 |
In the globalized world where the cultures, languages, and
politics are becoming increasingly interwoven and complex, the
importance of research on bilingual and biliterate development can
hardly be ignored. To effectively educate, peacefully coexist and
promote economic progress it is imperative to prepare students to
communicate in multiple languages orally and in writing. If scholarship
on bilingualism has found its niche in the field of education,
linguistics, psychology, a particular component of biliteracy
development – bilingual writing – yet still needs to determine where it
stands in the current state of affairs. Fitzgerald (2006) in the review
of Multilingual Writing in Preschool through 12th Grade: The
Last 15 Years has stated that out of the 60 articles examined
for the study few generalizations could be made about what has been
accomplished in the area of bilingual and multilingual writing due to
the lack of rigorous methodology, information about the measures,
intercoder reliability, and number of analyzed writing
samples.
The recent increase in the scholarship on second language
writing has not yielded itself to the studies on writing development on
more than one language. Most of the research has focused on various
aspects of writing in English as a foreign/second language with meager
amount of research on Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and a few others. As
Gort (2002) summarizes most writing research has looked at one language
or the other, but not both. The main research focus has been on the
development of English (L2) writing (Chelala, 1981; Cumming, 1989;
Friedlander, 1990; Halsall, 1986; Holmes & Moulton, 1994;
Hudelson, 1989; Jones, 1982; Lay (1982); Peyton, 1990; Pfingstag, 1984;
Raimes, 1985, 1987; Seda & Abramson, 1990; Urzua, 1987; Wald,
1987; Zamel, 1982, 1983) (p. 6).
The scholarship on second language writing thus maintained a
largely monolingual view on bilingual/multilingual writing criticized by
Grosjean (1985, 1989), Moll, Saez, and Dworin (2001), Valdes (1992).
The paucity of research on bilingual writing has also been influenced by
the relative scarcity of studies on becoming literate in two languages,
or more (Moll et al., 2001). The small number of theoretical frameworks
to analyze bilingual development is a clear illustration of that
(Cummins, 1991; de Jong, 2011; Hornberger 2003).
Out of this limited choice, the framework offered by Hornberger
in her book Continua of biliteracy: An Ecological Framework
for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual
Settings (2003) seems to capture multifaceted, interrelated
and successive nature of bilingual and biliteracy development. This
notion of continua, according to Hornberger blurs the boundaries between
what traditionally is characterized in terms of polar opposites, such
as first versus second languages (L1 vs L2), monolingual versus
bilingual individuals, or oral versus literate societies, it has been
increasingly clear that in each case those opposites represent only
theoretical endpoints on what is in reality a continuum of features. (p.
5)
It is this notion of continua that will serve to guide the
following analysis of bilingual writing as it is situated along the nine
different continua (macro-micro, oral-literate, bilingual monolingual;
production-reception, oral-written, L1-L2; successive-simultaneous
exposure, convergent-divergent script, similar-dissimilar structure)
represented in three figures – the continua of biliterate contexts, the
continua of biliterate development in the individual, the continua of
biliterate media.
As students’ writing development in each language evolves, it
doesn’t advance in a linear manner. Diversity avails in how children
progress and develop. And as Moll et al. (2001) mention, “this diversity
is particularly evident among bilinguals, for many factors can
influence how they learn, how the languages interact, especially if both
are fostered equally or if one language is privileged over the other”
(Moll et al., 2001, p. 442). So, the notion of continua helps to convey
that each component of this complex development, each point on the
continuum is not finite, static, or discrete, “any single point is
inevitably and inextricably related to all other points” (Hornberger,
2003, p. 5).
According to Cummins’ (1991) Linguistic Interdependence
Principle, academic biliteracy is accompanied by interconnected
development of language, literacy and concept transformation. Bilingual
development, as noted by Berninger (2000), does not take place in a
linear manner, “development of various language systems occurs in
‘overlapping, parallel waves rather than in discrete, sequential stages”
(as cited in Danzak, 2011a, p. 493). Thus, to understand bilingual
writing development it is important to focus on both common and unique
features along any one continuum.
Benefits of Bilingualism
Benefits of biliteracy on bilingual writing has been concluded
by a number of scholars. Bialystok (1997) has posited that bilingual
children have a better understanding of the representational properties
of written language. The transfer of knowledge from one language to
another is assisted by the grammatical proficiency in the target
language (as cited in Kato-Otani, 2008). Kenner (2004) states that
bilingual children who understand the difference between the two writing
systems, are also able to connect them in order to transform meaning
across these languages (as cited in Kato-Otani, 2008). The study of
elementary school students bilingual writing development by Edelsky
(1982) concludes that “writing knowledge transfers across languages” (as
cited in Friedlander, 1990, p. 109).
Hakuta (1987) suggests that “most transfer of skills from L1 to
L2 occurs in a global way, rather than point by point, that is,
transfer is not word for word, but rather involves processes and
strategies” (as cited in Hornberger, 2003). Among the processes Francis
(2006) indicates that bilingual students “possess shared and independent
language mechanisms and structures that can serve as common underlying
proficiencies (Cummins, 2000) that can transfer across language. Among
these proficiencies Danzak (2011a) points out phonological awareness
(Bialystok, 2007); vocabulary depth (Ordonez, Carlo, Snow, &
McLaughlin, 2002), and knowledge of text-level conventions in writing
(Durgunoglu, 2002).
Danzak (2011a) also suggests that bilingualism and biliteracy
are characterized by the transfer of higher level cognitive processes
and concepts across languages. His study of The Integration of
Lexical, Syntactic, and Discourse Features in Bilingual Adolescents’
Writing: an Exploratory Approach concluded that “if individual
students were able to use more abstract lexical items, compose more
complex sentences, and draft well-organized, genre-appropriate text in
one language, [then] they could do so in the other” (p. 501).
Furthermore, the study of a Two-way Bilingual Education program
by Gort (2002) proposes that “access to two languages and support for
bilingualism affect both the processes of writing and the products
children create, leading to the development of biliteracy and
metalinguistic awareness of two languages for Spanish-dominant and
English-dominant students” (p. 3). Gort’s (2002) study of bilingual
children’s cross-linguistic strategies and behavior indicated evolution
of immature literacy processes and skills which are related to “the
processes of encoding, spelling, monitoring, punctuation,
capitalization, editing and revising” (p. 21).
Types of Effective Instruction
Moll et al. (2001) offer several summarizing comments about
effective approaches for bilingual instruction, among them are the use
of both languages by students and teachers interchangeably, resources in
a variety of genres (Quintero & Huerta-Macias, 1995) and
activities tailored to engaging with print through different channels,
simultaneous acquisition of academic skills and social content and
lastly, promotion of language as tool for thinking. Moll et al. (2001)
identified the following factors which are necessary to create additive
bilingual conditions that would make minority languages unmarked: “the
groups’ linguistic vitality; the networks of linguistic contact in the
minority or non-dominant language through media, schools, family, and
friends, and the communities’ demographic, political, economic, and
cultural resources or ‘capital’” (p. 446)
Teachers can also resort to written translation as a means to
enhance students’ metalinguistic awareness (Kato-Otani, 2008). Writing
topics from children’s homes and communities (Danzak, 2011a), awareness
about outside world, parent-community, and parent-teacher partnerships
also help to foster bilingual writing development (Kato-Otani, 2008). To
improve bilingual writing development of adolescents Danzak (2011)
recommends explicit instruction on “understanding of communicative
functions, genre conventions, and organization and text structures” (p.
502). Most researchers agree that language learners necessitate direct
instruction and guided practice in all stages of the writing process
(Danzak, 2011) as well as providing with ample opportunities “to review
and practice key lexical, syntactic and discourse structures as
students’ texts are revised and published” (Danzak, 2011b).
What is apparent that the kind of instruction that should be
given to monolingual students included special forms of literacy and
discourses that are not found in English monolingual classrooms in order
to recognize the interplay of languages and tap into these strengths
(Dworin 1996; Kato-Otani, 2008; Rubin & Carian, 2005).
Code-Switching
Bilingual writing development can also be characterized by
frequent shifts between the languages. According to Gort (2006) one of
the reasons for this switches is the “desire to express themselves for
things they care about” (as cited in Kato-Otani, 2008, p. 79). Huerta
(1977), Pfaff (1976), and Poplack (1983) have also found that
code-switching characterizes enhanced level of grammatical competence on
the part of the speaker. Aguirre (1988), Jacobson (1985), and Tukinoff
(1985) have expressed the benefits of code-switching for a meaningful
communication.
Many other studies have claimed the benefits of switches to the
first language (Chelala, 1981; Johnson, 1985; Jones & Tetroe,
1987). The study of Lay (1982) discusses several instances when shift to
the first language are most likely to occur: 1) with certain topics
(especially those studied or acquired in the first language background);
2) searching unfamiliar topics; 3) at certain stages of language
development (as cited in Friedlander, 1990, p. 111). Based on this
premises Friedlander developed a study to analyze whether thinking about
new topic or generating information to produce a written text can be
aided by writing in the first language, and then translating it into the
target language. His hypothesis was experimentally proved that “L2
writers will plan for their writing more effectively, write better texts
containing more content, and create more effective texts when they are
able to plan in the language related to the acquisition of knowledge of
the topic area” (Friedlander, 1990, p. 112).
Gort’s study illustrated the “children’s ability to code-switch
was contingent upon several factors, including the relative strength of
L1 and L2 (i.e. language dominance), their bilingual development, the
linguistic context, and the corresponding language proficiencies of
their interlocutor(s)” (pp. 19–20). In line with Lay’s study (1982),
Gort (2002) also found that written code-switches originated from the
reference to American popular culture or places that children had
visited and knew for which equivalents in the first language did not
exist (Disney World).
Misconceptions
According to Edelsky (1982), writing in the second language
does not necessarily follow oral proficiency in that language as claimed
by some scholars (Palmer, 1921). Edelsky also indicated that a “host of
locally varying factors arising from many larger contexts” influence
variability of practices in any given classroom (as cited in Moll et
al., 2001, p. 438).
Even writing that takes place in bilingual classrooms is
universally conducted in English, thus excluding bilingual students of
the opportunities to capitalize on “native-language skills and from
tapping into prior experiences and schemata that could enrich their
writing” (Reyes, 1991, p. 16). As Rivers (1987) argues, for these
students writing becomes a task where the task is controlling the
writing activity, rather than ideas are shaping what is written (as
cited in Reyes, 1991). Research on bilingualism asserts that the
linguistic repertoire that bilingual students bring to the classroom
cannot be fully measured in a single language (Munoz-Sandoval, Cummins,
Alvarado, & Ruef, 1998). Thus, the view of bilingual development
as a whole and not decomposed as two halves is necessary (Grosjean,
1989). Valdes (1992) further argues that it is not useful to compare the
bilingual and monolingual development, as “for reasons not clearly
understood, even though most functional bilinguals can achieve native
like control of many levels of a second languages, they will still
continue to use learner-like features of the language in certain
expressions” (pp. 102–103). Furthermore, the scholar states that
limitations in linguistic ability of bilingual students should not be
overlooked even if one may conjecture that nonnative writing abilities
develop following a sequence similar to that of native
writers.
Reyes (1991) focuses on the type of writing instruction and
claims that exclusive focus on the process approach to writing
instruction of bilingual students does them a disservice by ignoring the
importance of the product itself, for which these students are
evaluated, assessed and judged upon. As a result, school districts use
the information obtained from the English classes to report comparative
performance for bilingual students, “thus perpetuating the
cognitive-deficit view of language-minority students” (Reyes, 1991, p.
22). Danzak (2011a) also urges to use “culturally and linguistically
grounded protocol that is interconnected with authentic writing and
allows for system interactions to materialize” when assessing bilingual
writing products.
Another concept that sometimes is also associated with the
deficit model of bilingual development is interlanguage/interliteracy.
Gort’s (2002) study suggests thought that interliteracy is contingent
upon a students’ bilingual and biliterate development and is parallel to
their oral interlanguage, “thus it represents growth of biliteracy and not a backward developmental progression” (p.
24).
Complexities
All the studies of biliteracy have also mentioned the
complexity of analysis of bilingualism and bilingual writing due to
various factors including incipient literacy in one of the languages,
socio-cultural elements among the few. For example the study conducted
by Jimenez, Garcia and Pearson (1995, 1996) has compared the reading
achievements of fully bilingual, monolingual and less proficient
bilingual students. They concluded that despite some visible gains of
the bilingual student “successful integration of reading strategies
across languages, such as the use of metalinguistic knowledge to monitor
comprehension, may necessitate considerable instruction and practice”
(as cited in Moll et al., 2001, p. 437).
Bilingual instruction in many countries and the United States
is not an exception takes place within the confines of strong political
and ideological environment where minority people and/or languages are
surviving in economically, socially and culturally disadvantage
contexts. The hidden curriculum of overall monolingual proficiency
(English only), complex emotional contexts in many schools and
communities emphasize ‘deculturalization” of schooling (Spring, 2004).
These attitudinal, emotional and economic influence thwart effective
bilingual instruction and maintenance of minority languages.
As Moll et al. (2001) suggests biliteracy is “intricately
related to dynamics of social, cultural, and institutional contexts the
help define its nature” (p. 447). And in order for bilingual to succeed
in academia and social and professional lives, it is important for them
not only to master the linguistics set of skills and abilities in both
languages, but to “become competent in a range of practices or uses of
literacy that constitute the experience of living and going to school in
a bilingual community” (Moll et al., 2001, p. 447).
As Reyes (1991) posits, there are no easy solutions to the
teaching and assessment of bilingual learners; however, teachers can
start to pave the way for a more just and fair instruction and
evaluation by offering mini-lesson on teaching discrete writings skills
based on the writing errors made by students, contextualizing the
language, urging schools and districts to provide with linguistic
resources and qualified bilingual personnel (or consultants) who can use
portfolio based assessments in both languages and thus, validate
students’ native languages as a foundation for bridging to literacy in
the second language.
As quoted in Danzak (2011a) “Perkins (1980) found that the
linguistic measures were better predictors of holistic writing outcomes
than were the standardized test scores” (p. 493). The problematic nature
of bilingual assessment remains to be understudied even these days.
Concluding Thoughts and Questions for Further Studies
First and foremost result of this literature review indicates
the need for more research on bilingual writing development. The
scholars working in different fields, including rhetoric and
composition, modern languages, comparative literature could also
contribute to the development of research in this field. As Valdes aptly
noted, “by using bilingual individuals to study questions of major
theoretical interest, [we] will be able to strengthen the explanatory
power of existing theories about the process and practice of writing in
general” (Valdes, 1992, p. 129).
There are numerous questions openly posed by both Fitzerald
(2006) and Valdes (1992) that can easily be taken up for a number of
studies. Minority language development, the impact of students’
background on their writing development, types of effective writing
theories (process vs. product oriented theories), instructional methods
and curriculum that can dramatically enhance or hinder the way each
feature evolves on the interwoven and complex web of bilingual and
biliterate continua.
References
Aguirre, A. (1988). Code-switching, intuitive knowledge, and
the bilingual classroom. In H. S. Garcia & R. C. Chavez (Eds.) Ethnolinguistic Issues in Education (pp. 28–38).
Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Education.
Berninger, V. W. (2000). Development of language by hand and
its connections with language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in
Language Disorders, 20, 65–84.
Bialystock, E. (1997). Effects of bilingualism and biliteracy
on children’s emerging concept of print. Developmental
Psychology, 33 (93), 429–440.
Bialystock, E. (2007). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual
children: A framework for research. Language Learning,
57, 45–77.
Chelala, S. (1981). The composing process of two
Spanish-speakers and the coherence of their texts: A case
study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York
University.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-
language proficiency in bilingual children, in E. Bialystok (Ed.)
Language Processing in Bilingual Children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy:
Bilingual children in the crossfire. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual
Matters.
Danzak, R. L. (2011a). The Integration of Lexical, Syntactic,
and Discourse Features in Bilingual Adolescents' Writing: An Exploratory
Approach. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in
Schools, 42(4), 491–505. doi:
10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0063).
Danzak, R. L. (2011b). Defining identities through
multiliteracies: EL teens narrate their immigration experiences as
graphic stories. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 55(3), 187-196.
de Jong, E. (2011). Foundations for Multilingualism in
Education: From Principles to Pracitce. Caslon
Publishing.
Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy
development and implications for language learners. Annals of
Dyslexia, 52, 189–204.
Dworin, J. (1996). Biliteracy development: The
appropriation of English and Spanish literacy by second and third grade
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Arizona, Tuscon.
Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program. The
relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 16,
211–228.
Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Multilingual writing in preschool
through 12th grade: The last 15 years. In C. A.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald Handbook of
Writing Research (pp. 337–357). New York: The Guliford Press.
Francis, N. (2006). The development of secondary discourse
ability and metalinguistic awareness in second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16,
37–60.
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a
first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the
Classroom (pp. 109–125). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Gort, M. (2002). A Preliminary Model of Bilingual Writing
Development for Spanish-Dominant and English-Dominant Students:
Portraits from Dual-Language Classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA.
Grosjean, J. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific
speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 6 (6), 467–477.
Grosjean, J. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is
not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language,
36, 3–15.
Hornberger, N. (2003). Continua of Biliteracy. In N. Hornberger
(Ed.) Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for
Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual
Settings. NY: Multilingual Matters.
Huerta, A. G. (1977). The acquisition of bilingualism: A
code-switching approach. Working Papers in
Sociolinguistics. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
Jacobson, R. (1985). Title vii demonstration projects
program in bilingual instructional methodology final report.
San Antonio, TX: University of Texas at San Antonio and Southwest
Independent Reading Association.
Johnson, C. (1985). The composing processes of six ESL
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State
University.
Jones, C. S., & Tetroe, J (1987). Composing in a second
language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.) Writing in Real
Time (pp. 34–57). New York: Addison-Wesley.
Kato-Otani, E. (2008). Writing development of a bilingual
child: Japanese and English. Child Language Seminar,
University of Reading, 2007.
Lay, N. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners: A
case study. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 406.
Moll, L. C., Saez, R., & Dworin, J (2001). Exploring
biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as a social practice. The Elementary School Journal, 101 (4),
435–449.
Munoz-Sandoval, A, Cummins, J, Alvarado, C, & Ruef, M.
(1998). Research in bilingualism: implications for assessment. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Ordonez, C. L., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., &
McLaughlin, B. (2002). Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages:
Which vocabulary skills transfer? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 719–728.
Palmer, H. E. (1921). The principles of language study (pp. 127–1420. London: Oxford University Press.
Pfaff, C. W. (1976). Functional and structural constraints on
syntactic variation in code-switching. Chicago linguistic
society parasession on diachronic syntax (pp. 248–259).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Poplack, S. (1983). Intergenerational variation in language use
and structure in a bilingual context. In C. Rivera (Ed.), An
Ethnographic/Sociolinguistic Approach to Language Proficiency
Assessment (pp. 169–184). Avon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Quintero, E., & Huerta-Macias, A. (1995). Bilingual
children’s writing: Evidence of active learning in social context. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9 (2),
157–165.
Reyes, M. d. l. L. (1991). Bilingual Student Writers: A
Question of Fair Evaluation. English Journal, 80(8),
16–23.
Rivers, W. J. (1987). Story writing: A comparison of native and
L2 discourse. In J. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.) Research in Second Language Learning: Focus on the
Classroom (pp. 196–211). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tukinoff, W. J. (1985). Applying significant bilingual
instructional features in the classroom. Rosslyn, VA:
InrerAmerica Research Association, Inc.
Valdes, G. (1992). Bilingual minorities and language issues in
writing: Toward professional responses to a new challenge. Written Communication, 9(1), 85–136.
Alsu Gilmetdinova works at the intersection of bilingual
education, adult EFL instruction and leadership. Her research interests
revolve around multilingual education, language policy and teaching
English as a foreign language. She has published in International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Language and Education,
World Englishes, and International Multilingual Research Journal among
others. She is an incoming chair of Bilingual-Multilingual Education
Interest Section of TESOL International, active member of Russian
associations of teachers of English: National Association of Teachers of
English, National Writing Center Consortium. |
