Appropriating the voice of the superheroes: Three preschoolers' bilingual language uses in play

Early Childhood

Research Quarterly,

9, 171-193

(1994)

Appropriating the Voice of the Superheroes: Three Preschoolers’ Bilingual Language Uses in Play Marjorie

Faulsfich Ore/lam

University

of Southern

California

Results from a qualitative investigation of the English language acquisition of three Spanish-speaking children enrolled in a bilingual preschool are reported, with a focus on the children’s spontaneous use of English when playacting at being figures from popular children’s culture. The occurrence of this voice is contrasted with the children’s use of Spanish for other types of play, for regular conversation, and for directive comments (spoken as stage directions) during the playacting episodes. The influence of variables in the home, school, and larger social context which appear to promote the dichotomization of the children’s voices into the English-speaking “self” and the Spanish-speaking “other” are discussed, and implications for second language acquisition and bilingual development are considered.

In the first half of this century, studies of bilingual children gave little attention to the social context in which the children were raised. Empirical work typically focused on case studies of individuals from educated, uppermiddle-class families in settings where their two languages were viewed with high prestige, as in Europe (e.g., Leopold, 1947; Metraux, 1964), yet the ways in which the children’s social environments affected their Janguage use was rarely remarked upon. Bilingualism was addressed strictly as a cognitive phenomenon, and only in passing were issues such as language choice examined. However, when sociolinguists began to study bilingualism, social factors were highlighted, and the language choices that bilinguals make became a prime area of study. Broad patterns describing the rules that govern these choices were sketched (Blom & Gumperz, 1972; Genishi, 1981; McLure, 1981; Valdes, 1981; Zentella, 1981) and the language patterns of bilingual and bidialectical social groups were detailed in ways that illuminate both Thanks to Nelly Stromquist and Stephen Kucer for their feedback on earlier versions of this article; thanks also to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, to the families for their time, and to Sharon Ulanoff for a final reading and much collegiality. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Marjorie Faulstich Orellana, 2610 Berkeley Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90026. 171

Orellana

172

cross-cultural differences and generalities of language as social practice. Yet the situated aspects of the speech acts of individual speakers within specific social, cultural, and political contexts were often lost. Presently, researchers of language and learning from different disciplines are attempting to find new ways to grapple with the relationship-or interrelationship-between psychological and sociological forces in language acquisition, and to examine language as a tool that both shapes and is shaped by particular cultural norms and values. Those adopting a sociocultural framework have examined the ways in which language is used by members of various groups across a broad range of naturally-occurring settings (e.g., Heath, 1983; Michaels, 1981; Phillips, 1982). Increasingly, sociocultural researchers also pay attention to contextual influences on these language practices and examine the individuals who constitute particular groups as active agents in the joint construction of their individual and group identities-identities that are displayed in important ways through language. This study represents one effort to apply a sociocultural framework to the study of early childhood bilingualism. It explores the influence of family, school, and larger social forces on three young children’s bilingual language uses during spontaneous play interactions within two contexts, and considers the implications for these children’s developing identities as bilingual persons.

FAMILY, COMMUNITY, SHAPING BILINGUAL

AND INSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE USE

FORCES

Although psycholinguistic studies of bilingualism tend to divorce the individual from the larger social context, they do not, of course, assume that children learn language in isolation. The influence of family language patterns on children’s bilingualism has in fact been well documented, as much work has focused exclusively on parent-child language interactions in the years before the children enter formal institutions. It has been demonstrated that bilingual children quickly and easily adopt the language patterns modeled in their homes, using the appropriate language with each parent where the “one-parent, one-language” rule was followed (Fantini, 1976; Leopold, 1947), and rarely addressing a familiar speaker in the wrong language without immediate self-correction (Saunders, 1988). The kinds of discourse patterns used by the parents who are more successful with this bifurcated approach to home language have been highlighted; the children of parents who use high degrees of child-centered speech, which builds on the contributions that children make to a conversation, seem to have more advanced bilingual language ability than do the children of parents who adopt more adult-centered speech (Dopke, 1992).

Bilingual language Uses

173

Sociolinguists have also looked at family language patterns, but usually as representations of larger social groups. Much of this work has centered on bilinguals’ alternation between their two languages; this codeswitching, once thought to be evidence of deficits in each language (and still considered so in much popular thinking), has instead been demonstrated to be based on complex social determinants such as the setting, the situation, and theparticipants engaged in a conversation (Blom & Gumperz, 1972), or the topics and situations discussed (McLaughlin, 1978; Ruke-Dravina in McLaughlin, 1978; Zentella, 1981). McLure (1981) worked specifically to document the codeswitching practices of young Latin0 children, taping the conversations (both naturalistic and contrived) of children ranging in age from 3 to 12. She notes that the children made decisions about what language to use with a given speaker based on the speakers’ language proficiency, language preference, and social identity. The children McLure studied tended to use Spanish with their parents and English with their teachers, and showed an increasing preference for English with age. Both McLure and Fantini (1976) found that the topic being discussed was not an important factor for language selection by children, and that even though more Spanish was used at home and more English outside of the home, the setting was not the main determinant of language choice. The kind of discourse engaged also affected the degree and type of codeswitching used; notably, more codeswitching was observed during child-centered play activities, with the change in languages often used to mark stylistic aspects of the children’s discourse. Running through both psychological and sociological approaches to the study of bilingualism is some recognition that children’s social peers play an important role in language choice, with most studies pointing to children’s preference for using the language of the dominant culture with their siblings and friends (Fantini, 1976; Garcia, 1983; Padilla & Liebman, 1975; see also research cited in Saunders, 1988), except perhaps by children who were introduced to their second language in late childhood (Wald, 1985). Of course, one situation in which children have considerable contact with their peers is in school; thus, schools exert an influence on children’s language patterns both directly, through the languages used for instruction and modeled in the formal curriculum, and indirectly, through peer interactions. Although much of the research on bilinguals in school settings (both primary research and program evaluations) has focused on second language acquisition or the role of the primary language in the transfer of skills (e.g., Cummins, 1991, 1989; Edelsky & Hudelson, 1980; Krashen. 1991, 1985; Ramirez et al, 1992; Thonis, 1981), and not with patterns of bilingual language uses per se, there is some empirical evidence to suggest that schools operate as a strong force tugging bilinguals toward increased use of English and decreased use of their home languages (Pease-Alvarez, 1994; Veltman, 1988).

174

Orellana

As children enter formal institutions at younger ages, through child care and preschools, this matter becomes more critical. Young children readily acquire new languages, but the new languages may just as readily replace their first languages, resulting in “subtractive” rather than “additive” bilingualism (Lambert, 1977), which is not associated with the cognitive benefits that additive bilingualism seems to afford (Bialystock & Cummins, 1991; Diaz & Klinger, 1991; Duncan & DeAvila, 1979; Hakuta & Diaz, 1985). Work by Garcia (1983) demonstrates that even preschool children enrolled in a biligual, bicultural preschool, who have equal exposure to Spanish and English at home, tend to be more advanced in English. This phenomenon has been documented on a large scale: A survey of over 1000 bilingual families throughout the United States (Wong-Fillmore, 1991) suggests that bilingual children enrolled in preschools (even bilingual, bicultural preschools), through early exposure to English, tend to stop using-and therefore to stop developing-their home language, even when that is the only language spoken by their parents. This has important implications not only for the bilingual and cognitive development of those individuals, but also for intrafamilial communication. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BILINGUAL LANGUAGE

FORCES SHAPING PATTERNS

That the issue of bilingualism is highly political is evidenced by the controversies surrounding bilingual education and the language development of ethnic minority children in the United States today. (See Crawford, 1989; 1992 for overviews of the history and politics of bilingual education in the United States; for a different perspective on the same issues see Porter, 1990). Social and political forces largely determine the degree to which bilingualism is fostered, limited, or repressed in any given society or with any given group within society, and thus impact the language patterns of individuals, in part through the relative status messages that are conveyed through official language policies. The impact of perceived language status on acquisition processes is evident in the differences between some bilingual “immersion” programs in the United States and in Canada. When English-speaking Canadians enroll their children in French immersion schools, the children acquire high levels of French with no loss in the home language or self-esteem (Swain & Lapkin, 1982). theoretically in part because the value of their home language is firmly established. Yet while Spanish-speaking children enrolled in English-only programs in this country may learn English, they may do so at great cost to their self-identity and to their views of their home language (Cummins, 1989; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Jacobson, 1985).

175

Bilingual language Uses

Official societal and school language policies provide an important framework for language prestige messages; however, peer culture, whose influenceover children’s social development and popularity is well documented (Corsaro, 1985, 1988; Kantor et al. 1993; Rizzo, 1989), may serve as the most persuasive vehicle for those messages’ amplification and social exchange. Yet, much work is needed to illuminate the ways in which the status of different languages may be reflected in bilinguals’ languages uses, or to consider theways in which language status plays out in children’s communicative exchanges across a variety of contexts. LANGUAGE

USE AND IDENTITY

CONSTRUCTION

Sociocultural theorists have begun to adopt a view of learning as a process of identity construction, of “becoming somebody” rather than simply acquiring knowledge or skills (Eckert, 1989; Lave, 1992). Language acquisition, within this purview, is seen as a process of joining a club in which language is used in particular ways; members are integrated into this club much as apprentices learn their trades (Gee, 1990; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990). The ways in which people use language says a great deal about who they are and the group(s) to which they belong, or wish to belong. Certainly, the work cited in the previous sections suggests that family, school, and societal factors play significant roles in shaping the identities assumed by children and expressed through language. Yet these forces do not operate in a unidirectional, deterministic way. Children, in a very real sense, are active participants in their own enculturation into existing communities of practice, and they coconstruct new communities of practice with their peers in daily social interactions. As Gaskins, et al. (1992) write, language serves as a means for negotiating and constructing shared realities, becoming in fact “the primary tool by which children gain entry into the interpretive frameworks of their culture” (p. 13). Within the constraints of the familial, institutional, and social forces which seek to shape them, children partially forge their own identities, making choices about who they will become and how they will express their lives through language. In the case of young children, one of the most important means by which children try on potential identities and perhaps claim a greater sense of agency in that process than society explicitly allows them, is in their play interactions (Corsaro, 1985; Fernie, 1988; Garvey, 1977), and especially in their language uses in play. Thus, the language choices that are made in play by young bilinguals may provide a critical window into the process of language acquisition as identity construction and into the ways in which children reflect, resist, or reshape the messages they have received about each language and their attitudes toward each one.

176

Orellana

THE STUDY This study analyzes how three Spanish dominant bilingual preschoolers use their two languages with each other for spontaneous play within two bilingual, bicultural contexts. The specific research questions addressed were: l

l

l

How do these three children use their two languages in spontaneous play? How do family, institutional, and societal language uses appear to affect children’s language choices in play situations? What insights do these language uses reveal about the children’s developing self identities?

The Children

The focus of this study was on three children: Carlos, Veronica, and Elisa. When formal observations were initiated, Carlos was 3 years, 8 months old, Veronica 3 years, 3 months old, and Elisa 2 years, 10 months old; all had been enrolled at the school for at least six months. These children were selected because all three are being raised in bilingual home environments where one parent is a native speaker of English, and one a native speaker of Spanish; yet the parents of all three chose to emphasize Spanish with their children, and all three children spoke virtually no English before enrolling in the preschool. The youngest child, Elisa, is the child of this investigator. In terms of class backgrounds, all three children have had some exposure to both working-class and middle-class lifestyles. At the time of this study, Carlos’ parents worked as an office assistant and a community organizer for the same nonprofit agency; neither parent had completed college, but both had engaged in considerable self-education. Veronica’s mother worked as an immigrants’ rights attorney for a different nonprofit agency; her husband, who had attended some college in El Salvador, but never completed his degree, worked as a fine artist from the family home. Elisa’s father worked as a graphic designer; her mother (the author) was enrolled in graduate school. The Preschool

The day care/preschool, located in the heart of a large city in the Southwestern United States, is itself a bilingual setting. The four caregivers are native Spanish speakers. Eight of the 28 children enrolled at the start of the study were from homes where only Spanish is spoken; 13 were from homes where only English is spoken; 5 (including the three informants) were from homes where both are used; and 2 children were from homes where other languages are used.

Bilingual language Uses

177

The parents of all three children said they were attracted to the school because of its historical tradition as a “progressive” day care center, where ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity is valued, and where their children’s use of Spanish would be encouraged. Under the bilingual model in place at the start of this study, the teachers used Spanish and English concurrently in group sessions, and the language of each child in individual interactions. However, this model was modified after the study began, as described in this report. Data Collection The three children were observed interacting with each other and with their peers at the preschool for approximately 1-2 hours on each of 12 different occasions (a total of 20 hours) during the morning “Free Play,” when the children choose from a variety of materials and outdoor equipment. Field notes were recorded during or shortly after each of these sessions. Additional observations of eight teacher-led activity settings (“Group Time”) were conducted in order to examine the language uses of the teachers at the school. The children were also observed interacting together outside of the preschool, at the homes of two of the informants. Thirteen observations of l-3 hours each were made with at least two of the three children present (a total of 25 hours). One of the three child informants, Veronica, was observed outside of the preschool slightly less often than the other two. Field notes were taken, and on five occasions audiotapes were made and transcribed. The total time spent observing the children engaged in spontaneous play over the three-month period was approximately 45 hours. Formal semistructured interviews were conducted with the parents of the children. The interviews sought to establish patterns of language use in the homes. Written notes were taken during each interview. Informal interviews were also conducted with the teachers at the preschool regarding the informants’ language uses at school, as well as the language practices engaged by the adults and other children under the bilingual policy. Data Analysis The data from the field notes and audiotaped transcriptions were first examined for all instances in which at least two of the three children interacted with each other in undirected play. These sections were then coded to designate three types of interactions between the children: playacting at being a person other than themselves, regular play with toys or manipulatives (in which the children were not pretending to be anyone other than themselves), and conversation embedded within the play. The conversation usually appeared as “asides,” spoken as stage directions from one child to another in

178

Orellana

the middle of a play episode. A further distinction was made between the children’s playacting at being characters from popular children’s culture and their playacting at being real people (generic mothers, fathers, teachers, etc.). These coding categories emerged from the field notes as a means of capturing the children’s interactions with each other; they were not predetermined categories. A count was made of each of these interactions. Unlike Kantor, et al. (1993), who used a social definition for an “episode” of children’s play, based on the interactions between specific individuals and not the content of their play, I approached an episode as a thematic unit, based on children’s involvement with materials or roles revolving around an identifiable theme (Monighan-Nourot, 1987). For example, if the children were playing “school,” then began working with building blocks, and then pretended to be Peter Pan, this was coded as playacting, regular play, and popular culture/ playacting respectively, and counted as three distinct play episodes. If the children were playacting, then used the building blocks, and then returned to the playacting, this was coded as playacting, regular play, and playacting, and also counted as three episodes. An episode was marked by the topic of the play, however brief that exchange might be, although virtually all such interactions involved at least 3-4 communicative turns or exchanges between the children, and many were much longer. Finally, the language used by the children for each of these interactions was coded, and a count was made of the children’s choice of English or Spanish within and across each episode of play. Patterns were then sought that distinguished the children’s use of the two languages. Data from the interviews and observations at the school were also coded for patterns that illuminate the elements in the home and school settings that may have contributed to the children’s language choice. In order to ensure respondent validity, a draft and the final version of this report were shared with the parents of the three children, who were encouraged to note any discrepancies they might have with the analysis of the data. None were noted. The Home Language Context Table 1 summarizes the patterns of language use in each home. While there are some variations in usage, in all three cases the parents spoke only Spanish with their children for at least the first two years, and continue to emphasize Spanish over English with their children. The children have more contact with their Spanish-speaking relatives than with their English speaking ones, and their other caregivers are Spanish-speaking. At the same time, the children own more books in English (though these are often translated, with varying degrees of resistance by the children), and most of the children’s exposure to television or videos, and thus to popular children’s culture, has been in English.

179

Bilingual language Uses

Table 1. Language Uses at Home. This table depicts basic patterns of language use in eat home, based on parents’ self-reported data. Carlos

Veronica

Elk48

Age at onset of observations

3 years, 8 months

3 years, 3 months

2 years, 10 months

Mother’s native language

Spanish

English

English

Father’s native language

English

Spanish

Spanish

Non-native Spanish-speaking parent’s degree of fluency in Spanish (self-rated)

Good

Fair-Good

Very Good

Language mother uses with child

Spanish

English and Spanish

Spanish

Language father uses with child

Spanish

Spanish

Spanish

Language parents use with each other

English, some Spanish

Father speaks Spanish; Mother speaks English

English, some Spanish

Language used by dther caretakers

Spanish used by live-in part-time caretaker and by maternal grandmother

Spanish used by paternal grandmother

Currently has no outsid caretaker

Non-native Englishspeaking parent’s degree of fluency in English (self-rated)

Very Good-Excellent

Fair-Good

Very Good-Excellent

Book-reading habits

English books usually translated into Spanish, or Spanish stories are invented.

Veronica’s favorite books are in English; these are read in English, Father discusses books in Spanish.

Mother reads both English and Spanish books. Father usually translates books to Spanish.

Television-viewing habits

1-3 movies per week rented (in English)

Favorite shows and movies viewed in English. Watches Spanish soap operas at her grandmother’s.

Watches public television (in English) approx. 1 hour/day. Favorite movies are in English.

Language

Uses at School:

The School Language

Context

A new bilingual policy was recently developed for the school. The new plan called on the teachers to separate their use of the two languages, to use each in a natural context, and to emphasize Spanish in order to compensate for its status as a minority language in the larger culture. Daily “Group Time,” when the children gather in a circle for activities, was to be done in equal

180

Orellana

amounts of Spanish and English, but not concurrently: A story would be read each day in Spanish in the morning and in English in the afternoon, more Spanish songs and activities would be developed, and Spanish would be used at snack times and cleanup times. The teachers would continue to use the language of each particular child in individual interactions. All of the parents agreed to the plan, which was discussed at an open meeting. The teachers also agreed with the new plan, but wanted to modify it “slightly.” Under the teachers’ modified plan, English would be used during Group Time one day each week; Spanish on one day; and concurrent translation (the language pattern in use on all days until that point in time) on the other three. The teachers felt that the original plan would involve too much preparation, as they did not have enough materials, songs, or activities in Spanish. They also felt that they could not define which days would be spoken in English and which in Spanish, as that would depend on what they were able to prepare. The modified plan was put into effect about one month after this study was begun. On the first day of the new policy, the head teacher explained to the children, in English, that they would be using only Spanish for that session. She initiated the discussion with her expectation that all of the children should try to use Spanish: “I don’t want to hear ‘I don’t want to try.’ I don’t think we’re going to accept that. It’s wonderful to speak two languages. Or three or four or five. So today is going to be the day of Spanish.” She concluded with a discussion of the benefits of speaking two languages, giving examples from the children’s own lives. The teachers then taught the children a new Spanish song, Pimpon, about a paper doll, and then helped the children to make their own paper dolls. The children seemed to enjoy the activity and continued to sing Pimpon over the next few days. However, the remaining seven group sessions observed for this study were done using either concurrent translation or all English. In the concurrent sessions, English was always spoken first, by the main teacher. The same teacher, or another, would then translate her comments into Spanish, but many things went untranslated. Almost all of the songs that were selected were English songs from records (which were sometimes, but not always, translated into Spanish by the teachers); several parents had donated tapes of Spanish songs, and the teachers said they had a tape recorder, but it was never used during the observation sessions. In one session, the head teacher led a discussion entirely in English, except for brief questions directed to the Spanish-speaking children in Spanish. She then led the children in three English songs, with no translation. I asked another teacher if this was the “English day.” She said, “Oh, no, es de 10s dos.” (“Oh, no, it’s the day of both. “) On another day, the teachers led the children in several English songs, and then in the Spanish song De Colores

Bilingual language

Uses

181

(the only Spanish song besides Pimpon that I heard sung). At that point, several of the English-speaking boys seemed restless and started making faces. The teachers stopped the song and talked to the boys, telling them: “It makes me really angry when you do that. We need to respect the Spanish language. We speak two languages here. I don’t like it when you don’t respect Spanish.” In the group sessions I observed, the most active and vocal participants were the English speakers. The teachers noted the same phenomenon, although they believed that Elisa, Carlos, and Veronica participated actively in Spanish. They commented that many of the Spanish-speaking children seemed to be “quite shy.” On the other hand, when the children were outside in the play area during Free Play time, there seemed to be a happy mix of languages, with the Spanish-speaking children as vocal as the English speakers. There was time for outdoor play in the morning and in the afternoon each day, and the children moved freely between the sand, the swings, the jungle gym, a play house, trucks, blocks, or special activities such as painting, bubble making, or playdough. During the observation sessions, Carlos seemed to prefer to play in the sand, with the trucks, or in the play house. He engaged in play mostly with the older, English speaking boys, or with Veronica and Elisa. Veronica moved from one activity to another, engaged in solitary play, or interacted briefly with different groups of children. Elisa seemed to prefer to be on the swings or to participate in the special activities, and spent more of her time with the Spanish-speaking girls, or with Veronica and Carlos. All three spoke mostly Spanish in the yard, except in their interactions with the English-speaking children, and in episodes of playacting. The other Spanish-speaking children were occasionally heard using English; the English-speaking children were never heard using Spanish. Both English and Spanish books were available for the children to peruse on the shelves in each of the three rooms in the Center; however, there were five times as many books in English as in Spanish, despite recent gifts of Spanish books to the Center. In addition, the teachers had a collection of books that were kept in the office and used to read aloud to the children. All but five of these were in English. The teachers agreed that they do not have enough Spanish books to read aloud, and so read the same ones repeatedly. It was not clear whether a Spanish book was in fact read at some point in each day; in the observation sessions, only English ones were read. The walls in one of the three rooms in the Center had posters and charts in both English and Spanish, but twice as many were in English as in Spanish, and most of the Spanish ones were hand-lettered. The walls in the other two rooms had posters that were all in English. In each of the three rooms, there was a chart of the English alphabet, with correlated pictures, and a chart of

182

OrdIana

the alphabet in American Sign Language. Students’ work (with names, but no print) was also displayed prominently on the walls in each room and in the halls. Occasionally, as on rainy days, the teachers opted to show videos to the children. All the videos that have been shown have been in English. The children also went on a field trip to see the play Peter Pan, and another one to see the show Disney on Ice.

The Voice of “the Other” Elisa and Carlos were playing at Elisa’s house, pretending to cook for each other, and to give each other medicine. In these play episodes they used their own voices in Spanish. Then Carlos changed the game: Csrlos: (with a playacting voice): “I’m Peter Pan! I’m flying!” (Turning to Elisa, using his normal voice): “Ahora ti vas a dormir y Peter Pan se va a esconder.” (“Now you go to sreep and Peter Pan is going to hide.“) (Again, using the playacting voice): “I’m Peter Pan! There are sharks!” (Again, dropping the play voice and turning to instruct Elisa on the game): “Cierra tus ojos.” (“Close your eyes.“) (With the voice again, as Eli& giggled): “Here I am! I’m Peter Pan! I was falling!” Etisa: (using her normal voice): “Ahora t& tienes que dormir y yo soy Peter Pan.” (“Now you have to sleep and I’m Peter Pan.“) Carlos: (normal voice): “No, porque Peter Pan es un ‘boy”’ (“No, because Peter Pun is a boy.“) Elisa: (normal voice): “O.K., t& me dices ‘I’m gonna’ take you to Never Land.” (“O.lu., then you say to me, ‘I’m gonna’ take you to Never Land.“) Carlos: “No, yo vengo en cinco minutos.” (“No, 1% be back in five minutes.“) Elisa: “I’m Wendy. I’m going to take Michael and John. Come, Michael, Come, John.” (Singing): “Go to fly, go to fly go to fly!”

On another occasion Elisa, Carlos, and Veronica were playing with a table that inverts by pushing a button, to reveal flowers underneath. Elisa: “Dbnde estin las flores? P&al0 en el ‘ground.’ Aqui se apacha, mira.” (“Where are the flowers? Put it on the ground. This is whereyou push it. look.“) Veronica: “Yo voy a ir aqui.” (I‘i’m going to go over here.“) Carlos: (Holding a Spiderman doll, and using a playacting voice): “Look, my hands.” Veronica: (Holding a Minnie Mouse doll, in front of a doll house; using a playacting voice) “Into my house, I go with my mom. I’m the girl and that’s my mom. Let’s go on the other side.”

Bilingual language Uses

183

Elisa: (holding a Barbie doll, and using a playacting voice): “Let’s go over here.

I help you, girl. Spiderman, can you find me? You wanna’ be my friend, Spiderman?” Carlos: “Ya.” Veronica: “You wanna’ be my friend?”

Elisa, meanwhile, had spied a box of “Colorforms” (plastic stick-on shapes). The three moved over to play with it, dropping their playacting

voices, immediately reverting back to Spanish for their interactions. Later, Elisa and Carlos were playing together at Elisa’s house. They were talking only in Spanish. Then they started playing with toy people. Immediately, the conversation switched to English, with playacting voices: Elisa: “Do you wanna’ come in the house?” Carlos: “I don’t, Mother.” (Note: Carlos calls his own mother “Mami”) Elisa: “I’m in the house, it’s very hot.” (Then, in her normal tone of voice, as if

speaking to Carlos rather than to the toy figure he held): “Aqui se sale, verdad?” (“This is where I go out, right?“) (Then, again with the play voice): “I don’t have a surprise for you, nifios (‘chiklren’).” Carlos: “I want a surprise!” Elisa: (still with the play voice) “Yo puedo jugar.” (“Z can play.“) (Then, as if correcting her slip into Spanish): “1 can play. Come and play.”

After about ten minutes, the two stopped playing with the figures, and went back into speaking Spanish with each other about what they wanted to eat. They went to ask for some fruit. About fifteen minutes later, they returned to the dolls, and again used playacting voices in English: Elisa: Carlos: Elisa: Carlos: Elisa:

“You want to go in?” “Ya.”

“O.K., let’s go! Let’s dance!” “No.”

“Why don’t you want to?” (Then, in her normal voice, to Carlos, to refer to a toy Carlos had picked up): “Asi no va, Carlos.” (“Zt doesn’t go like thut.“)

In both the preschool setting and in their play at each others’ homes, Carlos, Veronica, and Elisa spoke Spanish with each other at almost all times. The only times that they used English was to speak to their nonSpanish-speaking peers, or to playact at being someone other than themselves, such as is exemplified in the audiotaped excerpts above. This English-speaking dramatic voice emerged on every occasion that the children were observed outside of the preschool and on several occasions at the preschool. The parents, and Carlos’ caretaker, also noted the appearance

Oreiiana

184

Table 2. The Children’s Language Choices in Play. This table depicts the children’s uses of Spanish and English in single episodes of play and playacting, as well as in conversational “asides” during the playacting episodes. Carlos

Veronica

English used in Play Episodes (single episodes, other than playacting)

1

0

1

Spanish used in Play Episodes (single spisodes, other than playacting)

23

13

29

English used in Playacting (single episodes, when pretending to be any real or imagined character other than themselves)

6

1

8

Spanish used in Playacting (single episodes, when pretending to be any real or imagined character other than themselves)

2

1

3

English used for conversational “asides” (single utterances, spoken as stage directions during the playacting episodes)

2

1

2

Spanish used for conversational “asides” (single utterances,spoken as stage directionsduring the playacting episodes)

9

3

12

Elh

of this voice when their children engaged in solitary play at home. The voice appeared when the children were playacting at being any real or imagined person other than themselves, when pretending to be the dolls they played with, or when acting as a character from popular children’s culture. Those characters that were observed include Mickey Mouse, Peter Pan, the Little Mermaid, Superman, Supergirl, Spiderman, the Ninja Turtles, and Barbie. The dramatic play was always signalled by a change in the tone and quality of the children’s voices, and was often announced by such statements as, “I’m Supergirl!” ,Veronica was heard to use this voice on 7 occasions in English, and 1 occasion in Spanish; Carlos on 15 occasions in English and 2 in Spanish; and Elisa on 19 occasions in English and 3 in Spanish. (See Table 2.) In one of the instances when Spanish was chosen, the children were playing a family: Carlos was the father, Veronica the mother, and Elisa the baby. In another instance when Spanish was used, Elisa was playing the teacher, and Carlos the student. The children were never observed using Spanish to act out scenes with characters from popular culture. (The children certainly engaged in creative play in Spanish; however, the table indicates those instances in which the children were clearly pretending to be someone else, using a feigned voice, rather than simply incorporating elements of fantasy and imagination into their play.)

Bilingual language Uses

185

In the midst of such playacting, the children occasionally made side comments that appeared in the children’s regular voices. These were either directives, questions, or descriptive declarations that accompanied the children’s actions. Veronica made 4 such comments, Carlos 11, and Elisa 14. In all but 5 instances, these comments were made in Spanish. On all occasions, the episodes of playacting were preceded and followed by a different type of play, with other toys, in which the children did not pretend to be someone else, and used their own voices, in Spanish. In the following exchange between Elisa and her father, Elisa makes explicit her pretend and “real” identities, expressing the former in English

and the latter in Spanish: Elisa: (playing by herself while Veronica was in the other room): “I’m Peter Pan. My name is Peter Pan.” (This was repeated four or five times while “flying” around the room.) Elisa’s father: “Elisa, ven pa’ a$” (“E&a, come here”) Elisa: “No, my name is Peter Pan.” Elisa’s father: “Entonces. Peter Pan, ven pa’ a&.” (“Then Peter Pan, come here. “) Elisa: “Ahora yo soy Elisa.” (“‘Now I’m E&a.“) For Carlos, at least, the choice of language for the popular characters was conscious and purposeful. When asked what language Peter Pan speaks, he answered “English,” and his mother reported on the following conversation with her son (originally in Spanish): Carlos: Carlos’ mother: Carlos: Carlos’ mother: Cerlos:

“Mami, I’m not going to speak Spanish anymore.” “Why not?!” “Because I’m getting older. I’m growing up.” “But lots of grownups speak Spanish!” “But Batman doesn’t speak Spanish. Superman doesn’t speak Spanish. Peter Pan doesn’t speak Spanish, either.”

On another occasion, in an observation session, Carlos overheard Elisa’s father mention the word “Latino.” Carlos exclaimed, “Latinos!” Elisa’s father explained that he and Carlos and Elisa were Latinos, and that they spoke Spanish. Carlos responded, “Pero cuando yo estoy grande yo solo voy a hablar un idioma.” (“But when I’m grown up I’m only going to speak one language.“) When asked what language that would be, he said, “Solo ingles.” (“On@ English”). When asked why, Carlos answered, “Porque yo voy a ser grande, y solo voy a hablar uno. Porque yo tengo que ser grande, mas y mis y mis y mas. Y 10s Ninja Turtles hablan ingles.” (“Because I’m going to be big, and I’ll only talk one. Because I have to be big, more and more and more and more. And the Ninja hurtle talk

186

Orellana

English.“)

He then looked away and seemed disinterested in pursuing the conversation. Elisa, who overheard this conversation, added, “Yo tambien solo voy a habiar uno.” (“Z’m also only going to speak one.“)

DZSCUSSZON

While the results of this study should not be overstated, given the short duration of the observations, nor overgeneralized, given that only three children were observed acting within these particular contexts, the patterns of language use summarized here lend some insight into the ways in which these children seem to perceive their two languages, and into the ways in which they are appropriating each one to express aspects of their own identities. Cautiously, however, a few points may be made. All three of the children display a good deal of flexibility and versatility in their manipulation of two languages systems, using both in appropriate and self-conscious manners, Their code-switching is by no means arbitrary; it is patterned and purposeful, and reflects both their internalization of the larger social and linguistic context, as well as their transformation of that context in play. This complex use of a second language has appeared within a relatively short time frame, since none of the children spoke English before enrolling in the preschool, and all three have been enrolled at the school for less than one year. On the one hand, the children’s productive display of English seems remarkable, considering the fact that no one in the children’s environment has overtly encouraged the children to use English. Elisa and Carlos’ parents, and Veronica’s father, conceivably even discourage English in their efforts to reinforce Spanish. All three children have more contact with their Spanish-speaking relatives than with their English speaking ones; and all of their regular care providers are native Spanish speakers who support and encourage the children’s developing knowledge of Spanish. The children are growing up in one of the most fully bilingual, or multilingual, cities in the nation. In many ways, then, the environment in which these children are developing can be considered Spanish dominant. But in other important ways, the children’s social context is decidedly English dominant. At each of the homes, the adults speak English to each other at least as often as they speak Spanish, although the patterns vary slightly from home to home. This may have contributed to Carlos’ idea that he would only speak English when he grows up, as well as to the appearance of the “voice of the other:” the children hear the significant adults in their lives using English in different ways, and may be appropriating that voice for themselves in their imaginative play. At each of the homes there is also a marked presence of English books, although the patterns of language use in relation to literacy events vary

Bilingual language

Uses

187

from home to home. Veronica certainly is almost never read to in Spanish, and all her favorite books are in English. Elisa is read to in both, but at least as often in English as in Spanish, and some of the Spanish readings are translations. Carlos, on the other hand, is always read to in Spanish, but this is usually done in translation, a fact that is noticed-and not always appreciated-by the child. In addition, in all three homes, television programs and popular children’s videos are viewed almost exclusively in English. Similarly, while the preschool setting appears on one level to be bilingual, in many important ways it is clearly English dominant. When both languages are used concurrently, English is spoken first, and many times not translated. This is consistent with research that found much greater amounts of English than home language spoken in bilingual classrooms (Halcon, 1983; Legarreta, 1977; Ramirez, 1992; Tsang, 1983). The languages are also functionally distinguishable at the school, as both languages are used in spoken discourse, but Spanish is often relegated to private interactions with Spanish-speaking children, while English dominates in the public sphere, as in Group Time. The English-speaking children tend to dominate the group discussions (which could be a consequence of the language organization), and more children speak English than Spanish at the school, despite the fairly even ratio of Spanish to English home environments, as the children from Spanish speaking homes tend to use English, while the ones from English speaking homes do not speak Spanish. This, too, is consistent with Ramirez’ (1992) finding that the amount of English and Spanish spoken by children in school is closely tied to the program model, with the least amount of Spanish spoken in models using concurrent translation. In terms of environmental features, many more English books are available for the children to browse through, and many more English books are read by the teachers to the children. This is consistent with Pucci’s (1993) report on the availability of Spanish books in Spanish-English bilingual programs. Similarly, almost all of the posters on the walls are in English; only the handwritten ones are in Spanish. Although it is not clear from the observations how these posters are used (if in fact they are read to the children or serve as teaching aids), at the very least, they convey a sense of the relative prestige of each language. Finally, the children’s exposure to culture at the school cannot be considered bilingual or bicultural, given the fact that all the videos, and two major presentations viewed by the children, were done in English. This, however, is a reflection of the cultural dominance of English at a larger level, and especially the dominance of English in popular children’s culture. The teachers appear genuinely unaware of the implications of the school’s “bilingual” program, and seem to feel that their plan is, in fact,

188

Orellana

truly bilingual-and consistent with a philosophy that calls for an emphasis on the minority language. At the same time, the teachers seem to sense a need to justify the use of Spanish to the English speakers. This is evident from the extended discussion of the importance of speaking two languages, and the manner in which the head teacher handled the incident when the boys were being silly during De Colores. It is quite possible that the boys’ silliness had nothing to do with the fact that the song was in Spanish; perhaps they were simply bored, as De Colores was the third or fourth song they had sung. Even if in fact their silliness was related to the language of the song, the teacher’s defensive posture may have conveyed a message about the status of Spanish as a language in school settings, demonstrating that the use of Spanish is something that must be explained, justified, and defended. This pull of the teachers toward English may reflect their own internalization of societal values, despite their intellectual belief in the equal worth of each language. The defensiveness that the teachers project may be a symptom of a much bigger phenomenon. English is, without a doubt, the dominant language in this society, and it is the larger social context that appears to exert the strongest pull on these young children, even as it may exert its pull on the teachers themselves. The power of the English language is symbolized by the power of the children’s superheroes-English is the language of the strongest and most invincible creatures in these children’s world. The findings may be interpreted in two manners. They may be interpreted optimistically by those who concern themselves with language minority children’s acquisition of the dominant language: English is used readily and easily by these three children, despite their parents’ efforts to limit their exposure to the language. Exposure to popular culture, books, and some social interaction with English speakers seems to have provided the children with sufficient input for them to begin expressing themselves in English, and they are exploring and developing their verbal skills through social play, without any visible strain on their part. Alternatively, the findings may hint at something more ominous. The children’s use of English for certain activities does not appear to be arbitrary, nor does it appear on an equal plane with the use of Spanish. Although it could be argued that the children merely use English when they play at being superheroes because that is the language they hear those characters speak-a finding that has been noted, in passing, by other researchers studying bilingualism (Fantini, 1976; Saunders, 1988)-to dismiss the findings as a mere reflection of the children’s linguistic input is to overlook the power dimensions associated with each language. The power of popular culture is suggested by the fact that the children engaged in play related to these characters on every observation session outside of the preschool and on several within it. The intense popularity of such play has been noted by other researchers of early childhood issues (Corsaro,

Bilingual language

Uses

189

1985; Kantor et al., 1993; Monighan-Nourot, 1987; Paley, 1984; Rizzo, 1989), as well as by countless parents and teachers of preschool children, with the issue reaching such “crisis” proportions in recent years that a number of articles have been written for parents and teachers on how to cope with this play (see for example Kostelnik et al., 1986; Sousa & Schneiderman, 1986;. Kantor, et al. (1993) suggest that the effective display of cultural knowledge, such as in role-playing the parts of superheroes, may be related to the popularity of preschool children; all of the members of a “core group” of students identified by the researchers adopted superhero personas in their play, while a child classified as an “outgroup member” failed to verbalize a superhero role in a way that would allow him inclusion in the inner circle. In the case of Carlos, Veronica, and Elisa, the “super power” of these characters is associated with the effective use of English to speak their parts. If language acquisition is conceived of as identity construction, then the bifurcation of these children’s voices into that of the “self” and the “other” during this stage of their language development may have important implications for the identities they are constructing for themselves and experimenting with through language. For these children to develop as bilinguals, they will need to adopt the voice of the “other” as part of their own voice, finding some way to reconcile the power differential between those two voices, and assuming each as part of their whole identities. Alternatively, the children may dissolve the tension between their divided selves by appropriating fully the voice of the more powerful other, negating the part of their identity that now seems to constitute their core selves. The data from this study do not indicate any loss in the primary language of these three children at this time. All three continue to use Spanish in most of their interactions and appear to be progressing in their development in both languages. These children still use Spanish to express their own voice when they are being themselves. English appears when they are pretending to be those “others” out there: other people, other adults, or other magical, mystical characters from the stories and movies that they love. Yet while the data do not suggest an immediate trend toward language loss, the power of English in these children’s lives is evident, and Carlos’ comments about speaking only one language when he grows up may be some indication of the struggle that lies ahead, if in fact these children are to develop into fully bilingual adults. PEDAGOGICAL

IMPLICATIONS

The implications of the research may be considered on two levels. For those concerned with facilitating the process of English language acquisition in young children, the results of this study would suggest that English can be developed by exposing children to popular culture (a culture that can hardly

190

Orellana

be avoided in the United States) and by allowing the children to practice appropriating the voices of popular heroes through imaginative play. Through playacting, children may take risks that they might be less willing to do in their own persona (Heath, 1992; Rodriguez & White, 1983; Stern, 1983); the adoption of a separate identity might facilitate language learning (Lozanov, 1978) in part by lowering children’s affective filters (Krashen, 1985). The implications of this research forbilingual, biliterate development in young children is more complex. True bilingualism implies that a person is able to use both languages in a wide range of situations and for a diversity of topics. In order to achieve such a balance between the two languages, bilingual programs may have to work extremely hard to overcome the natural dominance of English in the larger society. This might be done by overcompensating with more of the minority language than English in spoken and written discourse, by encouraging the adults within a program to speak the minority language with each other as well as with the children (encouraging the adults to reflect self-consciously on their own uses of the languages, given that the marked status of the minority language may lead one to believe equal time is being given when in fact it is not), and by seeking out a diversity of resources that may help to resist the monocultural pull exerted by superhuman contextual forces. REFERENCES Bialystock, E., & Cummins, J. (1991). Language, cognition, and education of bilingual children. In E. Bialystock (Ed.), Languageprocessing in bilingual children (pp. 222-232). New York: Cambridge University Press. Blom, J.P., & Gumperz, J.J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Codeswitching in Norway. in J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 407434). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Corsaro, W.A. (1985). Friendships and peer culture in the early years. Norwood: Ablex. Corsaro, W.A. (1988). Peer culture in the preschool. Theory into practice, 27 19-24. Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, politics. theory, andpractice. Trenton, NJ: Crane Publishing. Crawford, J. (1992). Language loyalties: A source book on the Official English controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (1991). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoreticulframework (pp. 3-50). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center. Diaz, R.M., & Klinger, C., (1991). Towards an explanatory model of the interaction between bilingualism and metacognitive development. In E. Bialystock (Ed.), Languugeprocessing in bilingual children (pp. 167-192). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dopke, S. (1992). One parent one language: An interactional approach. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bilingual language Uses

191

Duncan, S.E. & DeAvila, E.A. (1979). Bilingualism and cognition: Some recent findings. NABE Journal, 4, 1540. Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press. Edelsky, C., & Hudelson, S. (1978). Acquiring a second language when you’re not the underdog. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbery House. Fantini, A. (1976). Language acquisition of a bilingual child: A sociolinguisticperspective (To age 5). Vermont: The Experiment Press. Fernie, D. (1988). Thenature of children’sptay. ERIC Digest. (PS No. 017944, ED No. 307 967). Garcia. Eugene E. (1983). Early childhood bilingualism (With special reference to the MexicanAmerican child). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motiviation in second language learning. Rawley, MA: Newbury House. Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gaskins, S., Miller, P.J., & Corsaro, W.A. (1992). Theoretical and methodological perspectives in the interpretive study of children. In W.A. Corsaro & P.J. Miller (Eds.), Interpretive approaches to children’s socialization (pp. 5-23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Gee, J.P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. Genishi, C. (1981). Codeswitching in Chicano six-year-olds. In R.P. Duran (Ed.), Latin0 language and communicative behavior (pp. 133-152). Norwood: Ablex. Hakuta, K., & Diaz, R. (1985). The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability: A critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In K.E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s Language, Vol. 5 (pp. 224-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Halcon, J.J. (1983). A structural profile of basic Title VII bilingual bicultural education programs. NABE Journal, 7, 55-73. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S.B. (1992, April). Inner city life to literature: Drama in language learning. Paper presented at TESOL, Vancouver, B.C. Jacobson, R. (1985). Uncovering the covert bilingual: How to retrieve the hidden home language. In E.E. Garcia 8 R.V. Padilla (Eds.), Advances in bilingual education research (pp. 150-180). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Kantor, R., Elgas, P.M., & Fernie, D.E. (1993). Cultural knowledge and social competence within a preschool peer culture group. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 8, 125-147. Kostelnik, M.J., Whiren, A.P., & Stein, L.C. (1986). Living with He-man: Managing superhero fantasy play. Young Children, 41(4), 3-9. Krashen, SD. (1985) Inquiries and insights. New Jersey: Alemany Press. Krashen, S.D. (1991). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoreticatframework (pp. 51-82). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. Lambert, W.E. (1977). The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and sociocuhural consequences. In P. Hornby (Ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social, and educational implications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Lave, J. (1992, April). Learning as participation in communities of practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Lave. J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Legarreta, D. (1977). Language choice in bilingual classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 1I, 9-16.

Orellana

192

Leopold. W. (1947) Speech development of a bilingual child: A linguist’s record. (Vol. IV) Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Lozanov. G. (1978) Suggestology and outlines of suggestopedy. New York: Gordon and Breach. McLaughlin, Barry (1978). Second language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McLure, E. (1981). Formal and functional aspects of the code-switching discourse of bilingual children. In R.P. Duran (Ed.), Latin0 language and communicative behavior (pp. 69-74). Norwood: Ablex. Metraux, R. (1964). A study of bilingualism among U.S.-French parents. The French Review, 38, 650-655.

Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423-442. Monighan-Nourot, P. (1987). Conversations with the real and imagined. In P. MoninghamNourot, Scales, B., & Van Hoorn, J., with M. Almy. Looking at children’s play: A bridge between theory and practice (Pp. 63-88). Padilla, A. % Liebman, E. (1975). Language acquisition in the bilingual child. The Bilingual Review,

2, 34-S.

Paley, V.G. (1984). Boys and girls: Superheroes in the doll corner. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pease-Alvarez, L. (1994, April). Language instruction for children with limited English proficiency. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Phillips, S. (1982). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian reservations. New York: Longman. Porter, R.P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics of bilingual education. New York: Basic Books. Pucci, S.L. (1993). Primary language free reading resources. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Ramirez, J.D. (1992). Executive summary. Bilingual Research Journal, I6 (l-2), l-62. Riazo, T. (1989). Friendship development among children in school. Norwood: Ablex. Rodriguez, R.J., & White, R.H. From role play to the real world. (1983). In Oiler, J.W., & Richard-Amato, P.A. (Eds.), Methods that work. Singapore: Newbury House Publishers. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Saunders, G. (1988). Bilingual children: From birth to teens. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Sousa, C., & Schneiderman. J. (1986). Preschoolers and superheroes: A dangerous duo. Early Years, 17, 75-77.

Stern, S.L. (1983). Why drama works: A psycholinguistic perspective. In Oiler, J.W., & Richard-Amato, P.A. (Eds.), Methods that work. Singapore: Newbury House Publishers. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Tsang, Chui-Lim. (1983). Codeswitching strategies in bilingual instructional settings. In Chuchang. M., & Rodriquez, V. (Eds.), Asian- and Pacific-American perspectives on bilingual education (Pp. 197-215). New York: Teachers College Press. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second Language means losing your first. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly,

6, 323-346.

Valdes, G. (1981). Codeswitching as deliberate verbal strategy: A microanalysis of direct and indirect requests among bilingual Chicano speakers. In R.P. Duran (Ed.), Latin0 language and communicative behavior (pp. 95-108). Norwood: Ablex.

Bilingual Language Use5

193

Veltman. C. (1988). Thefuture of the Spanish language in the United States. Washington, DC: Hispanic Policy Development Project. Wald, B. (1985). Motivation for language choice behavior of elementary Mexican American children. In E.E. Garcia & R.V. Padilla (Eds.), Advances in bilingual education research (pp. 71-95). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Zentella, A.C. (1981). Language variety among Puerto Ricans. In C.A. Ferguson & S.B. Heath (Eds.), Language in the U.S.A. (pp. 109-132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.