Bilingual speakers' communicative patterns and language practices are drawn from their linguistic repertoire, which is socially, culturally, and historically constructed ( García, 2011 Smith, 2019). García and Li (2017) described Canagarajah's work, “translingual practices focus on the social practices of mixing modes and symbol systems as a creative improvisation to adapt to the needs of the context and the local situations'” (pp. 6) and advocate for pedagogical practices that value the creative and improvisational practices in classrooms ( Canagarajah, 2011). In order to dig into the complexities of linguistic pluralism, its creative nature, and its potential in the development of creative biliteracy pedagogies, it is important to value what Blommaert (2010) stated, “ovement of people across space is never a move across empty spaces'” (p. ![]() Instead of perceiving bilingual students as deficient English speakers, educators need to consider the development of ways of doing with biliteracy in classrooms that honors the creativity, fluidity, and complexity of linguistic plurality as assets to support students learning ( Canagarajah, 2011 García and Lin, 2017 Guerra, 2016 Perryman-Clark et al., 2014). They creatively use languages in order to express and negotiate complex meanings ( Franquiz and de la Luz Reyes, 1998 Gutiérrez et al., 1999 Medina, 2006 Medina 2010). Bilingual speakers think in, between, and beyond two languages when practicing in the complex, multi-layered, and interrelated multilingual communication ( García and Sylvan, 2011 Li, 2011 Perez and Torres-Guzmán, 1992 Reyes, 2012). The visible differences (e.g., English and Spanish) are merely the surface feature of languages ( Cummins, 1980 Reyes, 2012) beneath the surface, two languages do not work separately. 84), which is used by bilingual speakers for facilitating their dynamic discourses and practices. Moll (2014) perceived biliteracy as a “tool of the intellect” (p. These forms of language education approaches, grounded in orientations of language as a problem ( Ruiz, 1984) however, might result in the suppression of bilingual students' bilinguality in school ( Cummings, 2000 Li and Wu, 2009) and the construction of material and ideological barriers through segregation and erasure approaches with consequences in relation to students' rights to “exist in their own language” ( Perryman-Clark et al., 2014). The claim of many of these programs is to “help” emergent bilingual speakers, who oftentimes are labeled as English Language Learners (for a critique of this term, see Martínez, 2018), develop their English proficiency and learn school-like literacy ( Morrow, 1995) or academic language ( García and Solorza, 2020) so that they are able to catch up with the English monolingual peers in terms of achievement in content areas ( Hornberger, 1989). ![]() Within such programs, it is commonly seen that one language is legitimated according to the time, space, policies, and instruction ( Farr and Song, 2011 Ruiz, 1984). In countries such as the United States, from where the culturally diverse-China, USA, Puerto Rico-multilingual group of authors of this chapter do most of our work, monolingualism ideology, which regards two languages that bilingual speakers own as two separate systems, has been accepted as a dominant view in language and literacy programs in the K-12 settings ( Cummings, 2000 Wiley, 2014). ![]() ![]() Carmen Liliana Medina, in International Encyclopedia of Education(Fourth Edition), 2023 Creativity in and across languages
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |