Tag: Bilingualism

Language ideology change over time: lessons for language policy in the U.S. state of Arizona and beyond

Those silly Brexiting kweens across the pond are making headlines (por ejemplo) about implementing an English language requirement deadline for UK residents.  While we wait for that sitch to shake out, it seems like a good time to dive into a bit of language policy research.

Shannon Fitzsimmons-Doolan’s (2018) paper examines the interplay between stakeholders’ language ideology and language policy in Arizona’s K-12 public schools. The related literature shows a chicken and egg situation in which language ideology drives language policy, but language policy affects language ideology. Arizona offers an interesting case study for unpacking this relationship.

Vamos a establecer la escena/Let’s set the scene

For those unfamiliar with the U.S. educational context, primary and secondary education policy is driven at the state rather than national level. In 2006 Arizona adopted the anti-bilingual/multilingual education policy Structured English Immersion, aka the 4 Hour Model, aka the No-Me-Gusta-People-That-Talk-Different model. English language learners (ELLs) are segregated into English language development classes for 4 hours a day until they reach proficiency on a state assessment. During this time these students are being withheld from content classes (math, science, etc.). These requirements can be particularly burdensome to older ELLs who are unable to get credits that would allow them to graduate from high school.

This policy was an outgrowth of the political climate in Arizona that had passed Proposition 203, a voter referendum that repealed bilingual education laws in 2000. While I would love to spend more time wagging my finger about English only policies, that’s not really why we are here.

El papel/The paper

Fitzsimmons-Doolan is interested in the change in language ideology of policy-influential people in Arizona from 2010 and 2016. She surveyed politically active Republicans and Democrats, teachers in districts with high ELL populations, and education administrators who manage language policy. From the 2010 survey data she identified 5 broad language ideologies: 1) pro-monolingualism, 2) pro-multilingualism, 3) English as a tool, 4) multiple languages as a problem, and 5) language as an intelligent standard. Check out the deetz in the table below (p.40). The 2016 survey measured shifts in orientation to the ideologies above by reaching out to the same group of respondents from 2010.

Los resultados/The results

Language ideology on the survey remained pretty stable over 6 years. There were statistically significant shifts away from pro-monolingualism and multiple languages as a problem, and higher positive orientation toward pro-multilingualism. However, those shifts were concentrated in the educator respondents, and not in the politically active Republicans and Democrats respondents, who exhibited little change.

you, a linguabish: why does it matter what some some random voters have to say about language policy, the teachers and administrators implement language policy

me, someone that googled a bit: recall that Arizona has ballot initiatives, including the aforementioned Prop 203, which voters passed to severely restrict bilingual education. democracy lol

It is unsurprising that the politically active Republicans and Democrats did not change their minds greatly over time. Fitzsimmons-Doolan notes that the average age of respondents in the 2016 survey was 62.3 years old, which makes sense when you consider how much more likely older generations are to consistently go out and vote. I think opinions about language are pretty baked-in for the layperson at that age. That said…maybe no news is good news?

Given the political climate of 2016 and Trump’s nativist rhetoric propelling him to the Republican nomination and presidency, perhaps we can be thankful the politically-active people of a fairly red state like Arizona didn’t swing *more* toward pro-monolinguism, multiple languages as a problem, and language as an intelligent standard.

Conclusión/Conclusion

While Arizona might not be ripe for reform just yet, this research shows some positive trends away from English only policies among those who work directly with language learners. Educational language policy in AZ might continue to be a hot mess for now, but don’t lose heart, linguabishes. I believe language ideology is correlated with immigration policy preferences, and the increased polarization is going both ways. As nativists and restrictionists get more vocal, they are spawning fiercer, more outspoken allies of immigrant communities. Maybe by proxy support for bilingualism and multilingualism will intensify. (Fingers crossed.)

Check this paper out if you’re a bish interested in language policy, a bilingual educator bish, or  any old, K-12 teacher bish that works with ELLs.


Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2018). Language ideology change over time: lessons for language policy in the U.S. state of Arizona and beyond. TESOL Quarterly. 52 (1). 34-61.

Read More

Linguistic Predictors of Cultural Identification in Bilinguals

What Research has established that there is a relationship between language and cultural identification in bilinguals. Howevs, Schroeder, Lam, and Marian (2017) are interested in unpacking the variables (age of acquisition, exposure contexts, etc.) that predict cultural affiliation. Does our favorite polyglot kween Daenerys Targaryen identify more as Westerosi or Valyrian? And what makes it so?

Schroeder, Lam, and Marian lay out a three-part framework as to why “language knowledge, use, and experience” connect to cultural identification in bilinguals.  

  1. Linguistic knowledge gives you access to culture. Maybe if we all spoke better Spanish, we wouldn’t have needed Justin Bieber to introduce us to the 2017 delight that was Despacito.
  2. Linguistic knowledge begets reflection and awareness. Constantly making linguistic choices may lead to introspection on cultural affiliation. The implication is monolinguals operate on a linguistic autopilot that doesn’t necessitate this sort of reflection.
  3. Bilinguals make deliberate style choices to signal cultural affiliation- using one language over another in certain contexts, employing accent in one or both languages, etc.

Before we proceed, a few acronyms for the newbies:

  • L1- a person’s first or “native” language
  • L2- a person’s second or additional language
  • C1- the culture of the L1
  • C2- the culture of the L2

How

The study was completed with 209 bilingual participants filling out LEAP-Q, a questionnaire developed by Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya (2007).  Participants self-reported details about their language acquisition and usage, including the extent to which they are currently exposed to their languages and in what kind of context, formal or informal. The questionnaire also had respondents list the cultures they identify with and select on a scale from 0 (no identification) to 10 (complete identification) the degree to which they identify. All participants reside in the USA (we’ll be coming back to this), but there was diversity of linguistic backgrounds- e.g. a variety of L1s and L2s, early (<5 years old) or late L2 learners, and different immersion and current exposure contexts.

And so…?

Schroeder et al. crunched the numbers (aka conducted a couple multiple regression analyses) and found some similarities and differences between the predictors of C1 and C2 identifications.

Identification with C1 was reliably predicted by

  • L1 current exposure context
  • L1 proficiency
  • Fewer L2 years in family
  • More years in L2 school/work

Whereas identification with C2 was predicted by

  • More years in L2 school/work
  • Lower perceived accent in L2
  • Early age of L2 acquisition

To illustrating their findings, we’ll need a little help from our imaginary friends. For example, Kim (L1=English, C1=American, L2=French, C2=French) was born and raised in Dayton, Ohio. Sse studied French in high school and college achieving bilingual status. She primarily consumes English media and has no French speaking family members. These facts predict her identification with her C1. Whereas, Khloe (L1=Spanish, C1=Mexican, L2=English, C2=American) was born in Guadalajara, but moved at age 4 to Austin, Texas where she learned English in school and achieved bilingual status. She speaks English at work and is taken as a native English speaker by her coworkers. These facts predict a stronger identification with her C2.

The researchers concluded that their three-part framework explained the findings, with the first hypothesis having “the most explanatory power.”

But what about…

Selection effects? It would be interesting to see similar research outside the United States. Current American political climate notwithstanding, the U.S. (for now) remains in the Inner Circle of Kachru’s influential model of World Englishes (1992). As such it is considered “norm-providing,” and, however unfairly, one of the more prestigious Englishes.

There could be a perceived desirability of affiliation with American culture that increases a bilingual’s identification with it as a C2. Would results be substantially different if bilingual participants were living in Outer Circle or Expanding Circle countries? Consider our third imaginary friend, Kourtney, a Chinese businessperson in Nigeria, an Outer Circle country. She was born in Shanghai, China and studied English throughout her childhood and into university. She speaks with a minimal foreign accent, and uses English daily in professional contexts. She has lived in Nigeria for years. She exhibits the predictors uncovered by Schroeder et. al. that align with a C2 affiliation, but would her tenure in an Outer Circle country have a mitigating impact on that potential identification?

While more research into bilingualism is needed, these bishes have certainly furthered the field’s understanding of the interplay between language and culture. Check the article out if you’re a bilingual bish or a teacher bish interested in language learner identity.


Kachru, B. (1992). World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25(1), 1-14.

Marian V., Blumenfeld H. K., & Kaushanskaya M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967.

Schroeder, S. R., Lam, T. Q., & Marian, V. (2017), Linguistic predictors of cultural identification in bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 463–488.

Read More