r,v t-IftJl<~f..) 'ZOOS); I!A-IV'3001<. 'OF /-?6s12?1t<.

GI-f
~GeoIJD J-AtJt3t.(A-6£ "TG-#lc!t-Il/Il~H/t) ~/#6,
M,4 H~ 4 HI Ai ~.: ~ L-1.3A-U-fYl .

29

Second Language Literacy

and Biliteracy
Terrence G. Wiley
Arizona State University

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Embarking on any discussion of literacy with those who are literate is problematic,
not only because the topic can become technical but also because literacy is so ever-
present and familiar. Probing the subject in any depth reveals that it is often laden with
tacit assumptions that impact theory, policy, and practice. Second language literacy
and biliteracy studies are potentially even thornier because all the assumptions and
debates within literacy studies broadly remain despite any attempt to narrow the
focus. Thus, it is necessary to foreground some of the major issues and ideological
tensions in the broader field of literacy studies that necessarily intrude on the study
of second language literacy and biliteracy.

BACKGROUND

N omenclature

Critically reflecting on nomenclature used in discussions related to literacy is impor-

tant, particularly in the United States where there is often considerable confusion in
popular discourse regarding the extent of literacy and illiteracy among language mi-
norities. In recent years, there has been increasing sensitivity concerning the need to
use non-stigmatizing nomenclature when referring to language minorities. For some,
the expression "language minority" itself may seem negatively ascriptive. Neverthe-
less, the expression will be used in this chapter, referring to those who speak lan-
guages other than English or so-called "nonstandard" varieties of English as their
initial household or community language(s). They may be considered "minorities"
either in a strict numerical sense and/ or in the sociopolitical sense of being mem-
bers of "non-dominant" language groups. "Language minority" is preferred herein
because it provides a basis for appealing to legal rights and protections that other

529
530 WILEY

more euphemistically motivated labels lack (see Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000;Wiley, 1996, communities.
particularly chap. 6; and Wiley,2001, 2002b). identities. Sac
Nomenclature is also important because it reveals implicit assumptions and biases used for othe
that are not without social consequences. Nonliteracy merely notes the absence of lit- Jews learn HE
eracy without specifying any expectations, but illiteracy implies a failure to become There has
literate and educated amidst societal expectations to do so. Preliteracy assumes the in- the same has
evitability of literacy. Thus, when a person is called illiterate it implies a social failing, the literati, w
often a personal failing. If a group is called pre literate, the assumption is that they or Greek, eve
are somewhere on a developmental path toward the inevitable. Historical and an- French becarr
thropological discussions relating to the rise of literacy in human societies have often Enlightenmer
treated literacy as a technological advance resulting in a qualitative cognitive divide in English anc
separating the literate from the nonliterates. Gee (1986)concluded this alleged divide wide prestige
represents "a new, more subtle version of the savage-versus-civilized dichotomy .... admiration in
[nonliteratesJ were sometimes said to be 'mystical and prelogical' incapable of ab- other than En
stract thought, irrational, childlike, ... and inferior" (pp. 720-721; text in brackets in English are
added). their biliterate
often taken to
The Importance and Functions of Second Language sign of nation.
Literacy and Biliteracy
Common Mi
Biliteracy is common around the world. It is promoted in the European Economic
Union. India has two national official languages-Hindi and English-along with Anumberofr
15 iegionallanguages that coexist with them. Switzerland has four official national language dive
languages: German, French, and Italian have federal status, along with Romansh, ous scholars h.
which has local status. Canada is officially bilingual and uses French and English as (d. Kloss, 197]
languages of literacy. In the United Kingdom, Wales has a dual language policy that 2000; Wiley, 1~
now promotes biliteracy in Welsh along with English (Baker & Jones, 2000).Language in the United ~
minorities are well positioned to become biliterate if they can develop literacy and English; (b) so
have access to quality education in the majority or dominant language (Wiley,2002a). weaken the P'
Unfortunately, all too often this is not the case. lack of Englisl
Second language literacy and biliteracy may be approached from individual, com- guage minorit:
munity, societal, and cross-national perspectives. Individuals become biliterate for misperception
many reasons. Literacy in more than one language has both pragmatic and status sig- and often infh:
nificance. Second language literacy/biliteracy is vital for language minorities to have are Baugh (199
access to employment and to access the social, political, and economic life of the pre- (1997);Tse (20(
vailing society as well as in their local communities (Spener, 1994). Those migrating
from one country to another seeking better economic or educational opportunities, or
fleeing hardships or discrimination in their countries of origin, may need to acquire lit-
eracy in a second language (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000).Given the importance of literacy
and educational achievement in the contemporary world for economic access, social There is no un
participation, and political participation, understanding both the distribution of liter- become comrru
acy and access to equitable educational programs are particularly important because "literacies / mu
many language minorities do not have immediate access to literacy and schooling in to accept the r
their own languages. literacy are not
Biliteracy serves many social and personal uses around the world and in the United the false impre:
States. It has pragmatic functions in facilitating international travel and trade. At the falling (Berline
community level in the United States, for example, native language newspapers assist The followir
immigrants and other language minorities by providing a means by which they can native language
use their stronger language of literacy while they acquire English literacy. They can multiliteracy (c
also keep abreast of local news and news from their country of origin not dealt with in guage literacy
English language newspapers. In this regard, recent alternative language newspapers guage of litera
function similarly to those of the past. In 1910, for example, there were 540 German print language,
language newspapers in the United States (Wiley, 1998). Presently, Spanish, Chi- Similarly, since
nese, and Vietnamese newspapers, to name a few, serve similar functions in biliterate be extended be
 29. SECONDLANGUAGE LITERACY AND BILlTERACY 531

ey, 1996, communities. Many around the world also acquire biliteracy to sustain their religious
identities. Sacred texts may exist in classical languages or languages not commonly
d biases used for other purposes: Muslims study classical Arabic to read the Koran, orthodox
:e of lit- Jews learn Hebrew to read the Torah (Baker & Jones, 2000).
become There has always been an elitist tendency to treat literacy as social capital and
5 the in- the same has been true for biliteracy. Historically, biliteracy was an expectation for
failing, the literati, who were not even considered fully literate unless they could read Latin
tat they or Greek, even if they could read and write their vernacular language (Wiley, 1996).
ind an- French became the prestige language of literacy and "reason" during the European
re often Enlightenment, and many, including American revolutionary leaders, were biliterate
, divide in English and French. English second language literacy has assumed a similar world-
divide wide prestige today. Native English speakers who are biliterate are commonly held in
my .... admiration in the United States if they acquire competence and literacy in languages
~of ab- other than English. In contrast, language minorities who achieve functional literacy
rackets in English are generally not similarly admired by English-speaking monolinguals for
their biliterate abilities (Wiley, 2002a). The distribution of literacy within a society is
often taken to be a barometer of societal well-being and, between nations, is seen as a
sign of national strength and competitiveness.

Common Misperceptions about Literacy and Language Diversity

'nomic
5 with A number of misperceptions underlie the popular understandings about literacy and
ational language diversity in the United States. These misperceptions are based on what vari-
nansh, ous scholars have identified as the dominant monolingual English language ideology
lish as (cf. Kloss, 1971; Krashen 1997, 1999; Macias, 1985; Ovando & McLaren, 2000; Schmidt,
:y that 2000; Wiley, 1999,2000). Some of the most common misperceptions are: (a) illiteracy
guage in the United States is primarily attributable to the presence of languages other than
'y and English; (b) social and regional varieties, or "dialects," of English are "illiterate" and
002a). weaken the purity of "standard" English; (c) lack of English oral facility indicates a
lack of English literacy; and (d) bilingual education has failed because it keeps lan-
.com- guage minorities from learning English and becoming highly literate. Although these
te for misperceptions have no authority among applied linguists, they are widely believed
1S sig- and often influence policymaking. Some examples of works that help to refute them
,have are Baugh (1999), Crawford (2000), Hakuta (1986), Krashen (1997, 1999), Lippi-Green,
e pre- (1997); Tse (2001), Wiley (1996); Wiley & Lukes (1996).
'ating
es, or
.re lit- DEFINING LITERACY AND BILITERACY
eracy
iocial There is no universally accepted definition of literacy. In fact, in recent years it has
liter- become common for many scholars to challenge the singular construct of literacy with
:ause "literacies / multiliteracies," even though our spellcheckers have not been programmed
ngin to accept the pluralization. Defining literacy is also complicated because notions of
literacy are not static. Expectations regarding literacy skills inflate over time, giving
.rited the false impression that literacy standards and performance of recent generations are
.t the falling (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Bracey, 1997; Resnick & Resnick, 1977).
.ssist The following basic distinctions are important in constructing a typology of literacy:
'can native language literacy, second dialect literacy, second language literacy, and biliteracy /
'can multiliteracy (d. Macias, 1990). It is also worth noting that typologies of second lan-
thin guage literacy are generally framed with implicit reference to a standard oral lan-
pers guage of literacy. Given that one may be deaf from birth and acquire literacy in a
man print language, to extend the notion of language beyond oral languages is important.
Chi- Similarly, since the blind may acquire literacy in Braille, the notion of print needs to
'rate be extended beyond visual systems.
·
532 WILEY

Traditional Definitions language:

on functir
Ever since the rise of mass education, there has been widespread concern regarding (1987; see
the extent of literacy, the effectiveness of literacy instruction, and low performance. monocult
Contemporaneous with the rise of social efficiency and technologist orientations in Analog;
education, there has been alarm over underachievement and "laggards" in the schools tent,knov
(see Kliebard, 1996) as well as very legitimate concerns about disproportionate school literacy w
failure and underachievement among some language minority groups. Any attempt to much ado
assess the distribution of literacy in society, performance in schools, or the knowledge bygeogra
and skills necessary to function in a literate society involves either implicit or explicit canbecon
notions of what it means to be literate. In this context, examination of some of the (p. 19), thi
more common definitions is helpful, with the qualification that additional definitions secondarx
are plentiful (see Wiley, 1996 for elaboration). and vario
Minimal literacy refers to the ability to read or write something, at some level, in
some contextis). In the past, even the ability to write one's own name or read a simple
passage out loud were taken as an adequate display of literacy (Resnick & Resnick,
Ethnogrr
1977). During World War 1, language minority immigrants trying to enter the United Restricted
States were required to show that they had minimal literacy abilities by reading short a minority
passages from the Bible in their native language (see Wiley, 1996, chap. 4). Even this tional litei
simple test, which was sensitive to language background, was not without bias given it (p. 238)
the diversity of religious orientations of the immigrants. consider 1
Conventional literacy refers to the ability to use print by reading, writing, and com- usually le
prehending "texts on familiar subjects and to understand" print within one's envi- rather tha
ronment (Hunter & Harman, 1979, p. 7). This definition begs the question somewhat Similar
because there are no consensus definitions of reading and writing. Consider that to conven
"familiar" texts could include a wide range of reading levels (from a skills-based sition to 2
point of view) and a wide variety of materials (from a social practices perspective). tion. The)
Language minorities asked to demonstrate their conventional literacy rarely are as- man (199:
sessed on texts in their native language. channels c
Basic literacy presumes a foundational level of skills from which continued literacy styles in VI
development is sustained through individual effort (Macias, 1990; Venezky, Wagner, language.
& Ciliberti, 1990). Mikulecky (1990) has warned, "there is little evidence that basic Siiuaiec
literacy in itself wields a magical transforming power for learning" (p. 26). to the role
Functional literacy refers to the ability to use print in order to achieve individ- activities (
ual goals as well as the print-related obligations of employment, citizenship, daily and which
problem solving, and participation in the community. It includes the notion of con- are ways n
ventionalliteracy while locating it in economic and social contexts. Functional lit- people to
eracy has dominated popular and policy discussions about literacy, but the notion social acti-
has been criticized for imposing a middle-class bias in notions of functional com- plural, Iite
petence (see Hunter & Harman, 1979). Given these criticisms, Kirsch and Junge- way of ref
blut (1986) devised three broad domains of literacy assessment-prose, document, practices I
and quantitative- subsequently used in the National Adult Literacy Survey (see the (1984,199:
following discussion). is literacy)
Street (19S
Elite and Unconventional Definitions also invol'
Elite literacy evokes the notion of literacy as a "possession" of knowledge and skills
acquired in school and legitimized by the academic credentials one "holds," which
constitute a sociocultural capital for strategic power (Erickson, 1984). Elite literacy
is sanctioned and accredited by official endorsement and certified with diplomas
from universities, which function as surrogates for mastery and high levels of attain- The study
ment in culturally approved knowledge, expressed in standard language and institu- drawing j
tionally approved genres. Elite education may include literary instruction in foreign psycholog
 29. SECONDLANGUAGE LITERACY AND BILITERACY 533

languages, usually with a focus on "high" culture and "great" literature rather than
on functional or vernacular literacy. "Cultural literacy," the creation of E. D. Hirsch
egarding (1987; see also Hirsch, Kett, & Trefil, 1988) may be seen as an attempt to define a
ormance. mono cultural elite version of literacy as the basis for mass acquisition.
ations in Analogicalliteracies pertain to knowledge and skills related to particular types of con-
eschools tent, knowledge, technologies, and methodologies. They extend traditional notions of
te school literacy with other technologies and specialized areas of knowledge. There has been
:temptto much ado about computer literacy, numeracy, historical literacy, and graphicacy (used
owledge by geographers; Graff, 1994). Macias (1990) has cautioned that the analogicalliteracies
r explicit can become "secondary aspects of literacy study, not parts of the definition of literacy"
ie of the (p. 19), thus confusing or confounding the definition of literacy with the analogical or
finitions secondary aspects of literacy. Kress (2003) focuses on the relationship between literacy
and various new technological modalities of literacy in the new media age.
level, in
a simple
Ethnographically Informed Definitions of Literacy
Resnick,
~United Restricted literacy refers to "participation in script activities" that remain "restricted to
ng short a minority of self-selected" people (Scribner & Cole, 1981, p. 238). It differs from func-
ven this tiona I literacy because "those who do not know it can get along quite well" without
as given it (p. 238) and because it fails to "fulfill the expectations of those social scientists who
consider literacy a prime mover in social change" (p. 239). Restricted literacies are
nd com- usually learned informally for specific purposes within a self-contained community
-'s envi- rather than in school or wider societal contexts.
mewhat Similarly, vernacular liieracies pertain to "unofficial" or "local" practices rather than
:ler that to conventional or academic standards wherein the defining group may be in oppo-
.s-based sition to academic or institutionally sanctioned genres or channels of communica-
iective). tion. They may be designed to challenge formal rules of what can be written. Shu-
'are as- man (1993) contends that vernacular literacies are intended to confront privileged
channels and genres of communication. Vernacular literacies intentionally use "oral"
literacy styles in writing and also include so-called nonstandard and nonacademic varieties of
Nagner, language.
at basic Situated literacies (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanic, 2000) reorient the focus of attention
to the role of literacy in social practices, wherein literacies are "the link between the
ndivid- activities of reading and writing and the social structures in which they are embedded
J, daily
and which they shape" (p. 7). As Gee (2000) notes, "there are as many literacies as there
of con- are ways in which written language is recruited within specific social practices to allow
mal lit- people to enact and recognize specific social identities ... and specifically situated
notion social activities .... That's why the New Literacy Studies often uses the literacy in the
al com- plural, literacies" (p. iii). Multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000) provide a similar
Junge- way of referring to situated literacies. The notion is likewise derived from the social
zumeni, practices perspective and ideological orientation (discussed next) identified by Street
see the (1984,1993,1995,1999). Barton et al. (2000) note that a fundamental unit of socialtheory
is literacy practices, which is simply "what people do with literacy" (p. 7). Following
Street (1993), they contend "practices are not observable units of behavior since they
also involve values, attitudes, feelings, and social relationships" (p. 7).

i skills
which SCHOLARLY ORIENTATIONS TOWARD LITERACY
iteracy AND BILITERACY
olomas
attain- The study of literacy, second language literacy, and biliteracy are interdisciplinary,
nstitu- drawing from linguistics (particularly applied linguistics), education, sociology,
oreign psychology, history, and anthropology (d. Baynham, 1995, p. 21). Nevertheless, there
I
I
I" 534 WILEY

are some common areas of emphasis and difference across, and sometimes within, directly fo.
these disciplines. In an effort to analyze how different scholars approach literacy, Street ities in "lit
(1984,1993,1995,1999) identifies two broad approaches or "models": autonomous and with word
ideological. cialization
study inch
The Autonomous Orientation literacy pr
communit
The autonomous orientation focuses on formal mental properties of decoding and vided usef
encoding text, and comprehending vocabulary without any in-depth analyses of how the social I
these processes are used within sociocultural contexts. The achievement of the learner Theide(
in obtaining literacy is characterized in terms of how it correlates with individual psy- of 'culture'
chological development. Cognitive consequences are considered to result from the saw these
ability to master print and characteristics associated with particular types of texts, ing activiti
often in the essayist tradition (Street, 1984). Even if the social practices in which to engage
they are used are alluded to, there is little attention to their sociocultural and in- (1989, 199=
stitutional embeddedness. Major proponents of this orientation are Goody and Watt Macedo (1'
(1988), Havelock (1963, 1988), Olson (1977, 1984, 1988), and Ong (1982, 1988, 1992). viewpoints
In subsequent work, Goody (1988, 1999), Ong (1992), and Olson (1994, 1999), have dedness of
moderated their earlier positions somewhat (see Street's, 1999, commentary). Iitical prac
tion; the at
Social Practices and Ideological Orientations p.15).
Again, f
The social practices view of literacy has its origins in a variety of sources. Scribner neutral nOJ
and Cole (1978, 1981) went in search of cognitive effects of literacy and schooling and are seen as
ended up endorsing a strong social practices view of literacy. Heath's (1983) Ways which they
with Words provided a significant example of an in-depth, ethnographic analysis of succeed in
three communities' oral and literate practices. Street (1984) helped to demonstrate the way in
commonalities in his work and that of others focusing on social practices. Gee (1986) and the hi.
and Cook-Gumperz (1986) complemented this general direction. Other noteworthy sion of oth
works followed (e.g., Baynham, 1995; Street, 1993). In the early and mid-1990s, a generally, a
consensus was forming around the social practices view and what was more broadly institutions
being referred to as the New Literacy Studies (Willinsky, 1990). According to Gee (2001), it is impori
there are two major claims of this orientation: function ac

[First] if you want to know how reading and writing work, don't look at them directly
and in and of themselves. Rather, look directly at specific social practices in which specific
Deschooli
ways of writing and reading are embedded. Furthermore, look at how specific ways of
reading and writing, within these social practices are always integrally connected to One is the r
specific ways of using oral language .... (p. iii) and Cole C
literacy pel
[Second.I literacy is not first and foremost a mental possession of individuals. Rather, it
people-th
is first and foremost a social relationship among people, their ways with words, deeds,
and things, and institutions. Literacy is primarily and fundamentally out in the social, and Cole S(
historical, cultural, and political world. It is only secondarily a set of cognitive skills, 1986, 1988)
which sub serve literacies as social acts in quite diverse ways in different contexts (p. iv). her contrib
interaction
Gee's second point identifies where the social practices orientation differs with the on literacy f
autonomous view, which is largely one of emphasis and directionality. The issue is social, and J
not that social practices scholars are disinterested in cognitive development, but that functions. ~
they maintain language and literacy skills or proficiencies are better understood and authoritatix
analyzed in social context, rather than as independent, autonomous skills, whether authority ol
they are in or out of school (e.g., Hull & Schultz, 2002; Kalmar, 2001; Scribner, 1981; us to move 1
and Taylor, 1997). may even e
Heath's (1983, 1988) and Street's (1984) work in particular has strong implica- Hull,1997;
tions for studies of second language literacy and biliteracy, even though they are not 1993).
 29. SECONDLANGUA.GELITERACY AND BILlTERl\CY 535

within, directly focused on them. Heath's study includes a focus on speech and literate activ-
{,Street ities in "literacy events" among three speech communities that had different "ways
JUS and with words," and most significantly different practices of language and literacy so-
cialization, which are not always understood or appreciated by schools. Street's (1984)
study includes a focus on rural literacy practices in Iran. Both studies emphasize how
literacy practices are socially embedded and constructed across various language
communities. Taylor (1997) and Weinstein-Shr (1993), to name only a few, have pro-
ng and vided useful studies of immigrant language minority communities consistent with
of how the social practices perspective.
learner The ideological orientation emphasizes that literacy practices "are aspects not only
ral psy- of 'culture' but also of power structures" (Street, 1993, P: 7). Similarly, Levine (1982)
om the saw these literacy practices as being embedded in historical contexts and as includ-
f texts, ing activities in which an individual both wishes to engage and may be compelled
which to engage (p. 264). Other works that are relevant to this perspective are Auerbach
md in- (1989, 1992a, 1992b), Delgado-Gaitan and Trueba (1991), Edelsky (1996), Freire and
d Watt Macedo (1987), Lankshear (1997), Luke (1988), Stuckey (1991), and Walsh (1991). The
.1992). viewpoints of these writers are hardly uniform, but generally illustrate the embed-
), have dedness of literacy in social practices; institutions; sociocultural, economic, and po-
litical practices; and ideologies "that guide the processes of communicative produc-
tion; the outcomes of utterances and texts produced in these practices" (Grillo, 1989,
p.15).
Again, from the ideological orientation, literacy practices are viewed as neither a
:ribner neutral nor autonomous process, nor as mere individual achievements. Rather, they
ng and are seen as being shaped by the dominant social, economic, and political institutions in
) Ways which they are socially, culturally, and politically embedded. Given that some groups
ysis of succeed in school whereas others fail, the ideological approach seeks to interrogate
nstrate the way in which literacy development is undertaken by scrutinizing implicit biases
(1986) and the hidden curriculum in schools that can privilege some groups to the exclu-
vorthy sion of others. From this perspective, differential literacy outcomes across groups
)90s, a generally, and for language minorities specifically, represent structural, systematic, or
roadly institutional bias (Wiley 1996; d. Haas, 1992). Thus, from an ideological orientation,
(2001), it is important to explore how differences in literacy and educational achievement
function across groups, including language minority groups.
-ctly
cific Deschooling Literacy
-s of
i to One is the relationship between literacy and schooling. In a landmark study, Scribner
and Cole (1978, 1981, 1988) attempted to unravel the purported cognitive effects of
literacy per se, from those specific to school practices by studying a West African
er, it
eds,
people-the Vai of Liberia-who acquired literacy without going to school. Scribner
cial, and Cole sought "a practice account of literacy" (1981, p. 235). Heath's (1980, 1983,
:ills, 1986, 1988) work overlapped in timeframe with Scribner and Cole's study. One of
iv). her contributions was to avoid dichotomizing literacy and orality by studying their
interaction in social contexts. Heath helped to deschool the notion of literacy by focusing
ith the on literacy junctions in broader community and social contexts such as daily business,
:sue is social, and news-related functions, as well as memory supportive and record-keeping
It that functions. This provided an alternative to oral communication through notes, and
,dand authoritative functions used to confirm, validate, or support beliefs by appealing to the
aether authority of texts, both religious and secular. Deschooling the notion of literacy allows
1981; us to move beyond confounding literacy with school-based notions and practices, and
may even enrich classroom literacy practices (Cook-Gumperz & Keller-Cohen, 1993;
iplica- Hull, 1997; Hull & Schultz, 2000; Street 1993, 1995, especially chap. 5; Weinstein-Shr,
re not 1993).
536 WILEY

ASSESSING AND MEASURING SOCIETAL One of

LITERACY AND BILITERACY ity group
performa
withsom
Many among the speakers of the world's estimated 5,000 or so spoken languages may
ditions ai
achieve literacy in a second language rather than in the language(s) of the households
mustbec
into which they are born. Similarly, to become literate, many must acquire literacy
matized J
in a standardized variety of language that diverges from their own social or regional
role if it is
variety. In the United States, this challenge is faced by speakers of Appalachian En-
in society
glish, Ebonies or African American vernacular English, and Hawaiian English Creole,
among others. These second "dialect" issues in literacy acquisition are also of major
importance when studying literacy among language minorities and other second lan- Approa-
guage learners, such as international students studying English as a foreign language
and native speakers of English studying foreign languages. Second language literacy There ha
research must deal with all three populations, if it is to inform educational practice tests; (b) ,
and policy in any meaningful way (d. Verhoeven, 1994). years of E
Unfortunately, much of what constitutes second language acquisition research is drawbacJ
drawn from populations or samples of convenience, that is, from populations that the for evalu
researchers can easily access. Thus, findings are often very population- and context- and equi
specific, but may be reported as if they are broadly applicable beyond the target group. large dat.
For university second language learners, studies generally assume literacy in a first thanEng
language, but often fail to probe it, as the focus of the research is the second lan- only lang
guage. The notion of second language itself often presumes literacy wherein reading Arnaj
and writing are two of four traditional skills (e.g., Kaplan, 2002, part 2). Yet, when of an ind
dealing with adult education populations, first language literacy or extensive train- ically, the
ing in school-based literacy skills or practices cannot be assumed. Among language things pI
minority immigrant children and adults in the United States who have migrated from The critic
Mexico or Central or South America; though labeled as native Spanish speakers, they is that ju
may in fact be native speakers of indigenous languages. In Mexico alone, 53 minority she can j
languages of instruction are recognized in addition to Spanish. Thus, when children eracy are
or adults from these language backgrounds immigrate to the United States, English an ethno
literacy may not even represent a second language of literacy, but rather a third, and posed. In
they mayor may not have only had access to prior literacy training in Spanish as a for langr
second language. test itself
The current educational standards movement and the widespread enthrallment procedur
with accountability measures are not new, but they are nuanced by new twists of par- takers rru
ticular relevance for language minority students attempting to acquire English literacy p. 180). Jv:
at school. The 20th century began with a pervasive fascination with efficiency and stan- of langue
dardized testing. The goal then was to predict the "probable destinies" of children and subordin
to relegate them to differing educational tracks (Kliebard, 1996). Widespread testing had their
of children and adults was insensitive to the fact that many of those tested lacked suf- Thus,in,
ficient proficiency in English to be tested. When adult language minority immigrants strument
were tested by the military, testing was only conducted in English. The results of such own" (W
assessments were often used to "prove" that minorities were inferior (see Gould, 1981; Educat
Weinberg, 1995; Wiley, 1996). ical way
Today, as in the past, particularly where there have been efforts to restrict opportu- arbitrary
nities for language minority students to develop bilingualism and biliteracy, such as 1979), an
in Arizona and California, the drive for accountability and one-size-fits-all standards equivale
has resulted in many language minority children being assessed on standardized tests Self-re:
in English before they have developed sufficient proficiency in English. Today, un- literacy, I

like the past, the push to test incipient learners of English is rationalized as ensuring backgroi
that quality education will be maintained for all. The efficacy and appropriateness of (Venezkj
testing language minority children with commercial standardized tests has become a direct rru
major area of controversy (Quezada, Wiley, & Ramirez, 2002; Wright, 2002). their abi
 29. SECOND LANGUAGE LITERACY AND BILiTERACY 537

One of the dangers of making between-group comparisons among language minor-

ity groups or between them and the general population as a whole is that differential
performances tend to be reported in the popular media much like basketball scores
'smay with some groups always being the winners and other the losers. Socioeconomic con-
eholds ditions and opportunities, differential power relations, and discriminatory practices
teracy must be considered when differential results are interpreted to avoid reinforcing stig-
gional matized notions prevalent in society. Literacy measurement can have a constructive
m En- role if it is used to determine the kinds of literacy necessary for equitable participation
.reole, in society as well those desired by individuals within their own communities.
major
d lan- Approaches to National and Large Data Set Literacy Assessments
guage
teracy There have been three types of literacy assessment measures: (a) direct measures or
'actice tests; (b) educational equivalencies or surrogate measures, which use a certain number of
years of schooling as an indicator of literacy; and (c) self-reported measures. There are
irch is drawbacks to all three approaches, but, if used cautiously these data provide a gauge
tat the for evaluating needs and designing programs that provide opportunities for access
ntext- and equity. Unfortunately, what typically has been and still is missing in nearly all
;roup. large data sets and national surveys is a concentration on literacy in languages other
a first than English. This lapse reinforces the common perception that English literacy is the
:1 Ian- only language of literacy worth measuring or assessing (see Wiley, 1996, chap. 4).
ading A major criticism of direct measures is that they represent inauthentic assessments
when of an individual's actual ability to function in the real world (Erickson, 1984). Specif-
train- ically, they are tests of "explicitness" (Gee, 1986, p. 732), that is, the ability to make
~uage things precise or obvious. Such tests are those of the type that we find in schools.
lfrom The critical issue from the standpoint of assessing literacy outside of school contexts
.,they is that just because one performs well on school-based exams does not mean he or
.iority she can function in real-world contexts. Competency-based tests of functional lit-
ildren eracy are all exposed to concerns about ecological validity because they often lack
19lish an ethnographic grounding and because the standards and skills selected are im-
1, and posed. In addition to these concerns, the issue of test bias is particularly troublesome
h. as a for language minorities, including speakers of so-called nonstandard varieties. The
test itself as a literacy event possesses a particular problem considering that "while
lment procedures for taking standardized tests are presumably the same everywhere, test
f par- takers may respond quite differently to those procedures" (Wolfram & Christian, 1980,
eracy p. 180). More important, however, speakers of stigmatized social and regional varieties
stan- of language can become acutely aware of the imposition of standards that by design
nand subordinate the language of their homes and communities, because they may have
~sting had their language varieties corrected by teachers or have been mocked or ridiculed.
::l suf- Thus, in a formal examination they may "perceive a test on language abilities as an in-
.rants strument designed to measure them according to someone else's standards, not their
osuch own" (Wolfram & Christian, 1980, p. 181).
1981; Educational equivalencies or surrogate measures of literacy provide an easy, econom-
ical way of assessing literacy, but concerns persist that grade-level equivalencies are
ortu- arbitrary, there is no assurance that literacy in school is retained (Hunter & Harman,
ch as 1979), and no guarantee that the quality of instruction from one school to the next is
:lards equivalent (Wiley, 1996).
•tests Self-reported data remain the easiest and least expensive way to assess national
T, un- literacy, or the literacy of large, selected groups, or members of a specific language
uring background group. The U.S. Census has collected national literacy data since 1850
ess of (Venezky, Kaestle, & Sum, 1987). However, self-reported data is not as reliable as
nne a direct measures because individuals can report an inflated or deflated assessment of
their abilities. On the positive side, however, there is evidence indicating a strong
538 WILEY

correlation between self-reported census data and direct measures of the English Findings
Proficiency Survey (McArthur, 1993).
The 1992 l'
Conceptual Issues Related to National Assessment current COJ
Congress, 1
The recent approach in U.S. national assessments of literacy has been to conceptualize Adult Lite]
literacy in three domains (Greenberg et al., 2001): three dom:
used items
• Prose literacy-the knowledge and skills needed to understand and use information literacy (W
from texts, including editorials, news stories, poems, and fiction. prior studi
• Document literacy-the knowledge and skills required to locate and use informa- diversity, '
tion contained in materials, including job applications, payroll forms, transporta- English an,
tion schedules, maps, tables, and graphs. The pre
• Quantitative literacy-the knowledge and skills required to apply arithmetic opera- those who
tions, either alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded in printed materials English lib
(p.B). for sensatic
some of th
This schema has advantages over prior efforts to measure functional literacy, al- people we]
though the basic approach retains a conceptualization of literacy as individual knowl- have lent i
edge and skills. Conceptualizing literacy within these three domains breaks with the approxima
older practice of dichotomizing literacy/illiteracy. Nevertheless, a number of issues perceive th
remain: limited, all
needs" (p.
Are all tasks involving documents distinct from those involving quantitative tasks? For newspaper
example, tax forms would seem to involve both document-related skills and quantitative original cle
skills. Are skills that are identified as being specific to one domain (e.g., prose skills) all basis of not
confined to that domain? How well do simulated tasks represent real-world tasks? How related to t
many of the skills assessed have been learned but forgotten due to lack of need or practice? increase in
Do these thresholds become functionally equivalent to the former dichotomization of than Level
literacy /illiteracy? In other words, have we merely exchanged the long-term concern
(see also B{
about illiteracy for one over low levels of literacy? What happens when these literacy
domains are superimposed on a multilingual population? Furthermore, does the notion Of more
of continuum hold up across languages or only within them? If literacy is embedded analyses ol
within social practices, is there a continuum that reflects these various social practices? been given
(Wiley, 1996, pp. 76-77, see chap. 4 for elaboration.) possible to
a backgrou
English bel
Limitations of National Measures of Literacy for garding the
Language Minority Students the survey
were not in
Most national and large data set surveys of literacy primarily assess only English
literacy. Macias (1994) identified four types of limitations that are particularly note-
Bilingual
worthy when attempting to assess literacy among language minorities. These are: (a) educatior
ignoring literacy in languages other than English; (b) overemphasizing English oral of arrival
language proficiency; (c) sampling biases; and (d) ambiguity in linguistic, ethnic, and the form,
racial identification. For the past three decades, the United States has experienced without t
its second highest period of foreign immigration and has one of the largest Spanish- were the
speaking populations in the world. By failing to survey literacy in Spanish and other these con
had little
languages, literacy is by default equated with English literacy, and the literacy picture
of the United States remains both incomplete and distorted. By failing to assess other
languages of literacy, results inflate the perception of a "literacy crisis" (Graff, 1994), Based OJ
which stigmatizes those only literate in other languages and underinforms educa- guagemin(
tional policymaking by failing to distinguish nonliterates from those who are literate time of the
(Wiley, 1996). only 3%, ar
 29. SECOND LANGUAGE LITEFV\CYAND BILITERACY 539

rglish Findings from National Adult Literacy Survey

The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) was touted as providing the most
current comprehensive data on English literacy in the United States. Mandated by
Congress, the ALS survey built on the conceptual model developed for the Young
ralize Adult Literacy Survey (YALS) that conceptualizes literacy along a continuum within
three domains (prose, document, and quantitative literacy). Each of these domains
used items that simulated real-world literacy tasks and seeks to determine five levels of
.ation literacy (Wiley, 1996). NALS was more sensitive to issues of ethnic diversity than most
prior studies and included self-reported demographic questions related to language
irma- diversity, which were later used for a biliteracy analysis. The NALS also provided
iorta- English and Spanish versions of the background questionnaire (Macias, 1994, p. 33).
The preface to the report (Kirsch et al., 1993) noted a demographic increase of
pera- those who speak languages other than English. However, the NALS only assessed
erials English literacy through direct assessment. The initial findings of the NALS made
for sensational headlines in the nation's leading newspapers and magazines. Among
some of the more far-fetched claims reported were that an astonishing 90 million
:y, al- people were allegedly literacy deficient. A careful reading of the initial report should
iowl- have lent itself to a less reckless interpretation. Kirsch et al. (1993) note that, "The
h the approximately 90 million adults who performed in Levels 1 and 2 did not necessarily
ssues perceive themselves as being "at risk." ... It is therefore possible that their skills, while
limited, allow them to meet some or most of their personal and occupational literacy
needs" (p. xv), Although it makes for smaller headlines and probably sells fewer
·or newspapers, more recent reports have now become newsworthy by correcting the
ve original claims. Now only 5% of those surveyed are considered not literate on the
all basis of not having answered any questions (see Mathews, 2001). Other problems have
)w related to the five-level scale for each of the three domains. This scale is supposed to
:e?
increase in difficulty. Ideally, as an implicational scale, Levell tasks should be easier
of
than Level 2 tasks. However, some items do not appear to have scaled as predicted
Tn
cy (see also Berliner, 1996).
on Of more relevance to the issue of biliteracy is the self-reported data. Additional
ed analyses of the NALS have recently been completed in which special attention has
.s? been given to language minorities based on self-reported information such that it is
possible to construct a biliteracy variable. Participants in the NALS also completed
a background survey in English or Spanish. Those who spoke a language other than
English before beginning their formal schooling completed a self-reported survey re-
garding their fluency and literacy in their native language. Unfortunately, by limiting
the survey only to this group, native English speakers who later became biliterate
were not included (Greenberg et a1., 2001). Findings indicated:
glish
10te-
Bilingual and biliterate individuals tended to have received a substantial level of formal
e: (a)
education in their native country before immigrating to the United States, ... The age
oral
of arrival in the United States was the primary predictor of which language through
,and the formal education they received in the United States. Those who arrived later in life,
need without the benefit of a substantial amount of education received in the native country,
.rish- were the least likely to develop English literacy skills .... Social policy efforts to address
ither these concerns face the challenge that many in need of ESL and basic skills training have
.ture had little or no formal education in any language. (pp. 89-90)
ither
:)94), Based on Greenberg et a1.'s (2001) analysis of the NALS self-reported data for lan-
uca- guage minorities only, approximately 70% of that group reported being biliterate at the
'rate time of the survey. When correlated with race, the biliteracy rate among Whites was
only 3%, and only 2% for African Americans. Biliteracy rates were much higher for
540 WILEY

Hispanics, with 35% being biliterate, 33% literate only in English, and 27% literate only assuming t
in Spanish. Biliteracy was highest among Asians and Pacific Islanders, of whom nearly occasionall
half (47%) were biliterate. Higher biliteracy rates among Hispanics and Asians were in the corru
to be expected, as recent immigration rates have been higher for these groups. Based Foreign
on NALS data, biliterates tended to have higher levels of education than mono liter- tained. Unf
ates. Among biliterates, 48% acquired some postsecondary education, compared to tion are far
only 43% for those literate only in English. Most bilinguals and biliterates do not have delayed un
balanced abilities in two or more languages, given that their language and literacy ex- the goal ofl
periences and contexts for learning are rarely parallel across languages (Valdes, 2001). more than;
Despite the many limitations of NALS data, the findings are important because One pas
in the United States most national literacy estimations focus solely on English. Their attention ae
failure to acknowledge literacy among those who are literate in languages other than McGinnis,:
English inflates the magnitude of a perceived "literacy crisis" (Wiley, 1996). However, Wiley, 2001
even as such data are useful in informing national educational policies, findings need language(s
to be weighed against ethnographic studies that probe the functions and meanings of of the langi
literacy in social contexts. A number of ethnographic studies of learners of English as of program
a second language (e.g., Klassen & Burnaby, 1993; Weinstein-Shr, 1993) indicate that moving to
many immigrants can function successfully within their daily lives without compe- (Mandarin;
tencies in English literacy. Thus, they need not be stigmatized as being cognitively the languas
deficient. Similar studies (e.g., Cushman, 1998; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988) indi- taught in A
cate that marginalized families living in poverty often have more literacy skills than Promotn
they are usually given credit for and are not necessarily liberated from their poverty ing the nun
by their literacy. They are blocked from economic mobility because they lack formal remains we
schooling. gualism an

PROMOTING BILITERACY

In recent decades, bilingual education policy in the United States has allowed tran- Auerbach, E.
sitional bilingual education. Contrary to popular perceptions, the United States has 59(2),165-
Auerbach, E. I
never endorsed the kind of maintenance programs that would ensure that language Linguistics,
minority students could attain biliteracy. Federal policies have not been the most ef- Auerbach, E. 1
fective in promoting biliteracy, although they have eased the pain of transition for literacy. M<
those language minority students who have been allowed to participate in transi- Baker, c, &Jo:
Matters.
tional bilingual programs. Bilingual policies have also been targeted by English-only Barton, D., Ha
activists who have restricted transitional bilingual education in several states (e.g., Routledge
California, Arizona, and Massachusetts). Baugh, J. (199'
There are other models that are more effective than transitional bilingual pro- Baynham,M.
Berliner, D. (1'
grams. For example, there are immersion programs for monolingual English-speaking 334-351.
students. Although there are different configurations, immersion programs typically Berliner, D. C.
begin with instruction in the target foreign language and gradually introduce literacy schools. Rei
in the dominant language. For language minority students, maintenance programs are Bracey, G. W. I
ciation for
more effective than transitional programs in promoting the retention of the native Brighman, C. I
language while developing English literacy (Baker & Jones, 2000). Dual immersion, or Christian, D.,
two-way bilingual programs, have proven successful when English-speaking language the United
majority and language minority children are brought together in the same program Cook-Cumpei
Press.
(Christian, Howard, & Loeb, 2000). However, in these programs special consideration Cook-Gum per
needs to be given to language minority students, because some evidence suggests that issue]. Anti
these programs advantage English speakers more than language minority students Cope, B., & Ka.
(Valdes, 1997). Routledge
Crawford, J. (2
A pressing issue is the need to preserve threatened languages because the majority Matters.
of the world's estimated 5,000-6,000 languages are endangered (Skutnabb-Kangas, Cushman, E. (
2000). Literacy can have a role in helping to preserve and promote these languages, NY: State t
 29. SECOND LANGUAGE LITERACY AND BILITERACY

.only assuming that their speakers want to have their languages written down, which is
early occasionally not the case, if literacy is seen as antithetical to the ecology of language
were in the community (see Hinton & Hale, 2001).
lased Foreign language education provides another path by which biliteracy can be at-
.liter- tained. Unfortunately, in the United States, opportunities for foreign language instruc-
ed to tion are far less favorable than they are in many other countries. Instruction is usually
have delayed until middle school or high school, and program goals do not always include
yex- the goal ofbiliteracy. Consequently, many who study foreign languages fail to acquire
001). more than a very rudimentary knowledge of them (Ovando & Wiley, 2003).
.ause One positive trend in the United States since 1999, is that there has been national
[heir attention accorded to developing students' heritage languages (see Peyton, Ranard, &
than McGinnis, 2001). Although not all are pleased with the heritage language (HL) label (see
ever, Wiley, 2001), HL learners have been defined as those who grow up in a home where a
need language(s) other than English is used. They may either have a passive understanding
gs of of the language or be partially bilingual in the language and participate in a variety
shas of program types (see Wiley & Valdes, 2001). Many universities have recently been
. that moving to make HL literacy the primary goal of their programs. Spanish, Chinese
npe- (Mandarin), Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Khmer (Cambodian) are just a few of
ively the languages now being offered for HL learners. Asian languages are also currently
indi- taught in Asian American immigrant communities.
than Promoting heritage language literacies offers a promising opportunity for increas-
rerty ing the number of biliterate individuals in the United States, but the major challenge
rmal remains working to change popular misconceptions and attitudes toward multilin-
gualism and biliteracy.

REFERENCES

iran- Auerbach, E. (1989). Toward a social-contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard Educational Review,
: has 59(2),165-182.
Auerbach, E. (1992a). Literacy and ideology. In W. Grabe & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied
~age
Linguistics, 1991, Vol. 12 (pp. 71-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
;t ef- Auerbach, E. R. (1992b). Making meaning, making change: Participatory curriculum development for adult ESL
1 for literacy. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
insi- Baker, c., & Jones, S. P. (2000). Encyclopedia of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
only
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London:
e.g., Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Baugh, J. (1999). Beyond Ebonies: Linguistic pride and racial prejudice. Austin: University of Texas Press.
pro- Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy practices: Investigating literacy in social contexts. London: Longman.
king Berliner, D. (1996). Nowadays, even the illiterates read and write. Research in the Teaching of English 30(3),
334-35l.
:ally Berliner, D. c., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public
racy schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
, are Bracey, G. W. (1997). Setting the record straight: Misconceptions about public education. Alexandria, VA: Asso-
ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
rtive
Brighman, C. C. (1923). A study in American intelligence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
1., or
Christian, D., Howard, E. K, & Loeb, M. 1. (2000). Bilingualism for all: Two-way immersion education in
tage the United States. Theory into Practice, 39(4),258-266.
ram Cook-Cumperz, J. (Ed.), (1986). The social construction of literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
tion Press.
Cook-Cumperz. L & Keller-Cohen, D. (Eds.). (1993). Alternative literacies: In school and beyond [Theme
that issue]. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(4).
ents Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.), (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
irity Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon. UK: Multilingual
Matters.
gas, Cushman, E. (1998). The struggle and the tools: Oral and literate strategies in an inner city community. Albany,
ges, NY: State University Press of New York Press.
 542 WILEY

Delgado-Gaitan, C. & Trueba, H.T. (1991). Crossing cultural borders: Education for immigrant families in America. Kliebard, H.
New York: Falmer Press. Paul.
Edelsky, C. (1996). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language and education, 2nd ed. Kloss, H. (19
London: Falmer Press. Krashen,S.I
Erickson, F. (1984). School literacy, reasoning, and civility: An anthropologist's perspective. Review of Edu- Associate
cational Research, 54, 525-546. Krashen, S. I
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy and critical pedagogy. In P. Freire & D. Macedo (Eds.), Literacy: NH:Heir
Reading the word and the world (pp. 141-159). Amherst, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Kress, G. (201
Gee, J. P. (1986). Orality and literacy: From the savage mind to ways with words. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), Lankshear, C
719-746. versity PI
Gee, J. P. (2000). New people in new worlds: Networks, the new capitalism, and schools. In B. Cope & Levine, K. (1(
M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteries: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 43-68). London: 249-267.
Routledge & Kegan Paul. Lippi-Green,
Gee, J. P. (2001). Forword. In T. M. Kalmar (Ed.), Illegal alphabets: Latino migrants crossing the linguistic border York: ROl
(pp. i-iv). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Luke, A. (l9S
Goody, J. (1987). The interface between the written and the oral. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. London: 1
Goody, J., & Watt, 1. (1988). The consequences of literacy. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Macias, R. F.
Perspectives on literacy (pp, 3-27). Carbondale, 11: Southern Illinois University Press. Reprinted from The Macias, R. E
consequences of literacy. Comparative Studies in Society and Histon), 5, 304-326. (Eds.), TOi
Goody, J. (1999). The implications of literacy. In D. A. Wagner, R. L. Venezky, & B. V. Street (Eds.), Literacy: Macias, R. F.
An international handbook (pp. 29-33). Boulder, co: Westview Press. data sets.
Gough, K. (1988). Implications of literacy in traditional China and India. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & Applied I
M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp, 44-56). Carbondale, 11: Southern Illinois University Press. Mathews, J.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton. Washingtc
Graff, H. J. (1994). Literacy, myths, and legacies. In L. Verhoeven (Ed.), Functional liieracf: Theoretical issues McArthr, E. F
and educational implications (pp. 37-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ton, DC: r
Greenberg, E., Macias, R. F., Rhodes, D., & Chan, T. (2001). English Iiteracq and language minorities in the United Mikulecky, 1
States. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, US. Department of Education. NCES S. Ciliberi
20014-464. (ERIC Do
Grillo, R. D. (1989). Dominant languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Olson, D. R. (
Haas, M. (992). Institutional racism: The case of Hawaii. Westport, CT: Praeger. Review,4i
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Olson, D. R. (
Harris, R. (986). The origins of writing. La Salle, 11: Open Court. &E Smitl
Havelock, E. A. (963). Preface to Plato. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Olson, D.R. (
Havelock, E. A. (1988). The coming of literate communication to western culture in Kintgen et al. (Eds.) (Eds.l, Pel
(1988), Perspectives on literacu. In E. R. Ki.ntgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on liieracv Olson, D. R. I
(pp, 127-134). Carbondale, 11: Southern Illinois University Press. bridge, U
Heath, S. B. (1980). The functions and uses of literacy. Journal of Communication, 300), 123-133. Olson, D. R.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: (Eds.), Lit
Cambridge University Press. Ong, W J. (E
Heath, S. B. (1986). Social contexts of language development. In D. Holt (Ed.), Beyond language: Social Ong, W J. (19
and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 143-186). Los Angeles: California State on literacv
University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center. Ong, WJ. (E
Heath, S. B. (1988). Protean shapes in literacy events: Ever-shifting oral and literate traditions. In E. R. of literacy
Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on liieracu (pp, 348-370). Carbondale, 11: Southern Ovando, C. J
Illinois University Press. and teache
Hinton, L. & Hale, K. (Eds.) (2001). The green book of language revitalization. New York: Academic Press. Ovando, C. 1
Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacu: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. E. E. Reic
Hirsch, E. D., Kett, J. E, & Trefil, J. (1988). The dictionary of cultural literacv. What every American needs to know. Page.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Peyton.j.i Ra
Hull, G. (1997). Changing work: Critical perspectives on language, literacu.and skills. Albany, NY: State University Washingt-
of New York Press. Quezada,M.
Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (Eds.), (2002). School's out: Out-of-school literacies with classroom practice. New York: E. W Stev
Teachers College Press. of educatio
Hunter, C; & Harman, D. (1979). Adult illiteracy in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Resnick, D. P.
Kalmar, T. M. (2001). Illegal alphabets: Latino migrants crossing the linguistic border. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Review, 47
Erlbaum Associates. Schmidt, R. C
Kaplan, R. B. (2002). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. sity Press.
Kirsch, I. S., & lungeblut. A. (1986). Literacy: Profiles of America's young adults. (Report No. 16-PL-02). Prince- Scribner, S. (l
ton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 275 701) oprnent in
Kirsch, I. S., [ungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America: A first look at the results Scribner, S., &
of the national adult literacy survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Review, 48
Research and Improvement, Educational Information Branch. Scribner, S., IS
Klassen, c., & Burnaby, B. (1993). "Those who know": Views on literacy among adult immigrants in Canada. Scribner, S., &
TESOL Quarterly, 27, 377-397. on literaCl)
 29. SECONDLANGUAGE LITERACY AND BlLITERACY 543

metica. Kliebard, H. M. (1996). The struggle for the American curriculum, (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
~nd ed. Kloss, H. (1971). Language rights of immigrant groups. International Migration Review, 5, 250-268.
Krashcn, S. D. (1997). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education
JfEdu- Associates.
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Condemned without a trial: Bogus arguments against bilingual education. Portsmouth,
'teracu: NH: Heinemann.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
20(4), Lankshear, c., with Gee, J. P., Knoble, M., & Searle, C. (1997). Changing liieracies. Buckingham: Open Uni-
versity Press.
ope & Levine, K. (1982). Functional literacy: Fond illusions and false economies. Harvard Educational Review, 52(3),
mdon: 249-267.
Lippi-Creon, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New
border York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Luke, A (1998). Literacy, textbooks, and ideology: Postwar literacy instruction and the mythology of Dick and Jane.
Press. London: Falmar.
rEds.), Macias, R. F. (1985). Language and ideology in the United States. Social Education (February), 97-100.
mThe Macias. R. F. (1990). Definitions of literacy: A response. In R. L. Venezky, D. A Wagner, & B. S. Ciliberti
(Eds.), Toward defining literacy (pp. 17-23). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
ieracu: Macias, R. F. (1994). Inheriting sins while seeking absolution: Language diversity and national statistical
data sets. In D. Spener (Ed.), Adult biliteracy in the United States (pp. 15-45). Washington: Center for
.oll. & Applied Linguistics.
ress. Mathews, J. (2001, July 22). Landmark illiteracy analysis is flawed, statistics faulty, study director says.
Washington Post. Reprinted in the Arizona Republic.
issues McArthr, E. K. (1993). Language characteristics and schooling in the United States: A changing picture. Washing-
ton, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. (NCES Report No. 93-699)
lnited Mikulecky, L. J. (1990). Literacy for what purpose? (Report No. ). In R. L. Venezky, D. A Wagner, & D.
NCES S. Ciliberi (Eds.), Toward defining literacy (pp. 24-34). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 313 677)
Olson, D. R. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational
Review, 47, 257-281.
Olson, D. R. (1984). See! Jumping! Some oral language antecedents of literacy. In H. Coelman, A A Oberg,
& F. Smith (Eds.). A-uJakening to literacy (pp, 185-192). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Olson, D.R. (1988). The bias of language in speech and writing. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose
(Eds.) (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 175-189). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
teracy Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of reading and writing. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, D. R. (1999). Literacy and language development. In D. A Wagner, R. L. Venezky, & B. V. Street
~,UK: (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp, 132-136). Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Ong. W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
Social Ong, W. J. (1988). Some psychodynamics of orality. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives
State on literacy (pp. 28-43). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Ong, W. J. (1992). Writing is a technology that restructures thought, in Downing et al. (Eds.), The linguistics
E. R. of literacy (pp. 293-319). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
them Ovando, C. J., & McLaren, P. (Eds.), (2000). The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education: Students
and teachers caught in the crossfire. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
s. Ovando, C. J., & Wiley. T. G. (2003). Language education in the conflicted United States. J. Bourne &
E. E. Reid (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2003: Language education Cpp. 141-155). London: Kogan
know. Page.
Peyton, J., Ranard, D. A, & McGinnis, S. (Eds.), (2001). Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future.
ersity Washington, DC/McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Quezada, M. S., Wiley, T. G., Ramirez, D. (2002). How the reform agenda shortchanges English learners. In
York: E. W. Stevens & G. H. Wood (Eds.). Justice, ideology, and education: An introduction to the social foundations
of education (4th ed.). (pp. 104-109). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Resnick, D. P., & Resnick, L. B. (1977). The nature of literacy: An historical exploration. Harvard Educational
rence Review, 47(3), 370-385.
Schmidt, R. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia, FA: Temple Univer-
sity Press.
'ince- Scribner, S. (1981). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Devel-
opment in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
esults Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1978). Literacy without schooling: Testing for intellectual effects. Harvard Educational
ional Review, 48, 448-461.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
.iada. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1988). Unpacking literacy. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives
on literacy (pp. 57-70). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
544 WILEY

Shuman, A (1993).Collaborative writing. In B. Street (Ed.), Crosscultural approaches to literacy (pp. 247-271).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000).Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spener, D. (Ed.), (1994).Adult bilitemcy in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
30
Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theoru and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Street, B. V. (Ed.), (1993). Crosscultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Street, B. V. (1995). Socialliteracies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethllography, and education.
London: Longman.
Street, B. V. (1999). The meanings of literacy. In D. A Wagner, R. L. Venezky, & B. V. Street (Eds.), Literao]:
An international handbook (pp, 34-40). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Stuckey, J. E. (1991). The violence of literacu. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Taylor, D. (Ed.). (1997). Many families, many literacies: An international declaration of principles. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Insti
Taylor, D. M., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Tse, L. (2001). "Why don't they learn English?" Separating fact from fallacy in the U.S. language debate. New York:
Patrici
Teachers College Press.
Valdes, G. (997). Dual language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of
Georgia
language minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391-429.
Valdes, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. Payton, D. A. Ranard. &
S. McGinnis, (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp, 37-77). Washington,
DC/McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Venezky, R. L., Kaestle, c., & Sum, A (1987). The subtle danger: Reflections on the literacy abilities of Amer-
ica's young adults. (Report No. 16-CAEP-01). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Center for the
Assessment of Educational Progress.
Venezky, R. L., Wagner, D. A, & Ciliberti, B. S. (Eds.). (1990). Toward defining literacy. Newark, DE: Interna-
tional Reading Association.
Verhoeven, L. (1994). Linguistic diversity and literacy development. In L. Verhoeven (Ed.), Functional liter- The tea chi
acy: Theoretical issues and educational implications (pp. 199-220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. data abou
Walsh, C. E. (Ed.) (1991). Literacv as praxis: Culture, language, and pedagogi]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
teachers' 1
Weinberg, M. (1995). A chance to learn: A histon) of race and education in the United States, (2nd ed.), Long
Beach, CA: California State University Press. may write
Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). Literacy and social process: A community in transition. In B. Street (Ed.), Cross- much shif
cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 272-293). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. shifts mor
Wiley, T. G. (1996). Literacy and language diversity in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
scholarshi
Linguistics.
Wiley, T. G. (1998). The imposition of World War I era English-only policies and the fate of Germans in made by E
North America. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language and politics in the United States and Canada curricula i
(pp. 211-241). Mahwah, J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wiley, T. G. (1999). Comparative historical perspectives in the analysis of U.S. language policies. In
T. Heubner, & c. Davis (Eds.), Political perspectives on language planning and language policy, pp. 17-37.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wiley, T. G. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States. In
T.Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 67-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence The domi
Erlbaum Associates. variations
Wiley, T. G. (2001). On defining heritage languages and their speakers. In J. Payton, D. A. Ranard, & S. Taylor, 201
McGinnis, (Ed.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp, 29-36). Washington, DC/
psycholog
McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Wiley, T. G. (2002a). Biliteracy. In B. Guzzetti (Ed.), Literacy in America: An encyclopedia: An encyclopedia of influence I
history, theory, and practice (pp, 57-60). ABC-CLIO Publishers. (see Mitcl
Wiley, T. G. (2002b). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history of the U'S, context. In J. Tollef- of this into
son (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical readings (pp. 39-64). Mahwah, J: Lawrence Erlbaum
equally su
Associates.
Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the United States. TESOL In cont
Quarterly, 30(3), 511-535. proachest
Wiley, T. G., & Valdes, G. (2001, July). Heritage language instruction in the United States: A time for instructioi
renewal. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), iii-vii. Retrieved July 3,2003, from http://brj.asu.edu/v244/ see, Conn
indexg.htrnl
Willinsky, J. (1990). The new literacy studies: Redefining reading and writing in the schools. New York: Routledge. Hinkel, ch
Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (1980). On the application of sociolinguistic information: Test evaluation and ment and
dialect differences in Appalachian English. In T. Shopen & J. M. Williams (Eds.), Standards and dialects These cor]
in English (pp. 177-204). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. are used t
Wright, W. (2002). The effects of high stakes testing in an inner-city elementary school: The curriculum, the
teachers, and the English language learners. Current Issues in Education [Online], 5(5). Retrieved February speech, ar
1, 2003, from http://cie.asu.edu/ volumeS / numberS / index.htrnl pies of va