Active critical language awareness: an innovative approach to language pedagogy.

Terri Menacker

Unpublished ESL 612 term paper, Department of ESL, University of Hawai'I, 1998.

Introduction

About two years ago, our department of ESL had a brown bag session focused around critical pedagogy. At some point in the question and answer section, a faculty member made a comment. The gist of the comment was that critical pedagogy seemed to make sense in certain disciplines, like history, for example, but that the subject matter of language instruction didn't seem suited to critical pedagogy. At the same time, instructors in the English Language Institute, in an effort to introduce a critical component into their courses, focus on controversial topics such as same-sex marriage. Across campus and, across the state, students struggle to suppress the language variety they have grown up speaking based on the belief that it is bad, wrong, inferior. Community languages other than English are also looked down upon and ignored as a resource for language education.

In this paper, I discuss an approach which I believe has something to offer in all of these areas. I propose a critical pedagogy focused on language issues --one which employs students as ethnographers of language and culture in their own communities -- as a natural and needed part of language instruction across the curriculum. Although linguists have grown greatly in their understanding of language in society, virtually none of this knowledge makes its way to the general public. English in the public schools nearly always excludes this type of study in favor of learning parts of speech, prescriptive grammar rules and literature. Likewise ESL and foreign language instruction offer little or no understanding of language variation or issues of language is society.

The approach proposed here draws on language awareness as developed in Great Britain in the 1970s and `80s, critical pedagogy, critical language awareness, and approaches which train students as ethnographers of language and culture. I will begin with a brief history and description of language awareness programs, examine the rationale for combining elements of critical pedagogy with a language awareness approach, and argue for the incorporation of recent pedagogical approaches which seek to make students active researchers of language in their own communities. Finally, I will present a rationale for the use of active critical language awareness (ACLA) in various contexts across the curriculum.

Language awareness

The language awareness curriculum is an approach to language education which goes beyond those topics usually covered in first or second language instruction in order to promote greater understanding of the ways in which language functions in society. Language awareness approaches emerged out of Britain, in part, as a response to government reports and other indications of dissatisfaction with English and foreign language education in pubic schooling (for a detailed account see Hawkins, 1987). Donmall (1985, in Wolfram, 1998) defines language awareness as "a person's sensitivity to and conscious awareness of the nature of language and its role in human life". Wolfram (1998) writes that

A language awareness program may concentrate on a cognitive parameter, in which the focus is on the patterns of language, an affective parameter, in which the focus is on attitudes about language, or a social parameter, in which the focus is on the role of language in effective communication and interaction. (p. 172)

The idea of language awareness has grown to encompass language across the curriculum and brought about collaborations between teachers of English, ESL, and other languages (Cheshire and Edwards, 1998). Hawkins (1987) describes a curriculum in which students learn about basic principles of linguistics including sociolinguistic perspectives on language and topics such as language variation and change. Students practice skills such as learning to listen for particular language features and finding patterns in language. Understandings and approaches are intended to aid students in their acquisition of various registers of English (including the standard, academic variety) and also in learning other languages. The approach is also meant to combat linguistic parochialism and lead to the perception of the large number of immigrant speakers of languages other than English in the public schools as a resource rather than a problem. Students engage in making explicit features of their knowledge of their mother tongues. Immigrant students learn from the explorations of native speakers and visa-versa.

Critical language awareness

Although traditional language awareness approaches may deal to some extent with issues of language and power, particularly with reference to non-standard dialects, they tend more towards description than towards deconstruction of language and power in society and do not challenge the status quo. Fairclough (1992) faults language awareness programs for not taking a more critical perspective on language issues and calls for a change to critical language awareness (CLA) in an approach which draws on the theories of Habermas and other European theorists (rather than on Freire and American critical theorists).

Fairclough and others (Fairclough, 1992; Clark and Ivanic, 1992) challenge language awareness approaches which merely describe without critiquing and seek to solve social problems through the promotion of attitude changes such as acceptance of language variation. Language awareness programs are criticized for assuming that they can equalize social inequities and the impact of cultural capital, since seeking to teach mainstream linguistic practices without properly critiquing them effectively legitimizes the valuing of prestige language varieties. Notions such as appropriateness (of standard and non-standard varieties in different circumstances) are seen as serving to perpetuate the marginalization of non-standard varieties.

Although many language awareness advocates would perhaps pay cursory attention to social and political dimensions of language, Clark and Ivanic (1991) argue against any separation of language from the social contexts which shape it:

... language forms cannot be considered independently of the ways they are used to communicate in context. Further, individual acts of communication in context cannot be considered independently of the social forces which have set up the conventions of appropriacy for that context. (p.170)

Researchers in the U.S. and elsewhere have also advocated pedagogical approaches which could be described as critical language awareness although they themselves may not label them as such (Delpit, 1988; Sato, 1989 Egan-Robertson & Bloome, 1998; Zentella, 1997). Each is to some extent unique in approach. Delpit (1988) and Sato (1989), for example, use notions like "appropriateness" for standard and non-standard varieties while at the same time introducing critical perspectives and calling for change at gate-keeping points.

Critical perspectives in the language classroom

Attempts to integrate a critical perspective into language pedagogy have often been criticized as inappropriate by many or have been restricted to particular populations such as adult immigrants. Critical language awareness programs can provide relevant content from a critical perspective which would enhance a wide range of first, second and foreign language education programs. This will be described more fully in the sections detailing particular educational settings below.

Critical language awareness may be able to avoid some of the conflicts and institutional constraints which have operated against the incorporation of critical pedagogy into language classes. One typical conflict which emerges is a clash between what instructors operating from a critical perspective feel is appropriate content for a course and the conceptions and expectations of students and administrators (as is the case in the example given in the introduction). Critical language awareness has as its subject matter language and language related matters and thus may avoid some of this type of conflict.

Certain forms of CLA might be considered weak if they do not act for change in the outside world. I would argue that the most profound kinds of changes can be attitude changes, particularly changes in attitude towards one's own language variety. While CLA does not preclude action on the outside world and may well seek it, many of its most profound results are likely to be in attitude. It is differences in attitude and ideology which have resulted in less than complete implementation of legal decisions supporting bilingual education in the Lau vs. Nichols case (Wang, 1976) and Ebonics in the King case. Legal and other types of action will be limited in success until fundamental understandings of language in society change in the population at large, or at least those responsible for implementing legal and policy change (Ricento and Hornberger, 1996)

Nonetheless, criticisms by Fairclough and others of relying solely on attitudes to accomplish change are valid. Work on changing attitudes must be simultaneous with continual political and legal vigilance in the protection of and advocacy for language rights. Educators, linguists and others with an understanding of the issues must continue to push the edges of the envelope in terms of the status and power of stigmitized language varieties. Economic and political realities will often make this an arduous task.

Students as ethnographers of language and culture

Critical language awareness approaches can be strengthened by requiring students to develop skills used in sociolinguistic and ethnographic research in order to become proficient at observing, analyzing and evaluating language use in the world around them (Egan-Robertson & Bloome, 1998). This is consonant with critical approaches (Freire, 1970) in that knowledge is located within the student and the community rather than solely with experts and published materials. This differs from the traditional ways in which students are asked to do research. Students are not asked to merely regurgitate library research nor do they carry out laboratory type experiments for which teachers have already determined the answers (Egan-Robertson & Bloome, 1998). They become creators of knowledge rather than merely consumers of it. This approach has been embraced and elaborated upon by the contributors to the Egan-Robertson and Bloome volume (1998), as well as other educational theorists and researchers (for example, Glowka & Lance, 1993). Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (1998) employ this approach for dialect awareness programs in the public schools.

Active critical language awareness

The approach argued for here can be called "active critical language awareness". This approach draws on the British approaches for bringing basic sociolinguistic understandings into language education across the curriculum. It incorporates critical approaches which require language to be examined in social contexts with attention to power relationships, and which seek to change linguistic discrimination within and outside of classroom contexts. Finally, the approach is "active" in the sense that these understandings are not merely presented to students; rather they are encouraged and helped to become active investigators of language usage and language and power relationships in the world around them.

This last feature is consistent with current theoretical perspectives on second language acquisition which point to the importance of noticing key features of the target language in authentic, communicative contexts (Schmidt, 1991). Current pedagogical approaches offer little in the way of training language students to observe and analyze target language samples in systematic ways. I would argue that this feature is key to helping students understand the true nature of language usage and variation and to providing them with the skills necessary to become lifelong language learners.

CONTEXT

In order to understand what active critical language awareness (ACLA)has to offer the world of language education it will be helpful to examine its application in various contexts.

Foreign language instruction

British language awareness programs use language awareness as a preparation for and transition to foreign language education. Students discuss variation in world languages, examine data (from student bilingual informants when possible) and look for patterns in the ways languages express thought. Such programs seek to develop understandings based in part on making explicit students' knowledge about their mother tongues (Donmall, 1991). These understandings include the rule-based nature of language, the possibility of breaking these rules and still being able to communicate, differences between spoken and written language, the lack of word-for-word equivalencies between languages and differences in syntax and inflection between languages (Donmall, 1991). The use of knowledge about variation in the first language and real language data present a picture different from that resulting from the strong prescriptivist traditions typical in foreign language education.

True understanding of any language will include an understanding of variation and registers which change with context. The assumption of monolithic, prescriptivist norms of language in foreign language education often results in great surprise on the part of students when they find that real language use differs substantially from idealized versions of standard language usage. This assumption also impacts negatively on bilingual education programs which may not acknowledge the fact that students come to school speaking neither of the standard varieties offered as the languages of instruction (Zentella, 1997; Merino et al, 1993). Training students to collect and analyze speech samples themselves and to understand power relationships embedded in language usage may help them to function more successfully in the target language discourse community.

Such approaches have been more fully realized in American programs which use students as researchers of language (Egan-Robertson & Bloome, 1998; Glowka & Lance, 1993; Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, 1998) than in British language awareness programs. The American approaches, however, have been used primarily for investigating variation in English rather than in foreign or second language education. A combination of the British and American approaches, one which employs students as active researchers of variation in their own language and then applies these techniques and insights gained to the task of foreign language learning, would seem to hold considerable promise.

ESL

The dialogue above is from Auerbach and Wallerstein's text ESL for Action. It illustrates a rare instance of language, attitudes, and power relationships being problematised as part of an ESL curriculum.

Supervisor: Stella, this is Duc Nguyen. Please show him the job.

American worker: Sure. What's your name again?

Vietnamese worker: Nguyen Duc.

Stella: What was that?

Duc: It's Duc.

Stella: (laughing) It sounds like Duck. I guess I'll call you Doug. My name is Stella.

Duc: Tella?

Stella: No! STELLA. S-T-E-L-L-A.

DUC: OK.

(Auerbach & Wallerstein, 1987, p. 2)

I would argue that this type of critical language awareness is a needed and valuable component to the ESL curriculum. It is in keeping with Freirian ideas of critical pedagogy. It lacks the immediate drama of "big" topics such as capital punishment, gun control, abortion or gay marriage but offers instead an opportunity to deconstruct hegemonic attitudes related to language and power with respect to common everyday occurrences. Changes in attitudes about such encounters may well bring about changes in behavior during subsequent occurrence of such events when problem posing approaches are used.

The dialogue above is the tip of an iceberg of topics related to language discrimination. Lippi-Green (1997) describes language and accent discrimination as one of the last widely-accepted back doors to discrimination. Teachers may unknowingly collude in this type of inequity through unexamined practices and ideologies. Teachers often communicate unrealistic expectations to their students in terms of overcoming linguistic barriers (Menacker, in press). While virtually all immigrant speakers of languages other than English recognize the utility of learning English, it takes many years before they are able to effectively participate in domains such as medical and legal contexts without language assistance. Activist approaches towards forcing government agencies to meet their obligations to provide services for the populations that support them (even when these populations are non-English speaking) may be an effective focus of an active critical language awareness approach.

Auerbach and Wallerstein (1987) provide an example of this in the section of their text concerning requesting that union information be translated into the languages of workers. Awareness-raising and collective community action are a necessary avenue for combating linguistic discrimination as they are for combating other forms of discrimination and is a natural part of a critical pedagogy approach to language education. There is always the danger, however, of teachers imposing there own political agendas on students in CLA as in other types of critical pedagogy. Language-related topics should only be explored when they are of interest to the community of learners involved.

In addition to arguments for ACLA approaches in ESL classes which problematise language discrimination, there is another quite different rationale for ACLA in the ESL classroom. This rationale has to do with the key role that non-standardised varieties may play in the acquisition environment of ESL students. Many ESL students live in areas where non-standard varieties are spoken. Abilities to disambiguate closely related varieties have been found to increase with language proficiency (Eisenstein, 1982). Beginners as well as those who are more advanced would benefit from instruction focused on clarifying the features of standard and non-standard codes in order to facilitate separation of the codes. Language awareness approaches can help ESL students in their acquisition of a range of appropriate varieties and registers of English by training students to look for and recognize patterns in different language varieties.

Speakers of Non-standard Varieties and Standard English as a Second Dialect (SESD)

Speakers of non-standard varieties of English are a primary population for whom language awareness programs have been developed. Learning a standard language for schooling is a remarkably common yet equally remarkably little studied phenomenon world-wide. Escure (1997; 3) points out that ... "this type of acquisition is undoubtedly more widespread for the simple reason that dialect variation is universal...there is no single human being whose repertoire is limited to only one language variety, style or dialect". Language awareness programs, particularly active critical ones, may offer the most workable approach to SESD for several reasons. In order to understand these reasons it is necessary to examine the alternatives.

The most common educational program for SESD speakers parallels the submersion alternative in bilingual education. In other words, virtually no accommodation is made for the language differences students come to school with. Sato (1989) points to research indicating very real difficulties for SESD students in both receptive and productive use of standard English. These difficulties tend to be underestimated by educators when the number of surface feature similarities between two varieties is great. Worse yet, the variety is stigmatized and considered an ignorant, unsuccessful approximation of standard English. Research from bilingual education indicates that ignoring or denigrating the language students come to school with tends to promote educational failure (Cummins, 1981; Crawford, 1997; Lucas, Henze and Donato, 1990). Students receive the message that they are deficient and believe it. A common response for SESD speakers whose speech is constantly corrected is to simply clam up.

Another approach for SESD speakers is an accommodation approach. In this approach the non-standard dialect is tolerated in some domains of classroom use but is neither the language of instruction nor an object of classroom study (Siegel, 1996). Such an approach may facilitate classroom learning and avoid overt negative sanctions for home dialect use but does not necessarily help with separation and control of the two codes nor does it address societal attitudes and common misperceptions.

An instrumental approach uses the non-standard variety in a more substantial and purposeful way. Dialect readers, for example, have been developed for speakers of AAVE and other varieties. Although there are sound theoretical reasons to begin initial literacy in the language variety children come to school with (Cummins, 1981), opposition to such approaches tends to be quite strong. This approach is seen as teaching the child the non-standard language variety that they already know and depriving them of access to the language of power (Morgan, in press).

Opposition to the use of the vernacular occurs for a wide-variety of non-standard dialects. Shnukal (1992; 1), for example, reports "... use of Torres Strait Creole (TSC) as an official educational medium in Torres Strait schools is opposed by almost every Torres Strait Islander" They see it "as a method of depriving them of instruction in the kind of English that white people use, and thus condemning them to permanent under-class status." (p. 4).

The question remains whether, as in bilingual education, use and development of the home language promotes the successful acquisition of English for schooling and school achievement. Siegel (1997) argues against "time on task" and "interference" arguments in this regard and presents evidence from a small-scale study in Papua New Guinea which indicated that participation in a Tok Pisin pre-school correlated with later school success. More research is needed to evaluate the success of programs in existence which make use of non-standard varieties in various ways.

Language awareness programs (ideally active, critical ones) offer, perhaps, the only currently viable way for dealing with stigmatised varieties in schooling in a substantive way in most locales. Negative reactions on the part of educators and community members will make implementation of more ambitious use of the home variety a constant struggle. Such has been the case in the Michigan schools since the King ruling in favor of an educational program for speakers of AAVE. Legal remedies are limited and require constant vigilance when pervasive attitudes run counter to their implementation. The Oakland school board case indicates that little has changed in this regard since the King ruling.

Rather than the ideal endpoint, language awareness programs can be seen as a necessary first step towards pedagogical response to students' home varieties. Public opinion is such that one must excercise extreme caution in how one frames even this type of educational approach. Unfortunately, in order to gain public acceptance, such approaches may need to be presented as ways of improving performance in standard English and expansion and control of linguistic repertoires rather than anything to do with acknowledgment or acceptance of the home variety. If language awareness programs are indeed implemented, perhaps they will pave the way for other uses of non-standard varieties in school.

These other uses will not be without challenges, even if attitudes are substantially changed. Two difficulties which may arise with respect to instrumental or developmental use of non-standardised varieties are decisions about which form of the variety to use and issues of segregation. Non-standardised varieties vary precisely because they are not standardised. Difficult decisions would have to be made about standards if the variety was to be used in written work. As languages of resistance (Sato, 1989) they may resist appropriation and incorporation into institutions like schools since becoming the medium of instruction requires enough stability in the variety to produce texts which can be used for several years. This may be in conflict with the functions described, for example, by Snukal (1992; 4) with respect to Torres Strait Creole which is used "...to show Islander Solidarity and to hide things from Europeans". Until teachers and schools cease to represent the dominating group (not the current trend, cf. Osborne, 1997), this will present another obstacle to the use of non-standardised varieties in education.

The issue of segregating standard and non-standard dialect speakers may also accompany proposals for use of non-standard varieties in instruction. Such segregation may deprive SESD learners of valuable interaction with target language speakers. An important feature of LA programs is that they don't segregate or need to segregate students according to language variety. Language awareness approaches needn't, and indeed, shouldn't, be confined to speakers of stigmatized varieties. There is ample evidence that lay knowledge of language variation and sociolinguistics, particularly from a critical perspective, lags far beyond the development of knowledge amongst linguists. The recent Ebonics controversy highlighted the fact that public opinion has changed little or not at all since the same issues were addressed in the King case which dealt with the same issues more than twenty years earlier (while the Linguistics Society of America resolution indicated a great degree of consensus amongst linguists about the issues concerned).

Although educators can inform attitudes about language varieties, language awareness programs are not seen as a panacea to complex relationships between speakers of stigmatised varieties and dominant groups. Attitudes range from resistance to acquisition of a language associated with an oppressive group (frequently strengthened by schooling which produces shame in speakers of the stigmatized variety) to rejection of any use of the stigmatized variety in schooling (seen as a co-opting or institutionalization of languages of resistance or as denial of access to the language of power). The following quotes illustrate some of the complexities involved.

There has never been an entire consensus among linguist that it is desirable to teach the standard variety to speakers of nonstandard English. Some have considered this objective unachievable because a condition for success would be that the nonstandard dialect speakers identify with the speakers of the standard variety, and often that precondition is not met. (Bryen, Hartman, and Tait, 1978; p.23)

Although currently there is quite a bit of consensus concerning the first point, the second point remains unanswered. Labov's related point (1964, cited in Malcolm, 1992) also continues to need to be addressed:

How is it that young people who are exposed to the Standard English of their teachers for twelve years cannot reproduce this style for twelve minutes in a job interview? The problem is parallel to the more serious question as to how a student can sit through eight to ten years of school without learning to read more than a few words. Those who feel that they can solve this problem by experimenting with the machinery of the learning process are measuring small causes against large effects. My own feeling is that the primary interference with the acquisition of Standard English stems from a conflict of value systems.

Some educators have sought to resolve these conflicts by introducing Standard English usage as a kind of role playing (Delpit, 1988; Ovington, 1992). For younger students, this may be accompanied by a change in hats or other symbolic gestures. Ovington (1992) sees such approaches as key when attempting to learn the language of power while preventing "whitefella values" from being absorbed. Standard speech is always seen to accompany a role played identity not a real one.

Issues of the role of non-standard varieties in the acquisition of standard varieties and their role in schooling in general are complex. For the reasons discussed above, language awareness programs appear to be the most likely candidate for improving educational prospects and informing decision making where non-standard dialects are concerned.

Conclusions

Because language awareness is such a broad term, it has been used to describe a wide variety of research perspectives and pedagogical approaches. Escholz, Rosa and Clark (1986) in their volume Language Awareness present essays by well-known writers on language-related topics along with comprehension questions, vocabulary exercises and writing assignments. The underlying ideology of this text is at odds with that of other conceptions of language awareness in that it can be seen to lend support to belief in degenerate codes, language deficit and subtractive bilingualism. Language Awareness in the Classroom (James & Garrett, 1991) includes such diverse topics as consciousness-raising about the writing process, the use of authentic texts in foreign language classrooms, and the effect of explicit instruction on acquisition of English grammatical structures. The British approach focuses K-12 education in English, contrastive analysis of varieties of English and preparation for learning additional languages. The active critical language awareness approach described here includes aspects of basic sociolinguistics, critical understandings of language and power, comparative analysis of language systems and collection and analysis of authentic language data.

Unlike the United Kingdom and several other European countries, the U.S. has had no large-scale implementation of language awareness programs. The time is ripe to reconceptualize what we consider to be the key components of language education. Vast differences between the understandings of linguists and that of the general public have emerged with respect to issues of language in society and they will continue to emerge until there are changes in our approaches to language education. It is time to rethink what type of knowledge and skills would most benefit students of language today. It may not be an ability to read Milton, diagram a sentence or recite a memorized dialogue but rather abilities to observe and analyze language in the world around us and to be able to use these observations and analyses to expand linguistic repertoires and grow in understanding of language in society. Part of understanding language in society is developing critical perspectives which look at language and power and encourage students to seek change where appropriate.

It is incumbent on language researchers and professionals to seek ways to disseminate knowledge which may be of use to the larger community. Considering the centrality of language to issues of identity and power, active critical language awareness programs would be ideal towards this end.

References

Cheshire, J. & V. Edwards (1998). Knowledge about language in British classrooms: Children as researchers. In Egan-Robertson & Bloome (Eds.).

Clark, R. and Ivanic, R. (1992). Consciousnes-raising about the writing process. In James & Garrett (Eds.).

Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual Education: History, Theory and Practice. Trenton, NJ: Crane.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary langauge developments in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California Department of Education, Ed., Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review 58(3):280-298.

Egan-Robertson, A. & D. Bloome (Eds.) (1998). Students as researchers of culture and language in their own communities. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton.

Escholz, P., Rosa, A., & Clark, V (Eds.). (1986). Language awareness (4th edition). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Escure, G. (1997). Creole and dialect continua. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Glowka, W. & Lance, D. (1993). Language variation in North American English: Research and testing. New York: Modern Language Association of America.

Hawkins, E. (1987). Awareness of language: An introduction (revised edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.

James, C. & Garrett, P. (Eds.) (1992). Language awareness in the classroom. New York: Longman.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent. New York: Rutledge.

Lucas, T.; Henze, R.; and Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language-minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review 60(3): 315 - 340.

Menacker, T. (In press). Strangers in paradise: Access and equity in multilingual Hawai`i. In Grundy, Benson and Skutnab-Kangas (Eds.) Access to language rights. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Merino et al (Eds.) (1993).Language and culture in learning: Teaching Spanish to native speakers of Spanish. Washington, D.C.: Falmer.

Morgan, M. (In press). Heubner, T. & Davis, K. Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Osborne, Barry. (1996). Practice into theory into practice: Culturally relevant pedagogy for students we have marginalized and normalized. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 27(3):285-314.

Ricento, T. & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly. 30(3): 401 - 427.

Sato, C. (1989). A nonstandard approach to standard English. TESOL Quarterly 23(2): 259-282.

Schmidt, Richard. (1991). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2): 129-58.

Siegel, J. (1997). Using a pidgin language in formal education: help or hindrance? Applied Linguistics, 18, 86-100.

Siegel, J. (1998). Applied creolistics in the 21st century. Paper presented at the Society of Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. New York.

Wang, L. Ling-Chi. (1976). Lau vs. Nichols: History of a struggle for equal and quality education. In Emma Gee, Ed., Counterpoint: Perspectives on Asian America. Los Angeles, CA: Asian American Studies Center at UCLA.

Wolfram, W. (1998). Dialect awareness and the study of language. In Egan-Robertson &Bloome (Eds.).

Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N. (1998). American English. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Zentella, A.C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.