (see also Nicholas, 2009) McCarty et al (Chapter 1) tie these identity performances to dynamic, heteroglossic linguistic ecologies in which hybrid language practices, conflicting ideologies, and asym-metrical power relations position Indigenous youth as de facto language policy- makers; as Nicholas (Chapter 2) observes, youth both “carry out and make

language policy in their everyday social practices.”

In Chapter 5tion affects the linguistic competencies and preferences of the children and youth left behind: “What does it mean to be a good child and a good parent” in these dynamic, transmigrant settings, and how does this affect local implemen-tation of national language policies? In Chapter 9, Martin- Jones explores how Welsh young adults negotiate the disjuncts between their college and work

, King and Haboud ask the “unasked questions” of how migra-“worlds of literacy,” examining the implications for vocational higher education and national language politics And Ramanathan (Chapter 10) shows how Muslim, Christian, and Jewish female college students in Gujarat, India, are dis-privileged by vernacular- medium education that excludes their ethnolinguistic and religious identities – pedagogical practices that reflect official language policy but which, Ramanathan argues, embody tacit policies of “vernacular chauvinism.”

Intersecting with Martin- Jones’s and Ramanathan’s ethnographic critiques of LPP in higher education, Hopson, Jaffe, Hill and May, and Combs et al take up the role of pre- K–12 education as an agent of language spread, shift, mainte-nance, and revitalization As instruments of the state and (in Hopson’s chapter) the church, schools are prime promulgators of those institutional interests Yet these authors show that schools can be sites of self- empowerment for minori-tized communities as well (cf Hornberger, 2008) In his examination of lan-guage policy in colonial Namibia, Hopson (Chapter 4) unpacks the quiet but relentless “unplanned language planning” (Baldauf, 1993/1994; Eggington, 2002)

ized resistance to Afrikaans and the struggle for independence St Mary’s School fueled the “largest spread of English through schooling in Namibia,” Hopson writes, while serving as an emblem of Namibians’ “hopes for English” as a vehicle for liberation Problematizing the essentializing categories of “language” and “speaker” in LPP research, Jaffe’s micro- ethnographic examination of a Cor-sican language lesson throws into relief broader issues of authenticity and lan-guage identity, and the contradictions inherent in relying on schools for language reclamation As she shows, school- based revitalization not only creates the potential for more heritage language speakers and use; it also (re)defines language identities by “creating new communities of practice and meaning.” Hill and May (Chapter 6) illuminate issues of acquisition planning in Maori-–

at St Mary’s High School at Odibo, where English- medium instruction symbol-medium schooling, addressing the often neglected question of the academic benefits of language revitalization programs (cf McCarty, 1998, 2003, 2010) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods, these authors show how edu-cators at Rakaumanga School in Aotearoa/New Zealand (re)shape the school language policy to promote students’ biliteracy development simultaneously with Ma-ori language and culture reclamation Combs, González, and Moll (Chapter 7) examine acquisition planning in a language- restrictive environment

in the southwestern US Ethnography in this case foregrounds the links between macro- level discourses of “immigration as dangerous waters,” official English, and micro- level interruptions of those discourses whereby bilingual teachers and students reposition Latino children’s home language and culture as resources for learning

Classroom Practitioners and the LPP “Meso Space”

The latter studies foreshadow the book’s contributions to a second artery of LPP research: the role of education practitioners as de facto language planners and policy- makers The origins of this line of research begin with Cazden et al.’s

classic (1972) Functions of Language in the Classroom In a 1996 theme issue of

TESOL Quarterly, Ricento and Hornberger position this work squarely within

the field of LPP, arguing that English- language teachers often act as ive agents who, through their practice, can promote social change (p 418) In a

transformat-nary floodlights” on practitioner agency and the “complex interplays between policies, pedagogic practices, institutional constraints, and migrations” (p 459)

2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- A2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- growing2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- ethnographic2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- literature2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- theorizes2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- LPP2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- in2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- the2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- “meso2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- space”2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- of2007 theme issue of the same journal, Ramanathan and Morgan recast “discipli- teach-ers’ and students’ communities of practice (Wenger, 1998): Balter (2006), Patrick (2008), and Watanabe (2006) provide critical ethnographic analyses of the impact

A growing ethnographic literature theorizes LPP in the “meso space” of teach-of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act on Native American teachers, learners, communities, and schools; Hornberger and Johnson (2007) compare national policy implementation in the School District of Philadelphia and Bolivia; David Johnson (2007, 2009, 2010) examines bilingual educators’ appropriation of top- down federal policies in Philadelphia; Eric Johnson (2008) and Stritikus and Wiese (2006) analyze practitioners’ roles in bilingual education policy implemen-tation in Arizona and California, respectively (states with twin “English for the Children” language- restrictive laws); Warhol (2010) undertakes an interpretive policy analysis of the 1990/1992 (US) Native American Languages Act; Menken and García (2010) explore educators’ “hand in hand” policy implementation and policy- making across an international range of cultural and linguistic settings; and a host of recent edited volumes provide ethnographic insights into the role

of education practitioners in “(re)imagining multilingual schools” (García, Skutnabb- Kangas, & Torres- Guzmán, 2006b; see also Heller & Martin- Jones, 2001; Hornberger, 2003b; Lin & Martin, 2005; Martin- Jones & Jones, 2000)

How Are Language Users “Disciplined” through Explicit and Implicit

Policies? Whose Interests Are Served? How Do Minoritized Communities

Exercise Agency in the Face of Oppressive Language Policies?

In the present volume, Hill and May analyze the educational impact of changing policy emphases at the school level for Ma-ori students; Hopson traces historically and ethnographically the appropriation of the colonial language for Namibian emancipation; Combs et al use ethnographic microanalysis to reveal the “exu-berant interruptions” of official English- only policies in two Latino- serving schools; McCarty et al highlight the ways in which Indigenous teacher- researchers reclaim endangered mother tongues; and Martin- Jones documents the central role of bilingual tutors and their students in a grass- roots campaign for the normalization of Welsh in public life In each case, critical ethnographic inquiry enables us to see how practitioners and students, working in the meso spaces of classrooms, communities, and schools, open up new ideological and

implementational possibilities for “counterpoised” micro- and macro- level change (Hornberger, 2006; López, 2008) As Combs et al (Chapter 7 in this volume) write, this reflects a critical ethnographic stance “that blurs the relation-ship between research and praxis.”

Critical Ethnography and LPP Praxis: Toward a “Moral World

Community”

How Can We Use Our Ethnographies to Build a Socially Just World?

The discussion above points us toward the final contribution of this volume I will highlight here: the authors’ head- on engagement with knotty issues of research ethics and the meaning of our ethnographic work for larger democra-tizing goals All the chapter authors have long histories of experience with the communities with whom they work Some explicitly position themselves as cul-tural insiders All embrace an ethic of respect, responsibility, and reciprocity (Brayboy & McCarty, 2010), as exemplified by Canagarajah’s and Nicholas’s long- term work with their heritage language communities, McCarty et al.’s and Martin- Jones’s research collaborations with local stakeholders, Hopson’s “recon-structed” liberatory ethnography, Hill and May’s application of Kaupapa Ma-ori research principles, Combs et al.’s attention to Latino “educational sovereign-ties,” King and Haboud’s use of Indigenous testimonials, Jaffe’s search for a

munities, Ramanathan’s critique of translated texts “rife with severings and deracinations,” Gilmore’s emphasis on the agentive roles of young children, Hornberger and Johnson’s championing of linguistic diversity, and Collins’ insistence on a “better ethnography” that confronts the widening social and eco-nomic polarization in the world As Martin- Jones (Chapter 9 in this volume) points out, ethnography can illuminate the consequences of LPP decisions for those most closely involved; it can, Hill and May (Chapter 6) assert, “allow the actions and voices of the central actors to be seen and heard.” This is paramount

“middle ground” that produces knowledge of use to endangered- language com-in mak“middle ground” that produces knowledge of use to endangered- language com-ing ethnography useful to a broader policy public and to those with and for whom we work

The notion of ethnography as a reflexive, critical, and democratizing science is

a quality we hope rings throughout every chapter of this book In Reinventing

Anthropology, Hymes (1974b) argues passionately for just such an ethnography –

one “for people for whom ‘the way things are’ is not reason enough for the way things are” – an ethnography that helps build “a world culture that is a moral community” (pp 7, 53) Lacking this commitment, Hymes adds, “our work will drift backward into the service of domination” (1974b, p 54)

Theorizing Micro, Meso, and Macro in Ethnographies of

Language Policy

In 1989, linguistic anthropologists Robert Bauman and Joel Sherzer introduced

the second edition of their book, Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, by

calling for a radically different means of examining speech as a “theoretically and practically crucial aspect of human social life” (p 3) The ethnography of com-munication offered such a means of investigating the creative and performative role of talk as part of a larger cultural system and an instrument for the structur-ing of society So too does the present volume examine language policy as part of

a larger cultural system and a “crucial aspect of human social life.” Just as earlier ethnographers of communication sought to go beyond the analysis of language

as an abstract entity, the ethnographers here push beyond the study of language policies as abstract, disembodied texts, putting policy in motion (cf Rosaldo, 1989) by looking closely and critically at the human- built environments in which policy performs its social role

I close with three metaphors that illuminate how ethnography can help us

do this The first is a return to Ricento and Hornberger’s (1996) notion of

“unpeeling the onion” used to analyze teachers’ appropriation of official guage policy texts The outer layers of the onion represent broader policy pro-cesses (e.g., Proposition 203 in Combs et al.’s Arizona study, English- only in Hopson’s Namibian study, “guaranteed” intercultural education in King and Haboud’s study of migration and Quichua language shift) The interior layers represent local policy accommodations, resistances, and transformations as they occur in everyday practice Like an onion, all layers of the policy process – national, institutional, intergroup, and interpersonal – intersect and conjoin

lan-By “slicing the onion ethnographically” (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007), we can attend to the fine- grained detail of each layer and its positioning within an organic whole.10 Similarly, in their examination of bilingual education policy implementation in post- Proposition 227 (“English for the Children”) Califor-nia, Stritikus and Wiese (2006) use the metaphor of “deep dish analysis” – an ethnographic positioning that allows the researcher to move beyond top- down policy constructs to the level of teachers’ practice where policy actually takes shape (cf Menken & García, 2010) And, in her study of Francophone adoles-cents in Canada, Heller (1999) employs the metaphor of the ethnographic kaleidoscope in which “[t]here are several sets of patterned colours, each one representing a facet of the story” (p 6) In the chapters that follow, we can imagine turning the metaphorical tube of mirrors on the ethnographic data, each turn offering a distinct but complementary view into the focal project as a whole

esses in fine detail – up close and in practice – and the marbling of those proc-esses as they merge and diverge, constantly configuring and being (re)configured within a larger sociocultural landscape, which they in turn (re)shape In a 1995 interview with educational anthropologists Ray McDermott and Fred Erickson, George Spindler put it this way: “[T]he smallest part of the whole seems to reflect the whole if we know how to read it” (McDermott & Erickson, 2000, p 11) To this we can add a further dimension of the ethnographic enterprise: If we know

This is what a critical ethnographic perspective gets us: a view into LPP proc-“how to read it,” we have within our grasp the means to transform the inequities that a close ethnographic reading reveals This too is the project of the present

volume – a project we invite you, our readers, to join.

1 Wright also notes that as an informal activity, LPP “is as old as language itself ” and is integral “in the distribution of power and resources in all societies” (2004, p 1).

2 Wiley draws this comparison between Tollefson’s neoclassical/historical- structural framework and Street’s autonomous/ideological model of literacy: “Taken together, they demonstrate a strikingly parallel approach to underlying assumptions in the fields

of language and literacy planning, policy and instruction Both authors maintain that the neoclassical- autonomous camp has generally been dominant, and both conclude that this approach has been limited by its lack of concern with social, historical, and ideological contexts” (1996, p 116; cf Street, 1984, 1993) Those contexts are of central importance to the approach taken here Compare this discussion of rationalist and critical approaches to language policy with Levinson et al.’s (2009) tracing of the evo- lution of critical approaches in education policy research that emerged over roughly the same time period.

3 I thank David Cassels Johnson and Nancy Hornberger for stimulating conversations that helped clarify this definition of language policy in social practice.

4 The emic–etic distinction derives from a linguistic analogy proposed by Kenneth Pike

(1967), contrasting phonemics – the tacit knowledge of a sound system possessed by native speakers (“insider” knowledge) – and phonetics – the study of sound systems

ogists and others (e.g., Headland, Pike, & Harris, 1990), but are commonly understood

6 For further reading on the origins and development of educational anthropology, see Spindler (1984, 2000b), and Wax (2002) For readings on the anthropological founda- tions of education, see Ianni and Storey (1973), Levinson et al (2000), and Wax, Diamond, and Gearing (1971).

7 For more on the anthropological tradition in linguistics, see Hymes (1974b[1969]); on the ethnography of communication, see Hymes (1974a, 1974b), Bauman and Sherzer (1989), Saville- Troike (2003), and Hymes’s introduction in Cazden et al (1972) For more on the connections between the ethnography of communication and education, see Hymes (1980), and McKay and Hornberger (1996), particularly Parts III, IV, and

Hornberger’s concluding essay A 2009 theme issue of Text and Talk provides a

multi- maert, 2009; Rampton, 2009); his contributions to ethnography in education (Hornberger, 2009a); the relationship of his ethnopoetics to social action (Scollon & Scollon, 2009) and larger institutional inequities (Collins, 2009); and his paradigm of culturally embedded child language socialization (Ervin- Tripp, 2009).

faceted view of Hymes’s critically reflexive, anti- hegemonic theory of language (Blom- 8 temporaries Franz Boas and W E B Du Bois, see Baker (1998) “The efforts of Boas and Du Bois to change how scientists and the public understood race and culture,” Baker writes, “were not simply efforts to shift a paradigm, they were struggles to secure the principles of democracy” (p 100).

For an excellent treatment of the roots of an activist social science in the work of con- 9 noble and Whaley (1998, 2008); Harrison (2007); Hinton and Hale (2001); Huss, Grima, and King (2003); King et al (2008b); Nettle and Romaine (2000); Reyhner (2006); St Clair and Leap (1982); Treuer (2006); and Tsunoda (2005).

For additional works on language endangerment and renewal, see Crystal (2000); Gre-10 Menken and García (2010) extend the onion metaphor, urging us to attend more closely to education practitioners “as stirrers of the onion, producing the dynamism that moves the performances of all of the actors” (p 259).

Estonian Free Press Online Available at: www.estonianfreepress.com/2010/02/estonia-

stuck-between- wage-range- trends-and- inequalities/ (accessed 24 April 2010).

Baker, C (1992) Attitudes and language Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, L D (1998) From savage to Negro: Anthropology and the construction of race, 1896–1954 Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Berman, M (2010, January 25) Outrage over English- only policy

at Connecticut book-store Opposing Views Online Available at: www.opposingviews.com/i/outrage-

over-english- only-policy- at-connecticut- bookstore (accessed 24 April 2010).

Blommaert, J (2009) Ethnography and democracy: Hymes’s political theory of language Text and Talk, 29 (3), 257–276.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K (2005) Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic

approach Discourse Studies, 7 (4–5), 585–614.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K (2008) All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguis-tics Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12 (4), 401–431.

Canagarajah, A S (ed.) (2005a) Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice

Collins, J (2009) The place of narrative in human affairs: The implications of Hymes’s

Amerindian work for understanding text and talk Text and Talk, 29 (3), 325–345 Cooper, R L (1989) Language planning and social change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

contro-Crystal, D (2000) Language death Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Daijiworld Media Network (2010, February 5) Panaji: Konkani is the fundamental

element of Goan identity: Eduardo UAExchange Online Available at: www.daijiworld.

com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=71804&n_tit=Panaji%3A+Konkani+is+the+Fundame ntal+Element+of+Goan+Identity%3A+Eduardo (accessed 24 April 2010).

Darnell, R (1998) And along came Boas: Continuity and revolution in Americanist pology Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

anthro-Davis, K A (1994) Language planning in multilingual contexts: Policies, communities, and schools in Luxembourg Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Dorian, N (1981) Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Dorian, N C (ed.) (1989) Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eggington, W (1997) Unplanned language planning In A B Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp 404–415) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Email Razor (2010, February 6) NHL Potty mouth police Online Available at: http:// blog.dallasstars.com/archives/2010/01/nhl_potty_mouth.html (accessed 24 April 2010).

Ervin- Tripp, S M (2009) Hymes on speech socialization Text and Talk, 29 (3), 245–256 Fairclough, N (2001) Language and power (2nd edition) Harlow, UK: Longman/Pearson

Education.

Fasold, R W (1984) Sociolinguistics of society Oxford, UK/New York, NY: Basil Blackwell Fettes, M (1997) Language planning and education In R Wodak & D Corson (eds), Lan- guage policy and political issues in education (pp 13–22) Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Kluwer.

Field, M C., & Kroskrity, P V (eds) (2009) Introduction: Revealing Native American lan-guage ideologies In P V Kroskrity & M C Field (eds), Native American language ogies: Beliefs, practices, and struggles in Indian Country (pp 3–28) Tucson, AZ:

ideol-University of Arizona Press.

Fishman, J A (1968a) Sociolinguistics and the language problems of the developing

countries In J A Fishman, C A Ferguson, & J Das Gupta (eds), Language problems of developing nations (pp 3–16) New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Fishman, J A (ed.) (1968b) Readings in the sociology of language The Hague: Mouton Fishman, J A (ed.) (1986) Language rights and the English language amendment Special issue, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 60.

Fishman, J A (1991) Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J (1996) Maintaining languages: What works? What doesn’t? In G Cantoni

(ed.), Stabilizing Indigenous languages (pp 186–198) Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona

Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M (eds) (2010) Forbidden language: English learners and tive language policies New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

restric-García, O., Schiffman, H., & Zakharia, Z (2006a) Fishmanian sociolinguistics (1949 to the

present) In O García, R Peltz, H Schiffman, & G S Fishman (eds), Language loyalty, continuity and change: Joshua A Fishman’s contributions to international sociolinguistics

(pp 3–68) Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

García, O., Skutnabb- Kangas, T., & Torres- Guzmán, M E (eds) (2006b) Imagining lingual schools: Languages in education and glocalization Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

occa-Haugen, E (1972b) The ecology of language: Essays by Einar

Haugen Stanford, CA: Stan-ford University Press.

Headland, T H., Pike, K L., & Harris, M (eds) (1990) Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate Frontiers in anthropology, 7 London: Sage.

Heath, S B (1983) Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and rooms Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

class-Heath, S B., & Street, B., with Mills, M (2008) On ethnography: Approaches to language and literacy research New York, NY: Teachers College Press and National Conference on

Heller, M., & Martin- Jones, M (eds) (2001) Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference Westport, CT: Ablex.

Henze, R., & Davis, K A (guest eds) (1999) Authenticity and identity: Lessons from genous language education Special issue, Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 30 (1) Hinton, L., & Hale, K (eds) (2001) The green book of language revitalization in practice

Hornberger, N H (1996b) Indigenous literacies in the Americas In N H Hornberger

(ed.), Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning from the bottom up (pp

3–16) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hornberger, N H (2001) Educational linguistics as a field: A view from Penn’s program

on the occasion of its 25th anniversary Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 17

Hornberger, N H., & Johnson, D C (2007) Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers

and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice TESOL Quarterly, 41

Hymes, D (1974a) Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach Philadelphia,

PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hymes, D (1974b[1969]) The use of anthropology: Critical, political, personal In D

Hymes (ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp 3–79) New York, NY: Random House Hymes, D (1980) Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays Washington, DC: Center

for Applied Linguistics.

Ianni, F A J., & Storey, E (1971) Preface In F A J Ianni & E Storey (eds), Cultural ance and educational issues: Readings in anthropology and education Boston, MA: Little,

Johnson, D C (2010) Implementational and ideological spaces in bilingual education

language policy International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13 (1),

Lambert, W E., Hodgson, R C., Gardner, R C., & Fillenbaum, S (1960) Evaluating reac-tions to spoken language Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 44–51.

Lee, T S (2007) “If they want Navajo to be learned, then they should require it in all schools”: Navajo teenagers’ experiences, choices, and demands regarding Navajo lan-

guage Wicazo Sa Review, Spring, 7–33.