# KOIIA/Nancy Hornberger. Reflections

* This page is part of KOIIA, a learning community associated with a research course taught at the Department of Education of Örebro University, Sweden. The KOIIA group hopes to create a Wikiversity learning resource on intersectionality and education by mid-August, 2008.
* Note that since they are a Swedish group, some of the pages created by the KOIIA group may be written partially or entirely in Swedish.
* Edit this box - Discuss this box - Talk about the KOIIA project at the Wikiversity Colloquium
Reflections on The Continua of Biliteracy by Nancy Hornberger
Part 1 By drawing on findings from the fields of literacy and bilingualism and relating them to biliteracy, this review seeks to shed light on not only biliteracy, but also on literacy and bilingualism. In this way, Nancy Hornberger (NH) offers “a framework for understanding biliteracy” by identifying a number of dimensions or continua for describing biliterate contexts, development and media. Her position is that dimensions of bilingualism and literacy, often formulated as polar opposites, such as first as opposed to second language or monolingual distinguished from bilingual individuals, are more accurately represented as theoretical endpoints on a number of continua which are themselves “interrelated dimensions of one highly complex whole” (p. 5). In other words, bringing aspects of literacy and bilingualism into focus is necessary for a clear understanding of biliteracy. In chapter one of this volume, NH introduces none continua – aspects of literacy and bilingualism – in turn which she argues are relevant for biliterate contexts, the development of individual biliteracy and the media of biliteracy. The contexts for billiteracy comprise three continua – micro-macro, oral-literate and monolingual-bilingual. The continua that are relevant for the development of the bilingual’s communicative abilities are reception-production, oral language-written language and L1-L2 transfer. Finally, the three continua characterizing the relationships among the media through which the biliterate individual communicates are simultaneous-successive exposure, similar-dissimilar structures and convergent-divergent scripts. NH argues that the literature in the fields of literacy and bilingualism all suggest that “any particular context of biliteracy is defined by the intersection of at least three continua – the micro-macro continuum, the oral-literate continuum and the monolingual-bilingual continuum – and that any attempt to understand an instance of biliteracy by attending to only one of these contextual continua produces at best an incomplete result” (p. 9). With regard to the first of these continua, NH show how the micro and macro levels impinge on and flow into one another indicating that the relationship is better represented as a continuum rather than a dichotomous divide. Orality and literacy share many common characteristics and the features that various studies have identified with one or the other are more related to the context in which language is used than to spoken versus written differences. In a similar way, NH argues that bilingual language alternation/use should be seen as a similar phenomenon to the way variety and style are manipulated by monolinguals, that is as linguistic resources that are deployed to suit and meet the communicative demands of different contexts. With regard to the set of continua comprising the biliterate development in the individual, NH argues for a reciprocally supportive and interrelated view of ‘receptive’ and ‘productive’ skills. At the same time, she highlights the dynamics of interdependency between oral and written language use and the way either of these skills can precede the other. The L1-L2 transfer continuum opens up complex questions as to the extent to which knowledge of one language transfers positively to support learning the other and/or to what extent knowledge in one language has a negative effect and so interferes with the learning of the other. Important findings have led to a shift from the behaviorist-inspired view of transfer from L1 as interfering with the formation of correct L2 habits to the view that ‘errors’ and deviant linguistic structures are evidence of developing interlanguage stages, given impetus by the application of L1 knowledge to L2 learning. Another important finding suggests that the stronger the foundation and ongoing development in L1, the greater the potential for enhanced L2 learning. In short, findings related to L1-L2 transfer point to the importance of contextual factors and the interdependence of development between this continuum and the ‘receptive-productive’ as well as the ‘oral-written language’ continua.
The final section of this chapter describes the component continua of the relationships forming the media of biliteracy, namely simultaneous-successive exposure, similar-dissimilar language structures and convergent-divergent scripts. The first of these refers to whether learners are exposed to two languages simultaneously and become bilingual in infancy or whether language exposure and learning take place successively, one after the other, to produce ‘late bilingualism’. Such differences regarding the age of acquisition have led researchers to distinguish between different kinds of bilinguals, such as those operating with coordinative, compound or subordinate systems. These types have to do with mental representation of signs and meanings, between the signifier and the signified. In coordinative bilingualism, the words of the two languages are said to be stored separately, each having its own specific meaning. In compounded systems, corresponding words in each language share one signified meaning while in subordinate bilingualism access to the meaning of a word in the ‘weaker’ language is only possible through the stronger language. However, other researchers contest these mentalist explanations arguing that type and degree of bilingualism is more related to language use that age of acquisition. Genesse, for example, argues that, “bilingual children develop differentiated language systems from the beginning and are able to use their developing languages in contextually sensitive ways” (p. 23). The second continua related to ‘biliterate media’ covers the linguistic relationship between the two languages, to what degree their structures are similar or dissimilar. Not surprisingly, it has been suggested that the greater the structural difference between the two languages, the more the experience of learning to read (and write) in an L2 will be different. The third continuum in this section – convergent-divergent scripts – refers to how similar or different the writing systems of two languages are and to what extent their ‘convergence’ or’ divergence’ affects learning to write in the second. The research studies NH reports on offer very different findings on this issue. NH ends this chapter by again highlighting the interrelated nature of biliteracy with literacy and bilingualism. These traditionally separately studied areas, literacy, bilingualism and biliteracy, share the same continua, so studying each in relation to each other and recognizing the relevance of any or all these continua offers hope for understanding all three phenomena.
Chapter 14 In chapter 14 of ‘Continua of biliteracy’, NB first describes the disintegration of the one language-one nation ideology in the face of trends such as the rise of English as a global language and the reclaiming of marginalized indigenous language to national official status. As an alternative approach to more informed and sensitive language planning and policy, NH turns to the ‘ecology of language’ metaphor. She identifies three ‘themes’ of this metaphor which are central to her argument. The first, language evolution recognizes that “languages, like living species, evolve, grow, change, live, and die in relation to other languages”. The second, language environment, that these process take place in relation to their environment; the third, language endangerment, assumes that some languages face the threat of extinction and stand in need of protection.
Reflective notes made while reading
With regard to one of NH’s continua – the monolingual-bilingual continuum – the author argues that monoligualism and bilingualism are more alike than different in that, just as monolinguals use different varieties and styles for different functions, so bilinguals use different languages for different functions and uses. This position can perhaps be contested by a more comprehensive view of bilingual capability. Alan Davies (2004), for example, refers to ‘balanced bilinguals’ who are equally capable to meet the communicative demands of different contexts or situations in either language. A further example is Fishman (1971) who distinguishes between diglossia, that is the macro-sociolinguistic functional distribution of language use, and bilingualism as a description of an individual’s linguistic behaviour. Fishman seems to view bilinguals as those who can use both their languages equally and equally well in all contexts. He argues that any socieity who produces functionally balanced bilinguals will cease to be bilingual because “no society needs two languages for one and the same set of functions” (Fishman, 1971).
Having read about the nine continua assembled as an attempt to increase an understanding of biliteracy, the question struck me as to why a ‘high-level competence – low-level competence’ continuum was not featured among them. I ask this question in view of the fact that definitions of bilingualism (very relevant to NH’s discussion of biliteracy) have stressed both competence and context/language use. Within the framework NH proposes, context and language use in different contexts are well represented, but ‘competence’ seemed to me to be conspicuous by its absence.
With regard to the ‘simultaneous-successive exposure’ continuum, NH reports on research that suggesting that type and degree of bilingualism have more to do with systematic use of the two languages than on cognitive configurations affected by, among factors, age of acquisition. My response to this was to ask this question: Isn’t one of the major questions however what effect such systematic language use has on the brain? In other words, how the cognitive system is forged and formed as a result of learners’ social experiences of using two languages in contextually sensitive ways. That is, as a result of their bilingual behaviour. This question is suggested by the reference to van Lier (p. 322) who argues that an ecological approach to language learning explains learning and cognition not only in terms of processes inside the head, but also in terms of interaction with the environment.
In NH’s final section about an ecology of language, I warmed naturally to the idea of multilingualism as resource rather than problem. However, I couldn’t help noting that to capitalize on such a resource a personal price needs to be paid. A language can only be used and exploited as a resource if people make the time and expend energy to be able to access and appreciate its assets and advantages. More specifically, unless other languages are learned by community members, they cannot feature as a resource in the community. Oliver St John 5 March 2008