IMRPhenomXHM

Within the field of educational LPP, ethnographic approaches to the study of language education policies have provided rich understandings of the interplay between official multilingual policies and the schools where they are instantiated. Critical

language policy research has largely focused on the ideological nature of LPP activities, particularly highlighting the role of policies as instruments of power responsible for overtly and inadvertently creating and sustaining social inequalities, as well as serving the interests of dominant groups (Pennycook, 2002, 2006; Shohamy, 2006; Tollefson, 1991). Ethnographic perspectives have also shown how language policies and LPP activities can both open and up and close down ideological and implementation spaces in support of Indigenous and minoritized languages, literacies, identities and practices (Canagarajah, 2005, 2006; Davis, 1999; Hornberger, 1988, 2002; Hornberger, Tapia, Kvietok Dueñas, & Lee, 2018; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). Much of this latter research has examined and theorized the roles of teachers as arbiters, policymakers, and ultimate interpreters and implementers of language policies (Brown, 2010; Lo Bianco, 2010; Menken & Garcia, 2010; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Valdiviezo, 2009).

The study of language acquisition planning overlaps with the field of bilingual education. Scholarship on bilingual education in Indigenous and minoritized language contexts has long been concerned with understanding how schools can validate and promote language diversity in education as well as the types of language practices and

ideologies co-existing in language teaching and learning. Bilingual education typologies and ethnographic research have identified different models and structures in support of the development of minoritized languages, the strengthening of cultural identities and the promotion of intercultural citizenship (Baker, 2006; Freeman, 1998; Hornberger, 1991). Hornberger (1991) describes the potential of maintenance and enrichment models of bilingual education, the former informed by the goals of minority language maintenance and cultural identity affirmation, while the latter’s goals are to maintain and extend minoritized languages and promote cultural pluralism. Bilingual education models can be implemented through a variety of types, defined in terms of the contextual and structural characteristics of programs. Common among Indigenous language education are

immersion structures (such as the case of Hawaiian and Maori education) as well as maintenance structures of bilingual education (such as the proposed model of intercultural bilingual education across Latin America).

Given the variety of ways in which bilingual education models and structures are implemented in classrooms, attending to teaching practices and interactions is useful to understand classroom dynamics and language ideologies at play. A robust body of

literature has attended to the role of classroom participatory structures (teacher to student- centered, IRE to IRF patterns, third space linguistic practices, safe-talk practices)

(Gutierrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejada, 1999; Hornberger & Chick, 2001; Philips, 1972; Rymes, 2010), teacher talk (Lo Bianco, 2010), pedagogies of language awareness (Hélot & Young, 2005) and critical language awareness (Zavala, 2015), biliteracy practices (Hornberger, 2003) and the role of texts (Hornberger, 1990; Rickford &

language education.

Recent work on monoglossic and heteroglossic approaches to language education further sheds light on essentialist and fluid framings of language and identity to be found in language education. García (2009) and Flores (2013) argue that additive bilingual education models, such as maintenance and enrichment models, are often based on monoglossic ideologies that rigidly separate languages, reflect essentializing

understandings of language and identity and can further marginalize learners. Flores (2013) has historicized how these monoglossic ideologies emerged hand in hand with nation-state building and colonial projects which also produced ‘monoglossic languaging subjects’, understood as a ‘coordinated bilingual’ having equal mastery of two bounded languages, as being able to engage in the literacy practices of standard and unified languages, and as someone whose language practices inherently represent their true identities. Pedagogies with monoglossic orientations have been described as contributing to the exclusion and devaluing of vernacular forms and linguistic borrowings in French- Ontarian schools (Heller, 1995), the erasure of fluid bilingual practices in dual language models (Fitts, 2006), as well as favoring notions of heritage that are at odds with the syncretic identities of heritage language learners (Blackledge & Creese, 2010).

In contrast, Blackledge and Creese (2010) discuss the promises of flexible

bilingual pedagogies with a focus on student voice and agency as individuals draw on all available language and literacy practices in the business of language learning and

teaching. Instructional strategies include bilingual label quests, repetition and translation across languages, among others (p. 213-14). Flores and Beardsmore (2015) highlight the potential of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programs as examples of

bilingual education models guided by heteroglossic understandings of bilingualism. Despite the promises of heteroglossic practices to promote more inclusive language education, Flores (2013) cautions that heteroglossic ideologies can be complicit with sustaining neoliberal relations of power, which could further marginalize minoritized language speakers. Valdés (2015), in turn, calls for heteroglossic understandings of language that validate flexible bilingualism to be accompanied by pedagogies that can also support the development of powerful language practices across the many contexts heritage language learners find themselves across time.

In addition, sociolinguistic and linguistic anthropological work has underscored how minority language education is not simply an attempt to create more speakers or uses of a language but rather, “plays an active role in defining both linguistic and

sociolinguistic identities, creating new communities of practice and meaning” (Jaffe, 2011, p. 206). Addressing Indigenous language revitalization initiatives in Ecuador, King (2001) states that such initiatives “are not simply ‘undoing’ the processes of language loss, but rather are fundamentally altering patterns of language use” (p. 197). Not

uncommon among minoritized language education initiatives are debates concerning the variety of language to be taught. Hornberger and King (1998), writing about the “thorny issue of authenticity” (p. 403) in Quechua corpus and acquisition planning, consider how more rigid and uncompromising orientations to authenticity and legitimacy run the danger of stalling language use and maintenance, outcomes which are counter to the goals of heritage and minority language education programs. Nevertheless, as others have also noted, notions of legitimacy and authority are neither “unilateral nor unchanging” (p.

revitalization (Jaffe, 2011) with different effects (for more on the implications of

authenticity, purism and standard language ideologies in minoritized language education see Costa, 2015; Guerrettaz, 2015; Sichra, 2006).

Finally, reflecting on the state of U.S. language education, Valdés (2015) cautions about the challenges inherent in the process of curricularizing language, or making languages teachable in institutionalized educational settings. For Valdés (2015),

curricularization involves the selection and teaching of particular language forms, “as if they could be arranged into a finite, agreed-upon set of structures, skills, tasks, or

functions” (p. 262). This process not only reflects and constructs ideologies of languages as neatly bounded structures, but also produces categories of language learners which, Valdés cautions, seriously impact students’ lives.

Following Hornberger, Jaffe, King and Valdés, I understand acquisition planning activities, such as the teaching of Quechua across high schools in Cusco, as inherently ideological practices, which are active in shaping particular views about language, language use and language learners’ identities, with implications for learners and for Indigenous language maintenance. In Chapter 8, I explore the various language ideological orientations co-existing in Quechua language education classrooms and consider the opportunities, and lack of opportunities, these create for meaningful language learning and for bringing Quechua forward in a way that is respectful and responsive to how learners and communities use, and aspire to use, their languages (Hinton & Hale, 2001; Hornberger, 2008; Hornberger & King, 1996; Lee, 2007; López, 2008; McCarty, 2008; Romero-Little, 2006; Warner, 1999). The timely need to engage the ideological orientations behind Indigenous language education in a constructive

manner, specially the work and effects of monoglossic and heteroglossic language ideologies, has been clearly articulated by Gilmore (2011), who explains:

While this [one language, one people] ideological position is essentializing and is often used as a rationalization for harsh assimilationist policies and linguistic genocide, the very same ideology, ironically, is at the heart of most Indigenous and minority language revitalization movements. The paradox, while thought- provoking, does not diminish the dangers of linguistic oppression, or the hope and resilience of the undaunted and valiantly successful language reversal projects in diverse communities around the globe. (p. 125)

2.2.1.1 Youth and minoritized language education

Scholarship focusing on youth experiences in contexts of minoritized language education has highlighted the ways in which learners encounter and respond to ascribed identities and dominant language practices and ideologies in school settings, constructing alternative identity positionings or employing alternative linguistic resources at times, and aligning with those favored by schools, at other times. Much of this ethnographic and discourse analytic research has been conducted in European countries and the U.S. and examines the emic meanings behind youth language practices identified as crossing (Rampton & Charalambous, 2012), carnivalesque language (Blackledge & Creese, 2010), linguistic sabotage (Jaspers, 2015), faux (Link, Gallo, & Wortham, 2014), mock (Talmy, 2010) and inverted registers (Rosa, 2016).

Based on a multi sited ethnography of complementary schools in England,

Blackledge and Creese (2010) describe how students mobilize different linguistic and youth culture resources to create alternative worlds to those favored by teachers. In these second-life spaces, students challenge the ‘official’ agenda of language and heritage

learning, mocking tradition and authority, as well as reified and essentialized notions of language, heritage and identity through the use of stylizations, repetitions, exaggerations and grotesque language. Based on ethnographic findings from elementary schools in the U.S., Link et al. (2014) propose the concept of faux Spanish to describe the language

practices of non-Spanish speaking students, or “nonsense syllables which sound like Spanish in their phonology and intonation” (p. 256) and utterances strung together in what sound like conversational-turns. Faux Spanish practices, in fact, are mobilized by children to build co-membership with their Latino and Spanish-speaking classmates. Throughout Chapters 7, 8 and 9, I examine instances of youth language play, creativity and exploration which shed light on how youth made sense of circulating language ideologies about Quechua, language learning and about their roles as (non)speakers.

Additionally, research on mock registers of language has highlighted the ways in which youth stylizations draw on, and many times sustain, racializing language practices. Hill’s (1998) work on Mock Spanish in the U.S. stands as a founding concept in this line of research. Mock Spanish was coined to refer to a covert racist discourse which elevates Whiteness while it accomplishes the “racialization of its subordinate-group targets through indirect indexicality” (Hill, 1998, p. 455). That is, through Mock Spanish speakers directly index a “congenial persona” while indirectly indexing and reproducing racist images of Spanish-speakers. According to Hill, practices of Mock Spanish, or the mixing of Spanish and English in a jocular key by Whites, include semantic pejoration of Spanish loans, euphemisms, so-called Spanish morphology, and hyperanglicized and parodic pronunciations and orthographic representations. As pointed out by Rosa and Flores (2017), subsequent work on mock registers of language in the U.S. has

documented how registers such as ‘Mock Asian’ (Chun, 2004) and ‘Hollywood Injun English’ (Meek, 2006) have become enregistered to index racialized models of speakerhood which reproduce Orientalist and deficit images of Asian and Native Americans.

In the context of language education, Talmy (2010) has described Mock ESL as a linguistic style and a practice through which local ESL students in a Hawai‘i public school performed “displays of distinction from their lower-L2-expert and newcomer classmates” (p. 229). Mock ESL practices were socio-historically grounded on a nationalist language ideology which converged with racism, nativism, exclusionism, assimilationism, and xenophobia. Talmy (2010) describes how local ESL students reproduced the ‘ESL student’ or ‘FOB’ (Fresh off the boat) category through their mock practices, figures which indexed attributes of “rudimentary L2 English expertise,

interactional incompetence, and pragmatic ineptitude”, “incomprehensibility and awkwardness”, “low mental capacity, infantilism and befuddlement”, “and naiveté and novicehood” (p. 239). Nevertheless, studies also document how heritage language learners simultaneously draw on mock registers to take up postures of resistance against school authorities or essentialist understandings of language and heritage (Blackledge and Creese, 2010) or how US Latina/o youth appropriate mock registers and call into question negative views of their bilingual proficiencies (Rosa, 2016). In Chapter 9, I draw on this literature to explore how youth engaged in stylized practices of Mock Mote in their Quechua classrooms and high schools and their role in ongoing processes of racialization of Quechua speakers.

Indigenous language education research in the U.S. has shown the advantages of bilingual/heritage language education for students’ identity development, school

performance and language learning (for a review see McCarty & Nicholas, 2014; see also McCarty, 2002; Wilson & Kamana, 2014), although few studies offer in-depth

ethnographic accounts of youth’ experiences within these programs or examine the language ideologies and identity positionings constructed, questioned and reimagined through interactions. As part of a broader study Wyman (2012), however, offers a telling account of how Yup’ik youth mobilized Yup’ik for different purposes within an English- dominant schooling environment, highlighting how youth used Yup’ik as an “in-group code for negotiating racialized dynamics of schooling” (p. 118). Wyman describes how youth drew on Yup’ik to help each other achieve schoolwork, protect local knowledge systems from outsiders, joke, and resist and critique school authority.

Drawing on mostly questionnaire and interview data with Native youth, McCarty, Romero-Little, Warhol and Zepeda (2009) describe how teachers might have different language expectations of students than students themselves, and schools are often places where students’ heteroglossic repertoires and language abilities are evaluated in negative terms. In cases where Navajo was offered as a language subject, Lee (2007) documents how some students expressed concern for schools to provide better language learning instruction, and demanded classes that were more challenging and offered opportunities to learn new things about their language and culture. Although Indigenous language education classrooms are not the primary site of the research, several studies have found that Indigenous students critique the bad quality, or lack of, Indigenous language and culturally-relevant education, while at the same time, youth identify schools as important

sites to offer them these opportunities (Kroupa, 2014; Lee, 2014; McCarty et al., 2009; Tulloch, 2014).

Lee’s (2007) study also found that peers greatly determined Navajo students’ language choice and use in school settings (English-Navajo), even more than school language use and norms. According to Lee, many students with the ability to speak Navajo chose to speak English to conform to English-speaking peers, speak the ‘cool’ language, and be like others. In order to speak Navajo at school, Lee (2007) explains, “they must find secret, safe places to speak Navajo” (p. 24). Lee does not attribute this choice to students’ shame of Navajo, but rather, to the fear of being ridiculed by their peers. Through questionnaires, McCarty et al. (2009) found that in addition to

classrooms, Native languages are heard and/or spoken by youth in the cafeteria, hallways and school bus.

Research conducted in the Andes has produced a small yet growing body of literature in heritage and urban Quechua language education (King, 2001; Sichra, 2006; Zavala, 2015) (see Chapter 3 for a review). However, little is still known about how youth themselves experience these programs and how they negotiate notions of bilingualism and their identities as learners and speakers in their interactions with teachers and peers, themes I take up in Chapters 7, 8 and 9.