Sociolinguistics

This article provides an overview of English as a Second Language (ESL) in public schools, with special attention given to some of the sociolinguistic concerns informing ESL theory and program models. The sociolinguistic concept of communicative competence has been particularly influential in the field of ESL by shifting emphasis away from grammatical correctness and towards effective and culturally appropriate speech. Sociolinguistic findings highlighting cross-cultural differences in classroom communication have also been incorporated into modern thinking about ESL. Instructional and assessment strategies used in ESL include scaffolding, realia, and the teaching of speech acts and register variation, as well as differentiated scoring and pre-referral interventions.

Keywords Communicative Competence; Differentiated Scoring; English-Language Learner (ELL); Pre-Referral Intervention; Register; Scaffolding; Second Language Acquisition; Sociolinguistic Methods; Speech Act

Overview

Language use varies according to a wide variety of social factors, including age, gender, education, and communicative context. The study of sociolinguistics—a branch of the field of linguistics—aims to understand the connection between language and society. Sociolinguistics is a subfield of linguistics concerned with the interaction between language and society. In particular, sociolinguists study how language use varies according to a range of social variables, such as age, gender, educational level, ethnic background, and communicative context. Modern approaches to English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction incorporate findings from sociolinguistic research to facilitate English-language learners' (ELL) second language acquisition (SLA) and comprehension of other core subject areas.

The issue of teaching English to immigrant and other non-English speaking students has been a controversial topic among American educators, scholars, administrators, politicians, and the public for over a hundred years. Before that time, many immigrant groups offered native language instruction in community schools. With the arrival of larger numbers of, and often poorer, immigrants towards the end of the 1800s, public opinion began to embrace the notion of the "melting pot," in which newcomers were expected to abandon their linguistic and cultural background and embrace English to be considered American. Following this shift in perceptions, immigrant children typically had to undergo the submersion ('sink or swim') method of learning English by attending mainstream classrooms with no special attention given to their needs as language learners from culturally diverse backgrounds. It was a method that consistently failed these students because it failed to provide the necessary support for language learning and access to subject matter. This frequently led to their premature exit from school.

During the 1960s, ESL began to develop as an independent field as a response to a 1965 immigration law that allowed for an expansion in the number and diversity of immigrants permitted to enter the US. The emphasis of the Civil Rights Movement on equality also contributed to the growth of the field. The professional organization Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) was founded, ESL materials were developed in earnest, and the number of ESL and linguistics courses increased significantly, all with the aim of providing equitable language instruction to non-English speaking students.

The 1960s also saw a dramatic change in the scientific understanding of the nature of language and language acquisition, which eventually led to advancements in ESL methods. Linguist Noam Chomsky published revolutionary studies (1957, 2015) in which he argued that humans have an innate capacity for language, a capacity which allows a child to learn language by trial and error, based on comprehensible input. Cognitive scientists, inspired by Chomsky's theories, began to develop new ideas about first and second language acquisition. Earlier approaches considered SLA to take place through repetitive drills and rote memorization. Considering Chomskyan linguistics, however, scholars began to recognize that children's acquisition of L2, or second language, is similar in many important respects to their acquisition of L1, or first language. Thus, with cognitive language-learning mechanisms in place, L2 acquisition must also entail active engagement with learning—including making mistakes—and not just passive, repetitive exercises.

This approach to SLA offered significant improvements on earlier theories that made a sharp distinction between L1 and L2 acquisition. In the 1970s and 1980s, scholars began to criticize the cognitive approach for its lack of attention to the social interaction that is central to language learning. Research showed that, in addition to the need for comprehensible input and learner trial and error, L1 and L2 acquisition also requires meaningful communicative interface. Wong Fillmore (1982, 1991) demonstrated that ESL classrooms in which students had the opportunity to interact with L1 and L2 speakers in socially significant ways—arguing, debating, and explaining—were more successful than less interactive and textbook-based learning environments.

Twenty-first century developments in theories of language acquisition, which look towards sociolinguistic theory, depart substantially from Chomskyan linguistics while building on ideas that emphasize the interactional context of language learning. Based initially on the influential work of sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1974), it is widely recognized that speaking a language is as much about culturally rooted communicative competence as it is about cognitively rooted linguistic (grammatical) competence. The notion of communicative competence accounts for the fact that speakers know how to adjust their speech according to the situation. For example, one uses a different linguistic register to talk to a friend on the phone than for speaking with the school principal. The same holds for written communication, as a student knows that they should write differently in a journal or blog entry than in a report on migratory birds.

ESL instruction has shifted in accordance with these changes in thinking about L1 and L2 language acquisition. Traditional approaches to ESL instruction, including grammar-translation, the audio-lingual method, and the direct method¸ reflected a lack of awareness about sociolinguistic processes in language acquisition. In the grammar-translation method, the teacher's chief role is to provide students with drills and to correct their grammatical errors. It is an approach which is concerned primarily with reading and writing rather than with speaking or listening. In contrast, the audio-lingual method puts primary focus on oral production as the first stage of language acquisition. Students spend most of their time listening to tapes and mimicking drills spoken by a native speaker. Finally, in the direct method, students interact with one another and with instructional materials in a more dynamic, less drill-oriented learning environment. The goal is for students to acquire an intuitive rather than explicit knowledge of grammatical structures. All three methods have been criticized for their failure to emphasize real-life communication. For example, students who have learned through the audio-lingual method may be able to produce phrases with near-native fluency, but they may not be capable of using the phrases in meaningful interactive scenarios.

In response to the shortcomings of traditional methods of second language teaching and to advancements in our understanding of SLA, educational researchers have developed new socio-linguistically-informed approaches to ESL instruction. Second language teaching has largely shifted from a focus on grammatical competence to one in which communicative competence and effective social interaction are key.

Most ESL instructors embrace sociolinguistic methods as do several major professional organizations. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) have published widely on the topic, while the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) serves the interests of ELLs as well as bilingual educators. NABE also conducts lobbying efforts to secure rights and funding for ELLs and speakers of minority languages. The American Association for Applied Linguistics has a multidisciplinary orientation and is dedicated to the practical application of linguistic theory and knowledge, including SLA, language teaching, and bilingualism.

Applications

ESL Program Models

There are several basic ESL program models, each with its own set of assumptions of the nature of L2 acquisition and the place of sociolinguistics in language learning. Each model may vary greatly from setting to setting depending on factors such as state and local policy, the size and diversity of the minority population within a given school or district, and the experience of the classroom teachers. Some schools may combine models to suit ELLs with different language backgrounds and degrees of English proficiency.

At one time, pullout programs, in which a specialist in second language acquisition takes ELL students out of their mainstream classrooms for a portion of the day for English instruction, were very common. This model is problematic not only because students miss instruction in core subjects and therefore fall behind in content areas, but also because ELLs in pullout programs are often stigmatized as being in remedial classes and have a higher drop-out rate than ELLs in other programs (Thomas & Collier, 1997).

Another model is structured immersion, in which ELLs are taught content in mainstream English-language classrooms by a teacher who is trained in adapting instruction to the needs of the ELL students. Advocated by proponents of the English-Only movement, this method is particularly ineffective for younger students and students with low English proficiency (Ovando, Collier & Combs, 2018). Furthermore, because ELL students in structured immersion programs often do not receive adequate language support, this method frequently results in students' exposure to less academically rigorous content.

Currently, the most widely accepted model of ESL is content ESL (sheltered content). In this model, students learn all content in English, but through ESL methods and in a classroom consisting exclusively of other ELLs. In contrast to ESL pullout and structured immersion, content ESL programs have been effective, as students are able to learn English primarily through the authentic language of an interactive content-based classroom, rather than through language instruction alone. Teachers use instructional supports such as scaffolding and realia to ensure students comprehend the subject matter. However, most researchers agree that this method should be reserved for students who have already attained a moderate degree of English proficiency (Ovando, Collier & Combs, 2018).

More generally, the norm in ESL is a dynamic and integrative approach to language learning. In addition to ESL Content instruction, ESL teachers also team-teach and coordinate content curricula with mainstream classroom teachers. ESL professionals sometimes assist grade-level teachers in integrated ELL-mainstream classrooms.

ESL Goals & Standards

TESOL (1997) has articulated three overarching goals for ELLs in grades K-12: acquisition of competence in social language, academic language, and socio-cultural knowledge. Together, these goals acknowledge scientific findings about the nature of language, including that it is functional, it is deeply intertwined with culture, and that it varies systematically from person to person, group to group, and place to place.

Three standards are in place to support each goal. Grade level groups have overlapping but distinct progress indicators. For example, Standard 1 of Goal 1 (competence in social language) is "Students will use English to participate in social interactions" (TESOL, 1997, p. 9). For this standard and goal, a sample progress indicator in grades pre-K to grade 3 is for students to be able to "offer and respond to greetings, compliments, invitations, introductions, and farewells" (p. 31). For grades 4-8, progress indicators include, in addition to those from earlier grades, being able to shop in a supermarket and "correspond with pen pals, English-speaking acquaintances, and friends" (p. 71). Sample progress indicators for grades 9-12 encompass those from earlier grades but also consist of new ones, for instance, being able to "obtain, complete, and process application forms, such as driver's license, social security, college entrance" (p. 109).

Speech Acts & Communicative Competence

Twenty-first century research in ESL methods and SLA has shown the effectiveness of teaching speech acts to ELLs. Speech acts are utterances that also perform an action, such as apologizing, thanking, requesting, and complimenting. For example, in telling someone, "I like your shoes," the speaker is not only making a statement but is also making a compliment. Speech act theory was established by J. T. Austin (1962) and further developed by his student J. R. Searle (1969) to address concerns in the philosophy of language. In the twenty-first century, speech acts are recognized as a component of communicative competence and are central to discourses in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology.

Often, speakers use indirect speech acts, which are especially difficult for language learners to understand. A common form of indirect speech acts occurs with refusals or rejections. If a parent asks a child to take out the garbage and the child responds, "I'm on the phone," this statement constitutes a refusal even without a literal refusal. Likewise, by looking longingly at a friend's piece of pie and saying, "Boy, I really love pie," the speaker is making an indirect request for pie.

Successful performance of speech acts depends on linguistic knowledge, including vocabulary and grammar, but it also requires cultural knowledge. ESL classrooms at all grade and proficiency levels can successfully employ speech act modules that include videos, role playing and skit writing. These activities train the ELL student to recognize, produce and respond to speech acts in appropriate ways.

Standard English, Language Variation, & the ESL Classroom

ELL students often have unique ways of speaking English. Even students who have become fluent in conversational English may speak with an 'accent,' and they may, in certain contexts, code-switch, or alternate between L1 and L2. Rather than aberrant, code-switching is a normal practice among bilinguals worldwide.

From a linguistic point of view, all languages, and all dialects of a single language, are equally complex and equally capable of effective communication. Yet, it is clear that people discriminate against others based on their language or dialect. ESL teachers frequently struggle with how to teach their students English without stigmatizing their speech, which may be communicatively effective and even the norm within their home communities. Knowledge of Standard English-a variety of spoken and written English learned in school-is important, because most people see it as the 'correct' form of English. Since Standard English is an educated variety, it is associated with power and prestige, and not knowing this variety could hinder a student's future success.

Early approaches to ESL emphasized eradication of non-standard features of spoken and written English. However, such efforts often result in the child feeling stigmatized and inadequate. An effective alternative is to teach students about register and dialect variation and context-appropriate speech. Many ESL teachers find it useful to give lessons on the basic notion of sociolinguistic variability-language varies from place to place, context to context, and person to person. Each person has a repertoire of registers, or context-dependent ways of speaking, at their disposal. For example, at work, an auctioneer speaks in a register characterized by its fast pace and distinct intonation, but he likely speaks differently when at the dinner table. Parents use baby talk when interacting with their newborn but then shift to another way of speaking when answering the phone. Registers also are written phenomena, so that one writes a quick note to their roommate using a different kind of language than in writing a job application. ESL teachers can instruct their ELL students about the appropriate contexts of use for one register or variety of English versus another. In particular, they can emphasize that Standard English is important for use in many formal contexts. On the other hand, teachers may encourage students to use non-standard varieties, such as one that employs frequent code-switching, for appropriate tasks such as interacting with classmates or writing a valentine to their mother.

Culturally Relevant Classroom Instruction & Assessment

While part of the ESL model is for teachers to help students understand the local, American expectations for classroom communication, they must also be sensitive to ELLs' native language communicative competencies. For instruction and assessment to be culturally relevant, they should consider cultural differences in norms for classroom behavior, such as the value of competition or expectations for teacher-student interaction (Kramsch, 1993; Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996). Some cultures put much more value on collaboration and group achievement than on individual success, and students from these backgrounds may find it difficult to shine in overtly competitive classroom scenarios. Likewise, in some cultures, the typical mode of student-teacher interaction is one in which the student exhibits a great deal of respect for the teacher, speaks only when spoken to, and is not encouraged to ask questions.

Many ESL teachers find it useful to employ a variety of strategies in their classrooms that emphasize a range of communicative styles. In language instruction and assessment, teachers can combine individual with group work, and formal activities with less formal ones such as one-on-one interviews, story retelling sessions, role playing, and skit and journal writing, among many others. In content areas, scaffolding is key, and teachers will need to employ differentiated scoring, a means of distinguishing among language use, content knowledge, and other criteria such as creativity or artistry. Differentiated assessment can give ELLs a fairer account of their strengths and weaknesses without letting language learning influence every aspect of assessment.

Viewpoints

ESL & Bilingual Education

The field of ESL is inextricably linked with the controversial topics of cultural diversity, minority rights, and bilingual education. Although the US Constitution cedes most decision-making regarding education to individual states, ELLs have basic educational rights protected under federal law. These include the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) which prohibits discrimination based on "race, color, or national origin" in any federally funded program, and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974).

In addition, the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII), originating in 1968 and repeatedly reauthorized, was the first federal acknowledgment of the special needs of English language learners in school, but was largely dismantled in 2001. In that year, under the 'No Child Left Behind' legislation, Title VII was renamed Title III-The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. In its new form, Title III shifted grant funding for ESL and bilingual programs from the federal to the state level.

ESL is sometimes used in conjunction with bilingual education. In ESL/bilingual programs, students receive some instruction in their L1, for a limited (early exit) or extended (late exit) period of time. In contrast with earlier approaches to SLA that argued that L1 'interfered' with L2 acquisition, modern research shows that knowledge of L1 and the continued development of proficiency in it contribute significantly to L2 development. ELLs can transfer academic, literary, and general learning skills from L1 to L2, a phenomenon which Cummins (1979) has called common underlying proficiency of language interdependence. Ramírez, Yuen, Ramey, & Pasta (1991) show in a longitudinal study of students in structured immersion, early exit bilingual and late exit bilingual programs, that only those in late exit programs performed equal to native English speakers on English-language standardized tests.

From a sociolinguistic perspective, the inclusion of L1 education in an ESL program helps tremendously in counteracting the social discrimination that many non-English speaking groups experience in the US. Many ELLs, seeing the apparent lack of relevance and prestige of their language and culture, gradually undergo L1 language loss. Additive bilingualism can serve to boost students' self-esteem and minimize feelings of alienation from their home community.

Even when providing bilingual education is not feasible, schools can support the continued growth of students' native language competencies through other strategies. They can hire bilingual school staff such as librarians, counselors, and lunchroom workers, they can encourage the use of L1 outside of class or for certain tasks in class, and they can provide L1 books and other materials in classrooms and in the library.

While modern ESL teacher training and certification programs embrace multiculturalism and socio-linguistically-based approaches to language learning, the public and the legislators who serve them often do not share these perspectives and may advocate unsound programs for ELLs. Opponents of bilingual education contend that, ultimately, it is detrimental to individuals and to American society for ELLs to use their L1 outside of the home. Senator S. I. Hayakawa (R-CA) began what is called the English-Only movement in the early 1980s to gain support for legislation banning languages other than English from all public domains, including schools. English-Only advocates support the structured immersion model of ESL. They argue that providing L1 language services for non-English speakers discourages their rapid integration into mainstream American life and impedes their acquisition of English. Yet, these arguments have been proven false by a large body of research on the topic (Cummins 1979; Krashen 1996; Crawford 1999).

With the continually shifting demographics of the United States, public and private debates over ESL, bilingual education, and language of instruction are certain to continue.

Terms & Concepts

Academic Language: Acquisition of academic language is one of the three goals articulated by TESOL for ELLs. Academic language is a particular style of language used in the context of formal education. It can include technical jargon, discipline-specific vocabulary, and stylistic conventions specific to formal communication.

Authentic Language: Authentic language is a natural language used for real communicative purposes. It stands in contrast to the artificial language employed in more traditional ESL settings, in which students perform language exercises for the exclusive purpose of acquiring vocabulary or grammar.

Communicative Competence: A concept originally developed by Hymes (1974), communicative competence refers to the capacity of speakers not simply to know grammatical structures of a language (linguistic competence) but also, crucially, to use language in contextually and culturally appropriate ways. Communicative competence is a cornerstone of ESL instruction.

Differentiated Scoring: An approach to the assessment of ELLs. By using a scoring rubric which separates language from other skills, teachers can evaluate ELLs content knowledge more fairly.

English-Language Learner (ELL): A student whose first language is not English but who is in the process of acquiring English skills. A similar term is Limited English Proficiency (LEP), but LEP has come under criticism for portraying language learners in a negative light by focusing on their deficits rather than their abilities.

Pullout Program: A model of ESL education by which ELLs from different content classrooms and grade levels leave their regular classrooms to attend intensive English language classes taught by an ESL specialist.

Linguistic (Grammatical) Competence: A concept originated by Noam Chomsky. It refers to a speaker's knowledge of a linguistic system, or the rules of a language. Linguistic competence is a strictly mental capacity removed from cultural or communicative facets of language abilities.

L1: Refers to a person's first language or native tongue. In the case of ESL students, L1 is any language other than English.

L2: Tefers to a person's second language or sometimes to any language acquired by a speaker after L1. In the case of ESL students, English may be their L2. However, many ESL students already speak two or more languages.

Pre-Referral Intervention: ELLs are frequently misplaced in special education programs. A pre-referral intervention involves a series of investigations into various aspects of a student's capabilities before concluding whether they have a disability.

Realia: A kind of scaffolding or support used to help ELLs learn content. They include hands-on materials from real life, such as groceries, clothing, and cosmetics.

Register: A subset of language that is used in a particular social setting. Public speaking constitutes a particular register which differs in grammar, vocabulary, and prosody, from other registers, such as baby talk.

Scaffolding: A general term in educational theory derived from the educational theorist Lev Vygotsky. In the context of ESL, the term is used to refer to the extra support provided by a content teacher to ELLs, such as using simplified language, realia, hands-on activities, and group learning. Like scaffolding on a building, the learning supports are gradually removed as the student gains linguistic proficiency.

Sheltered Content / ESL Content: ESL content and sheltered content are both terms for a model of ESL education in which ELLs are taught content in English, but in a classroom consisting exclusively of other ELLs and through ESL methods.

Social Language: Acquisition of social language is one of the three goals articulated by TESOL for ELLs. Social language consists of the styles of a language that are used in, and typically acquired through, social interaction.

Socio-Cultural Knowledge: Acquisition of socio-cultural knowledge is one of the three goals articulated by TESOL for ELLs and involves the ability to behave and interact in culturally appropriate ways.

Sociolinguistics: A subfield of linguistics concerned with the interaction between language and society. In particular, sociolinguists study how language use varies according to a range of social variables, such as age, gender, educational level, and ethnic background, as well as according to communicative context.

Speech Act: An utterance that is also an action, such as apologizing, requesting, thanking, and refusing. Speech acts are not just language-specific, but culturally specific as well. Twenty-first century work in ESL and language acquisition suggests that teaching speech acts to ELLs facilitates their learning of the language and communicative competence.

Structured Immersion: A model of ESL often advocated by English-only supporters. In the structured immersion method, ELLs learn content entirely in English in mainstream classrooms. Structured immersion teachers are trained in ESL instructional strategies.

Submersion (sink or swim): The submersion or 'sink or swim' method of ESL is really not a method at all. It involves simply placing ELLs in mainstream classrooms without any additional support.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL): TESOL is an acronym referring to the professional organization, the profession, and the academic discipline of teaching English to speakers of other languages.

Bibliography

Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. Norton.

Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1

Carrera, J.W. (1989). Immigrant students: Their legal rights of access to public schools. National Coalition of Advocates for Students.

Carrier, K. (1999, Spring). The social environment of second language listening: Does status play a role in comprehension? The Modern Language Journal, 83, 65-79. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=1736503&site=ehost-live

Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2014). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.). Heinle & Heinle.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, N. (2015). Aspects of the theory of syntax (50th ed.). MIT Press.

Cohen, A.D. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom (2nd ed.). Heinle & Heinle.

Collier, V.P. & Thomas, W.P. (1998). Assessment and evaluation. In C.J. Ovando & V.P. Collier (Eds.), Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (pp. 240-268). McGraw-Hill.

Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice (4th ed.). Bilingual Educational Services.

Cummins, J. (1979, Spring). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251. Retrieved April 30, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18824313&site=ehost-live

Cummins, J. (1992). Language proficiency, bilingualism, and academic achievement. In P.A. Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers (pp. 16-26). Addison-Wesley.

Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when we are doing right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 454-475. Retrieved April 29, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21789576&site=ehost-live

Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997, Autumn). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9710284140&site=ehost-live

Halliday, M.A.K. (1977). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. Elsevier.

Heubert, J. P. & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. National Academy Press.

Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (1999). Culture in second language teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press.

Howard, M. (2012). The advanced learner's sociolinguistic profile: On issues of individual differences, second language exposure conditions, and type of sociolinguistic variable. Modern Language Journal, 96, 20-33. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=76349410&site=ehost-live

Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2000, Autumn). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 311-326. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3609658&site=ehost-live

Kramsch, C. & Sullivan, P. (1996, July). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50, 62-80.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Language Education Associates.

Levey, S. (2012). Understanding children's non-standard spoken English: A perspective from variationist sociolinguistics. Language & Education: An International Journal, 26, 405-421. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78538788&site=ehost-live

McKay, S. L. & Hornberger, N. (Eds.). (1996). Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in childhood: Vol. 1. Preschool children (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2003, December). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519-533. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11168705&site=ehost-live

O'Malley, J.M. & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Addison-Wesley.

Ortiz, A. (1997, May). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321-332. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9705185958&site=ehost-live

Ovando, C.J., Collier, V.P., and Combs, M.C. (2018). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Ramírez, J.D., Yuen, S.D., Ramey, D.R., & Pasta, D.J. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children (Vols. 1, 2). Aguirre International.

Savignon, S. J. (1972). Teaching for communicative competence: A classroom study. In S. J. Savignon, Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (pp. 67-80). Addison-Wesley.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge University Press.

Shuy, R. (1984). Linguistics in other disciplines. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 419-445. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11238446&site=ehost-live

Simons, J. and Connelly, M. (2000). Quality ESL programs: An administrator's guide. The Scarecrow Press.

Snow, M.A. (Ed.). (2000). Implementing the ESL standards for pre-K - 12 students through teacher education. TESOL.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (1997). ESL standards for pre-K - 12 students. TESOL.

Thomas, W. P. & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2013). The effect of instruction on language learners' sociolinguistic awareness: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. System, 41, 298-306. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89117442&site=ehost-live

Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.) (1983). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Newbury House.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1982). Instructional language as linguistic input: Second language learning in classrooms. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 283-296). Academic Press.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model of learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp.49-69). Cambridge University Press.

Suggested Reading

Crawford, J. (Ed.). (1992). Language loyalties: A source book on the Official English controversy. University of Chicago Press.

Herrera, S. & Murray, K. (2011). Mastering ESL and bilingual methods: Differentiated instruction for cultural and linguistically diverse (CLD) students (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Manyak, P. (2006, Dec.). Fostering bi-literacy in a monolingual milieu: Reflections in two counter-hegemonic English immersion classes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6, 241-266. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23531070&site=ehost-live

Paulston, C. B. (1997). Language policies and language rights. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 73-85. Retrieved April 29, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9712193947&site=ehost-live

Peregoy, S. & Boyle, O. (2022). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers MyLabSchool Edition (8th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Santa Ana, O. (Ed.). (2004). Tongue-tied: The lives of multilingual children in public education. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.