She Was Born Speaking English and Spanish! Bilingual Status in a
Kindergarten Two-Way Dual Language Classroom
Suzanne Garcia Mateus
The University of Texas at Austin
Some dual language education contexts are viewed as enrichment programs for middle- to
upper-class students and maintenance programs for language-minority students (Palmer,
2007), as will be explained in subsequent sections of this paper. Research on second
language learning demonstrates that students’ investment in target language practices and
the identities they associate with those practices can affect their language learning (Peirce,
1995). To better understand the role of investment in the DLE context, this study explored
how students socially positioned each other and how, as a result, being bilingual carried a
great deal of status. This paper draws on the theoretical framework of social positioning
(Holland, Lachiotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998), cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1982), and
investment (Peirce, 1995) to describe how one student asserted her sense of agency by
asserting her bilingual identity. Research to determine how students socially position each
other is pertinent to creating classroom environments where students are invested in learning
another language. Evidence has suggested that students who were highly invested in
classroom language learning would take risks linguistically, both in terms of the use of
verbal and nonverbal forms of communication to position and reposition each other. Further
research is needed to explore how teachers can better manage the language terrain in the
DLE classroom so that all students’ linguistic resources are used to their fullest potential.
Key Words: heritage language learners, dual language education, identity, social positioning,
investment.
D
ual language education (DLE) programs are designed to separate the languages of
instruction (in this case, Spanish and English) according to content area (Lindholm-Leary,
2005). Practically and theoretically, this makes sense if practitioners are to preserve the use of
the minority language in English-dominant societies like the US. Studies focusing on dual
language contexts have demonstrated how the use of English apparently dominates discourse
despite teachers’ efforts to balance the use of English and Spanish during instructional time
(Palmer, 2009; Potowski, 2004). Furthermore, children are aware that the English language
carries a great deal of status and power and will favor using it rather than the minority language
(Palmer, 2009; Potowski, 2004). Therefore, the percentage of time actually spent speaking
Spanish is less than ideal, considering that the long-term language acquisition goal—reaching a
given level of bilingualism by a certain grade—depends on the rigorous implementation of dual
language education programs. In other words, English-dominant students will learn a limited
amount of Spanish, and Spanish-dominant students will hear their native language being used,
but neither group will achieve gains in terms of fluent acquisition (Lindholm-Leary, 2005). As a
result, DLE has the potential to become an enrichment program for students who predominately
speak English and a maintenance program for language-minority students (Palmer, 2007).
This pilot study, which was part of a larger ethnographic research project on language use
in the Dual Language Immersion context, explores the dialectic between societal relations of
power and the interaction between children from different backgrounds in a DLE kindergarten
classroom. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following research question:
Contact: Suzanne Mateus, suzannemateus@utexas.edu
Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education Vol. 16, No. 1, Summer 2014
59
In what ways, if any, are social relations of power represented and contested in the ways one
student positions herself and is positioned by others in a two-way dual language kindergarten
classroom during the completion of an academic task?
Theoretical Framework
This case study examines one student’s interactions with six of her peers and how they
used language while completing an academic task. Their linguistic interactions are examined
using the lens of social positioning. Positionality is a component of identity that Holland et al.
(1998) described as being mediated and negotiated between individuals through the use of
semiotic tools such as body language, gestures, and language use. Conversations contain what
Davies and Harré (1990) called “interactive positioning” in which individuals position each other
through language or their use of particular phrases and word choice. It is through discourse
analysis that we can identify how everyday “relations of power, deference and entitlement, social
affiliation and distance” (Holland et al., 1998) are reproduced in settings like the public school
classroom.
As will be further described in the following section, a key characteristic of two-way dual
language education includes the merging of students from distinct backgrounds. In many twoway DLE programs, the English-dominant students come from middle-upper-class homes and
the language-minority students come from working-class homes (Lindholm-Leary, 2005). A
noted benefit of implementing an additive form of bilingual education, such as DLE, is that the
resources minority students bring to the classroom are valued, unlike in subtractive models, such
as transitional bilingual education. Recent studies have observed that providing marginalized
students—typically language-minority students—with access to high-quality education in
addition to instructional strategies that validate their everyday language practices affords them a
greater chance of being successful in academic settings (Bartlett & Garcia, 2011; Heath, 1983).
This pilot study examines the ways in which a group of student from middle-upper-class and
working-class monolingual (English or Spanish) and bilingual (English & Spanish) homes made
sense of language learning during the completion of an academic task.
Peirce (1995) asserted that “Language is the place where actual and possible forms of
social organization and their likely social and political consequences are defined and contested.
Yet it is also the place where our sense of ourselves, our subjectivity, is constructed” (p. 15).
Peirce further described the notion of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1982) as the resources (i.e.,
linguistic knowledge and variety) that “different classes and groups [of people use] in relation to
specific sets of social forms” (p. 17), where certain forms have a higher exchange value than
others depending on the context. If language, both voiced and gestural, is valued in the same
sense as cultural capital, then it too could be used as a tool (i.e., a cultural artifact) to assert one’s
position in any given context. For instance, Holland et al. (1998) considered the “…practical
artifacts of the moment—the verbal, gestural, and material productions” (i.e., the semiotic tools,
p. 17) that individuals use and serve as markers of their identity. Based on the discourse
analyzed in this study and the value placed by the DLE program on becoming bilingual, the
language(s) students used to communicate in the present study became stratified, with certain
linguistic codes carrying more status than others. Being bilingual carried the most status, then
English, with Spanish being last. Given that several children walked into kindergarten already
bilingual or English-dominant, both positioned as highly valued artifacts compared to Spanish,
students like the Spanish-speaking focal student in this case study were positioned as limited in
terms of what they could contribute. In other words, monolingual-Spanish students were, from
60
Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education
day one, intricately positioned to be at a disadvantage because they had to achieve bilingualism
in an English-dominant context (i.e., an English-speaking country).
While Second Language Acquisition theorists have traditionally posited second language
learners’ motivation (or lack thereof) as central to their process of acquiring an additional
language, Peirce (1995) argued that it is the concept of investment that drives individuals to
assert their interest (or lack thereof) in acquiring a second language. Peirce’s concept of
investment is multifaceted. It is essential to the process of acquiring another language, but it is
also this belief in investment that:
presupposes that when language learners speak, they are not only exchanging information
with target language speakers but they are constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense
of who they are and how they relate to the social world. Thus an investment in the target
language is also an investment in a learner’s own social identity, an identity which is
constantly changing across time and space (p. 18).
That is, when language learners speak they are achieving several goals. On the surface they are
attempting to exchange information in their second language with target language speakers. At a
deeper level they are co-constructing their sense of identity and their positionality within a
certain context. In this case study, the focal student was invested in constructing a bilingual
identity within the context of the DLE classroom.
The ways one student constantly positioned and was repositioned by her kindergarten
peers through the use of language and nonverbal forms of communication provides insight to
how social relations of power infiltrate our public school classrooms, in particular the dual
language classroom, and how students can reflect and challenge dominant societal discourses
through their interactional practices. Through the examination of multiple components of
identity, specifically social positioning (Holland et al., 1998), the notion of cultural capital
(Bourdieu, 1982), and investment driving students to learn another language (Peirce, 1995), this
study describes how one student asserted her agency by using verbal and nonverbal ways of
communicating, as evidenced in her use of Spanish, English, and gibberish to demonstrate to
classmates that she, too, was bilingual, which was heavily valued in this DLE kindergarten
classroom.
Dual Language Program and Context
Bottomline Elementary is a public elementary school located in the southwestern United
States. All names in this case study are pseudonyms. Other school districts in major
metropolitan cities in the state had adopted DLE, also referred to as Two-Way Immersion, before
the district presently under consideration. In fact, not only was the local school district
implementing DLE, but also a local private and a charter school, indicating the prevalence of this
educational approach in the area.
Bottomline is situated in a metropolitan city with a large university student population
and a large Latino, Spanish-speaking community. Just a few miles north of a centrally located
university, it is on the west side of a major highway interstate that divides the city between east
and west, in a neighborhood that had been experiencing gentrification over the previous few
years. Demographic data (see Table 1) come from 2009, the year prior to the DLE
implementation in the present study. In 2009, Bottomline Elementary reported a Latino
population of 85%, compared to 48% average statewide (see Table 1). Eight percent of the
students were considered White, or not Hispanic, compared to 34% statewide. It is also
BILINGUAL STATUS IN A KINDERGARTEN TWO-WAY DUAL LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
61
important to note that 93% of the student population was considered economically disadvantaged,
compared to a 55% state average. That same year 59% of the students were considered Limited
English Proficient (LEP) compared to 17% statewide (Great Schools, 2010–2011).
Table 1. Demographics at Bottomline Elementary Compared to the State of Texas in 2009
Demographics
Latino Population
White, Not Hispanic
Economically
Disadvantaged
Limited English Proficient
Bottomline Elementary
85%
8%
State of Texas
48%
34%
93%
55%
59%
17%
This study examined one kindergarten student. The kindergarten class where this study
was conducted shared two teachers. Therefore, there were approximately 40 students total. One
teacher, Ms. O, was bilingual and Latina, raised in an immigrant family. The other, Ms. C, was
African American, raised along the US/Mexico border, and spoke English, although she was not
afraid to use the Spanish phrases she knew. Each teacher was responsible for speaking one
language. The teachers alternated, following the Gomez–Gomez DLE model (Gomez & Gomez,
1999), which I will describe briefly.
The entire school adopts a language of the day: Monday, Wednesday, and Friday are
reserved for Spanish, while Tuesday and Thursday are reserved for English. Students receive
literacy instruction in their native language, and thus are divided between the two teachers for
language arts. Science and social studies are taught in Spanish, and math is taught in English.
From pre-K through second grade the Gomez–Gomez DLE model contains seven key
components: language of the day, bilingual pairs or groups, bilingual learning centers,
conceptual refinement, student generated alphabets, interactive word walls, and project based
learning.
At the time of the present study, the piloted DLE program extended from prekindergarten to kindergarten and first grade. Pre-kindergarten was the only grade level using the
90/10 DLE model. In this model, the majority of the children came from Spanish-speaking
homes and Spanish was used for 90% of instructional time. The remaining 10% of instructional
time was taught in English. The 50/50 model was being used in the kindergarten and first grades,
which called for approximately half of the students coming from Spanish-speaking homes and
50% of the instructional time being in Spanish. The other 50% of the instructional time was
taught in English. In other words, the student demographic changes that the school had
experienced were most reflected in the kindergarten classrooms, as English-speaking parents had
transferred their children to this school for the DLE program.
Each year the school planned to shift an additional grade to the dual language program
model. Approximately half the students in this kindergarten class were what Bottomline
Elementary teachers referred to as neighborhood kids (NK). These children had always lived in
the neighborhood, and Bottomline was their assigned school in proximity to their home. They
consisted of students from both lower- and middle-class backgrounds. The other half of the
student population was made up of children who had transferred to Bottomline in order to be a
part of the DLE program. They were typically middle class, and the majority of their parents had
attended college and held white-collar jobs. The kindergarten class included children from
62
Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education
European American, African American and Latino (e.g., Mexican, Colombian, Uruguayan)
backgrounds.
Method
Participants
A total of seven children appeared in the video recordings and transcriptions that I
selected to analyze to explain the actions of my focal student as she was socially positioned by
others and as she repositioned herself in this diverse DLE kindergarten classroom. Many of the
participants also worked together every day as bilingual pairs for at least 30 minutes during
bilingual learning centers time. Children varied in their level of Spanish and English proficiency,
as determined by their Pre-LAS scores. The Pre-LAS is a test designed to measure expressive
and receptive abilities in children ages four to six in three linguistic components of oral
language: morphology, syntax, and semantics (Duncan & DeAvila, 1985). Information
regarding the participants is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Students’ Pre-LAS Scores and Background Information
Student Name
Elizabeth
Colt
Mimi
Mark
Noel
Analisa
Sabine
English Overall
1 NES
4 FES
4 FES
1 NES
5 FES
5 FES
F FES
Spanish Overall
4 FSS
1 NF
1 NES
3L
3L
1 NF
F FSS
Background
Latino/NK
US (Anglo)/MCS
Latino-Asian/MCS
Latino/NK
Latino -Anglo/MCS
U.S. (Anglo)/MCS
Latino-Anglo/MCS
English speaker (ES), Spanish speaker (SS), non (N), limited (L), fluent (F), middle-class student (MCS),
neighborhood kid (NK)
Elizabeth. The focal student, whom I will call Elizabeth, was a five-year-old of Mexican
descent who had been at Bottomline since pre-kindergarten. She did not enter Ms. O’s
classroom until about the third week of class. According to her Pre-LAS scores, she was a fluent
Spanish speaker (score 4 out of 5) and a nonfluent English speaker (score 1 out of 5). She had
brown skin, brown eyes, and long, black hair. During bilingual center time she often tried to
interact with her partners even when they were speaking in English. She expressed a desire to be
accepted by peers as a competent bilingual. For instance, when working in bilingual learning
centers, she shared with others at her table that she was bilingual, even though she was rarely
observed speaking English in class: “Yo hablo mucho español y hablo mucho inglés” (I speak a
lot of Spanish and a lot of English).
Colt. Colt was Elizabeth’s bilingual pair. According to his Pre-LAS score, he was a
fluent English speaker (score 4 out of 5) and a nonfluent Spanish speaker (score 1 out of 5). Colt
came from a middle-class background and attended another preschool prior to coming to
Bottomline where he learned some Spanish. He was European American with blonde hair and
was popular among his peers. For instance, children often asked him questions from the surveys
they created at the writing center. Instead of asking his partner Elizabeth for assistance, he often
walked around the room to confirm with other students that he was completing the bilingual
learning center tasks correctly.
BILINGUAL STATUS IN A KINDERGARTEN TWO-WAY DUAL LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
63
Mimi. Mimi was often grouped with her bilingual partner Mark to work with Elizabeth
and Colt for the bilingual learning center activities. She, like Colt, came from a middle-class
home. Her mother was from Colombia and her father was Korean American. According to her
Pre-LAS score she was a fluent English speaker (score 4 out of 5) and a nonfluent Spanish
speaker (score 1 out of 5). Mimi had a strong personality and was not afraid to share her
thoughts. In the bilingual learning centers, both she and Elizabeth occasionally tried to converse
in English, as did Mark and Colt.
Mark. Mark, like Elizabeth, was a NK and the “bilingual expert” in the bilingual
learning center activities. Even though he, according to his Pre-LAS scores, was considered a
limited Spanish speaker (score 3 out of 5) and a nonfluent English speaker (score 1 out of 5), he
certainly communicated efficiently with his monolingual peers. Of the three students described
thus far, Mark seemed the least interested in gaining peer acceptance. I observed during
bilingual centers time that, in contrast to his peers, he did not demonstrate interest in getting peer
approval of his work or seek reassurance that he was doing the task correctly. In addition, he did
not seem to value the bilingual learning center tasks enough to complete them. He often did not
participate in the activity and would instead talk with his partners while they completed the task.
Noel. Noel frequently and successfully demanded attention from the teacher and peers.
He came from a middle-class home where he was exposed to both Spanish and English because
his mother was from Uruguay and his father was European American. Noel gave the impression
of being very bilingual, as seen by his willingness to use the minority language and efforts to
sound like a monolingual in both English and Spanish during both instructional time and in less
academic settings, such as during classroom transitions. This self-positioning stood in contrast
to his Pre-LAS scores, which classified him as a fluent English speaker (score 5 out of 5) and a
limited Spanish speaker (score 3 out of 5). Like many of the middle-class kindergartners whose
parents advocated for the implementation of DLE in the local school district, Noel had also
attended a very reputable and highly successful Spanish immersion private preschool prior to
attending Bottomline Elementary. Many times he served as a voice or translator for his
monolingual Spanish- and English-speaking peers.
Analisa. Analisa was a European American middle-class student. She was a quiet girl,
and therefore additional insight about her behavior during classroom observations was lacking.
Only one recorded instance of Analisa interacting with others was found. In this instance she
asserted that she was born speaking English (line 28), with an insistent tone in her voice.
According to her Pre-LAS scores she was a fluent English speaker (score 4 out of 5) and a
nonfluent Spanish speaker (score 1 out of 5).
Sabine. Sabine was a green-eyed, blonde kindergartner. Her mother was from Uruguay
but was raised in the US. According to her pre-LAS scores she was a well-balanced bilingual.
She tested as a fluent English speaker (score 5 out of 5) and a fluent Spanish speaker (score 5 out
of 5).
Data Collection
Between August 10 and October 29, 2010, I visited Bottomline Elementary a total of 12
times. Initially, I collected field notes using a notebook until I chose a classroom and a focal
64
Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education
student. The first four visits consisted of getting to know the school grounds and how the school
nurtured the students’ bilingual and bicultural identities, conducting two interviews about the
first-year implementation of the DLE program (one with the principal and the other with a firstgrade DLE teacher), and observing three classrooms in order to select a student for this pilot
study. From there I spent my time in a kindergarten classroom following my focal student,
Elizabeth, with a video and audio recorder.
From October 6 to October 29, I conducted eight one-hour participant observations,
collecting 37 video clippings in Ms. O’s classroom (2 to 3 mornings per week) during bilingual
learning centers and the subsequent social studies lessons. In bilingual learning centers, students
were allowed to determine which language to use, regardless of the language of the day.
However, social studies was always conducted in Spanish. I chose to transcribe five of the 37
video clippings (one of which was recorded by another researcher) to analyze how Elizabeth was
socially positioned, and as a result, repositioned herself in the context of bilingual learning
centers. Three informal teacher interviews were also conducted but not recorded to get the
teachers’ perspectives about the changing demographics at Bottomline Elementary and to gain a
better understanding of the way Elizabeth responded to the positioning of her classmates.
Bilingual learning centers consisted of four core areas: reading, math, science, and social
studies. Both Ms. C and Ms. O also included a computer center. Children were asked to
complete one activity at each center and were permitted to use either Spanish or English at any
given moment. I collected field notes about how students used language and other semiotic
resources to socially position one another and reposition themselves during the completion of an
academic task. The students sat in groups of two to four depending on the center activity. Of the
eight observations, only one occurred in the classroom of the monolingual English teacher, Ms.
C. By my second visit to Ms. O’s class, I had selected Elizabeth as my sole focal student
because there were times when her bilingual partner, Colt, was out for gifted and talented testing,
and she was therefore paired with other students.
Data Analysis and Results
My analysis of the case study evolved using a grounded theory approach to “denote
theoretical constructs derived from qualitative analysis of data” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 1).
As the analysis was ongoing from the beginning to the end of the collection process, I wrote one
reflection journal entry in the middle. The reflection served to help make me aware of the biases
I may have had about language acquisition in minority–majority populations and prompted my
decision to include multiple ways of collecting data for further analysis (e.g., video and audio
recordings, transcriptions, interviews, and anecdotal notes).
Throughout the project I met with a dual language education team, which consisted of an
academic adviser and another graduate student who were also interested in the work of identity
in a DLE classroom. We discussed our observations and hunches and recommended pertinent
articles of interest that may support our current research. In addition, I met with a group of two
graduate students to discuss our research projects in relation to the concept of social positioning
(Holland et al, 1998) in foreign language settings like the dual language classroom. These
meetings, along with one of my teacher interviews, helped triangulate the data, validating or
redirecting my interpretations of the observations.
Through the lens of social positioning, I analyzed the subsequent recordings and wrote
field notes about the students’ use of verbal and nonverbal forms of communication in order to
position others or reposition themselves. As I watched each video, I transcribed instances where
BILINGUAL STATUS IN A KINDERGARTEN TWO-WAY DUAL LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
65
students positioned each other as certain kinds of language users, focusing on students’ language
choice and use of code switching (changing from one language to the other). In my analysis I
considered which language was the language of the day and which was the designated language
of instruction as prescribed by the DLE model. In addition to transcribing the words that
students said, I also transcribed their changes in tone and body language. Once I had a
transcription, I coded for words, sentences, phrases, or body language through which the students,
particularly Elizabeth, positioned and repositioned themselves. Throughout the process I wrote
memos to help diagram how the concepts or theories emerged from the data related to one
another. This process was ongoing and was repeated several times to verify the coherence of my
observations.
Findings
According to Peirce (1995) and Potowski (2004), learners will take risks in their use of
language and other semiotic resources to position and reposition themselves and each other
depending on how invested they are in acquiring a second language. Therefore, we examined
the discourse for creative ways students used Spanish and English to take risks. In the following
transcript students had been talking about Clifford, the big red dog (from a popular children’s
cartoon) because he was rumored to be attending an after-school event called Family Fit Night.
In the scenario presented below, the students were at the writing center when Elizabeth took a
risk as a second language learner by attempting to speak in English about Clifford. Translations
of Spanish & English are parenthesized, utterances in Spanish are in italics, and body
language/tone are bracketed.
Excerpt 1
1
Elizabeth: “Clifford…[says something inaudible] picture” [with an excited tone in
her voice while trying to get Mimi’s attention]
2
Mimi: “I don’t know what she means.” [slightly annoyed and aloof]
3
Elizabeth: “Means?” [replies inquisitively]
4
Mimi: “I don’t know what she means?” [Mark and Colt are sitting in front of their
female bilingual partners, Mimi and Elizabeth]
5
Elizabeth: “Es blurry” (It’s blurry) [trying to speak in English while pointing to her
drawing]
6
Colt: [Announces] “I’m not gonna write my name!”
7
Elizabeth: [Still trying to get her message across in a mix of Spanish and English]
“Es blurry” (It’s blurry) [then continues speaking in English gibberish]
A few moments later the conversation continued between Elizabeth and Mimi.
8
Elizabeth: [Trying to get Mimi’s attention by tapping on her arm and pointing to her
drawing] “What’s this? What’s this?”
9
Mimi: [Turns to look at Elizabeth’s drawing and begins to draw Xs all over her
drawing]
10 Elizabeth: [Sounding quite annoyed] “No, no, no!”
11 Mimi: [Attempts to scribble all over Elizabeth’s paper again and says] “I want to
draw!”
12 Elizabeth: [Flinches Mimi’s arm away] “No tare!”
13 Mimi: “No tare?” [with a mocking, yet inquisitive tone in her voice]
14 Elizabeth: “Eh-stop!”
66
Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education
15
16
Mimi: “No pair? I don’t know what pairrrrrr you are talking about. Is it the pear
you eat or the pairrrr you do this….rrrrrr… the thing you don’t want to eat but you
have to…[continues talking to herself].
Elizabeth: [finishes her drawing and exclaims quite proudly] “Ahí está pumpkin!
(There’s the pumpkin).
During bilingual centers time, when students got to choose in which language they
wanted to communicate, and throughout my observations of Elizabeth, there were moments
when I could not understand what she was saying, as in lines 7 and 12. I knew she was trying to
speak in English, and eventually I realized that she was attempting to pronounce words in
English in the way that they sounded to her. There is no way to describe her attempts at
speaking English other than to call it gibberish (Brodkin, 2000), partially because of the way her
peers responded to her (e.g., Mimi, line 15). Elizabeth was so invested in being viewed by her
peers as a competent bilingual that she took a risk and spoke what sounded like English gibberish.
By speaking in English she was also repositioning herself as bilingual, as she wished her peers
would view her. Mimi continued to mock Elizabeth’s use of English by repeating her English
gibberish, “No tare?” (line 13). There was a constant flow of positioning between the two girls.
Mimi was positioning Elizabeth as strictly a monolingual Spanish speaker, and one whose
attempts to speak English were unsuccessful. However, Elizabeth proved her bilingual speaking
skills by speaking in both Spanish and English throughout the entire interaction with Mimi. In
line 16 (“Ahí está pumpkin!”), Elizabeth used both Spanish and English in a single utterance to
identify what she had been trying to draw and talk about in English, while Mimi had continued to
position her as an incompetent English speaker.
During my second interview with Ms. O, I inquired about Elizabeth’s attempts to speak
English and the teacher shared that she, too, noticed how Elizabeth would try to speak in English
like her monolingual-English and bilingual counterparts. Ms. O said that Elizabeth very much
wanted to take on the verbal and physical characteristics (i.e., cultural and linguistic capital) of a
blonde female student named Sabine. As previously described, Sabine is considered a wellbalanced bilingual according to the Pre-LAS scores (score 5 out of 5 fluent English speaker and
score 5 out of 5 as a fluent Spanish speaker), which this dual language program used as a basis to
pair students as bilingual partners and to designate them as a part of Spanish or English language
arts lessons. Ms. O mentioned that Elizabeth came to class with highlights in her hair one day.
When Elizabeth asked her teacher whether she liked the highlights, Ms. O said that she should
not be highlighting her hair because she was too young. Elizabeth argued that if Sabine could
dye her entire hair blonde then why couldn’t she highlight parts of her hair. Elizabeth could not
fathom a blonde-haired, green-eyed little girl speaking fluent Spanish, to the point that she
believed that Sabine had dyed her hair.
Some students seemed to be speaking with a sense of entitlement when they interacted
with each other, and I suspected this was due to how their linguistic abilities were valued as
linguistic capital in this context (Bourdieu, 1982). Linguistic capital became a tool or cultural
artifact students could use to position and reposition themselves in the course of an interaction.
In the following dialogue, Analisa, Noel, and Elizabeth were at the writing center. Analisa and
Noel had been conversing in English about how they were supposed to complete the task. Most
of the time Analisa was confirming with Noel that she was doing it right, and throughout the
conversation, Noel spoke for Elizabeth.
BILINGUAL STATUS IN A KINDERGARTEN TWO-WAY DUAL LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
67
Excerpt 2
17 Analisa: [speaking to Elizabeth] “Hey, you can’t color the eyes green!”
18 Noel: [speaking for Elizabeth without her request] “She’s not, she’s tracing them.
You can only trace them green, not color them [continues mumbling].” [Now
speaking to Elizabeth in Spanish] Verdad (Right) Elizabeth?”
19 Elizabeth: [nods in agreement]
20 Analisa: [speaking to Elizabeth] “Do you have a brown marker?”
21 Elizabeth: [nods a confirming yes]
22 Noel: [speaking to both girls] “Where is the brown marker?”
23 Elizabeth: [continues to look in her box of markers]
24 Analisa: [speaking to Elizabeth] “Where?” [looking over Elizabeth’s shoulder. The
brown marker is never found] “She’s coloring the eyes green with a crayon!
[exclaiming with an annoyed and accusatory tone in her voice]
25 Noel: “That’s ok.”
26 Analisa: [speaking to Noel] “You said I couldn’t color them green!”
27 [Some mumbling in Spanish between Elizabeth and Noel]
28 Analisa: [proclaiming to Noel and Elizabeth] “I was born speaking English!”
29 Elizabeth: [speaking in a low voice] “Me, too.”
30 Analisa: [with a very confused look on her face] “You weren’t born speaking
English!!”
31 Elizabeth: [nods head up and down affirming that what she said was true]
32 Analisa: [smiling at Elizabeth] “Uuuh, español?” (Uh, Spanish?)
[A few moments later the following conversation continued]
33
Analisa: [smiles at video camera and says] “I love Elizabeth.”
34
Elizabeth: [facial expression changes from serious and focused on her work to
happy] “What you say?”
35
Noel: [seeming a little uncomfortable with what Analisa said] “What did you say,
Analisa?”
36
Analisa: [with a smile on her face] “I said, I love Elizabeth.”
37
Noel: [once again speaking in English for Elizabeth] “She doesn’t like love.
Right, Elizabeth?”
38
Elizabeth: [nods in agreement with Noel]
39
Noel: “She doesn’t like love.”
40
Analisa: “She said she didn’t speak Spanish.”
41
Noel: “She does speak Spanish!”
42
Analisa: “Woul’ she does speak, but she wasn’t born.”
43
Noel: “She was born speaking Spanish and English!”
44
Elizabeth: “Yo hablo mucho espaniol y hablo mucho ingles.” (I speak a lot of
Spanish and a lot of English.)
45
Analisa: [stating inquisitively] “English?”
46
Elizabeth: [confirming Analisa’s query with an accent more like Analisa’s]
“English.”
Throughout the conversation. Elizabeth kept her gaze set solely on the task she was
completing, positioning herself as a good student by staying focused on her work. At the same
time, she also seemed to want to be accepted by her peers, as she listened attentively to their
68
Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education
conversation about her. She affirmed and replied, either verbally or physically, when prompted
by Noel or Analisa. By speaking for her (lines 18, 37, 42, 43) and using mainly English, they
socially positioned her as not having a voice about her identity. Toward the end of the
conversation, Elizabeth repositioned herself by clearly stating in Spanish that she was a
competent bilingual (line 44). Potowski (2004) describes how the concept of investment
“emphasizes that the overriding purpose of social interactions is for people to construct and
present an image of who they are” (p. 88). Elizabeth’s use of Spanish to state that she was a
competent bilingual was her way of rejecting the identity of a Spanish monolingual that Noel and
Analisa had ascribed to her by speaking for her.
The dual language model being implemented at Bottomline Elementary calls for a strict
separation of languages. As I analyzed how Elizabeth was positioned by others, I noticed that it
was only during bilingual learning center activities that she made any effort to speak, let alone
use her English. In other words, these activities appeared to create a space where monolingual
speakers, like Elizabeth, felt safe enough to take risks in their second language. She wanted her
peers to believe she was bilingual, and she attempted to prove that by speaking English or at
times English gibberish (Brodkin, 2000). The designated language of instruction (i.e., language
arts and social studies were taught in Spanish, and math and science were taught in English)
seemed to restrict Elizabeth from participating despite her fluency in Spanish. For example,
during a single, 30-minute observation of whole-class instruction in Spanish, Elizabeth
participated by raising her hand voluntarily only twice and orally contributing once to the
discussion. After observing and transcribing a whole-class literacy lesson, I suspected that her
lack of participation in English or Spanish during a highly structured whole-class lesson could
also be attributed to her relative lack of literacy exposure prior to attending kindergarten. It is
possible that those children who volunteered and seemed to speak with confidence in English or
Spanish had learned to interact during highly structured whole-class lessons via the literacy
exposure they had experienced prior to kindergarten. For example, Heath’s (1983) ethnographic
study found that the literacy practices middle-upper-class European American children learn at
home are very similar to the literacy practices taught and valued in public schools.
As I was grappling with how Elizabeth was being positioned during one of my numerous
analyses of a recording, I noticed Elizabeth’s expression when she was listening to Adel, a lightskinned, blonde Latina middle-class student, speak Mexican Spanish flawlessly. Elizabeth had a
surprised look on her face. It seemed as if she had never seen someone with Adel’s phenotype
speak her language, her Spanish. As I transcribed what Adel was saying, after hearing Ms. O’s
anecdote about Elizabeth highlighting her hair to look like a blonde student who was a fluent
Spanish speaker, it occurred to me that Elizabeth was being positioned and repositioning herself,
both intentionally and inadvertently, by her peers. The following conversation about the students’
mothers took place when another student announced that his mom was helping take the student
portraits.
Excerpt 3
47 Male Student: Mi mamá nos va tomar las fotos. (My mom is taking our pictures.)
48 Elizabeth and Janel: [start chanting] Mi mama sí, mi mama no (My mom yes, my
mom no)
49 Adel: Mi mamá no porque ella tiene que trabajar con esos niños que no saben nada
de ingles (My mom can’t because she has to work with those kids that do not know
any English)
BILINGUAL STATUS IN A KINDERGARTEN TWO-WAY DUAL LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
69
Adel positioned herself with a great deal of cultural and linguistic capital (Bordieu, 1982;
DiMaggio, 2005) by explaining how her mom could not be there for picture day because she was
busy teaching children how to speak English. That is, at the beginning of the year, Adel walked
into the dual language classroom, where becoming bilingual and bicultural is the ultimate goal,
with a cultural artifact Elizabeth was just now trying to attain: bilingualism.
The following two dialogues (Excerpts 4 and 5) were the only examples in 37 clippings
to demonstrate how students could work together to learn their second language (Angelova,
Gunawardena, & Volk, 2006).
Excerpt 4
88 Elizabeth: [speaking to Mimi in Spanish] “Aver cómo se dice en inglés….in
inglés…cómo se dice en inglés…no cómo se dice en
español…ummmm….dientes…como se dice en español dientes?” Mimi [while
moving Mimi’s hair out of her face] “cómo se dice dientes en espaniol?” (Lets see
how do you say in English…..in English…how do you say in English…no how do
you say in Spanish…ummm….teeth…how do you say teeth in Spanish…how do
you say teeth in Spanish?)
89 Mimi: [turning to listen to Elizabeth] “What’s dientes? (What’s teeth?)”
90 Elizabeth: [assuming Mimi replied correctly} “Okay, y cómo se dice ball?” (Okay,
and how do you say ball?)
91 Mark: [sounding a little confused and trying to explain that she was asking how to
say a Spanish word in Spanish] “Español es dientes!” (Spanish is teeth)
92 Elizabeth: [mouthing to Mimi how to say ball in Spanish emphasizing the syllables]
“Pe-lo-ta” (Ball)
93 Mimi: [replying in Spanish]: “Pelota?” (Ball?)
94 Elizabeth: “Si!” (Yes!)
95 Mimi: [responding to her mouthing of the word in Spanish] “You already said it.”
96 Elizabeth: [asking another question while stroking her eyes] “Y ojos?” (And eyes?)
97 Mimi: “You just said them.” [also clarifying like Mark that she just said the Spanish
word she wants her to translate]
In the above conversation Elizabeth was trying to get Mimi to say words in Spanish. Just
like most of their conversations, there was a level of power play involved. This time they were
trying to get each other to use each other’s native language. In other words, they were trying to
prove their bilingual competencies. In the following transcript Mimi is now testing Elizabeth’s
bilingual proficiency.
Excerpt 5
103 Mimi: [speaking to Elizabeth in English while showing her a sore on the palm of her
hand] “How do you say this in Spanish?”
104 Elizabeth: [speaking in English] “What?”
105 Mimi: “This (pointing to the sore on her palm)….in Spanish? I know what it is.”
106 Elizabeth: [grabbing her hand to look at it and replies in Spanish] “Sangre” (Blood)
107 Mimi: [speaking a mix English and Spanish] “What’s a sangre?”
108 Elizabeth: [replying in Spanish, but interrupted by Mark] “Sangre de que tu….”
(Blood of what..you)
70
Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education
109 Mark: [replying in English] “Sangre is you bleeding.”
110 Mimi: “Noooo.”
111 Elizabeth: [slightly annoyed] “Yes.”
112 Mimi: [speaking in English] “It’s not bleeding. It’s a splinter.”
A few moments pass while teacher is redirecting students.
113 Mimi: [speaking to Elizabeth in English] “Umm Elizabeth your partner is Colt so
yeah you have to go with him.”
114 Elizabeth: [says something inaudible]
115 Mimi: “How do you say go in Spanish?”
116 Elizabeth: “Go is umm dale”
117 Mimi: “Ummm…dale?”
118 Elizabeth: [nods an affirming yes]
In the conversation above, both Elizabeth and Mimi socially positioned each other as
proficient in their native languages and were able to learn from each other. Specifically, they
used their linguistic tools to learn from one another by asking each other, “How do you say ‘go’
in Spanish? (line 115)” or “Como se dice ball en inglés (line 90)?” In an interview with Ms. O,
she said that as the year progressed she noticed that the use of Spanish and English was “evening
out.”
Discussion
Because this was a pilot study, my assertions are tentative. I speculated that students, like
Elizabeth, who were highly invested in learning a second language would take risks such as
speaking in gibberish (Brodkin, 2000) in order to position and reposition themselves and others
while trying to gain cultural and linguistic capital (Bordieu, 1982; DiMaggio, 2005). The notion
of investment (Peirce, 1995; Potowski, 2004) as a field of research to determine how students
socially position each other in the DLE classroom is pertinent in order to create learning
environments that foster and affirm the cultural artifacts (i.e., tools) all students bring to the dual
language classroom.
Perhaps my initial interest in ameliorating the supposed disconnect between positioning
and language learning can actually be used as a tool during moments of power play, as
demonstrated in the scripts above, where the two girls are asking the other Do you know how to
say something in my language? In other words, is it possible that when children are invested to
gain power and position, they will learn language?
It would be interesting to further explore how students manage to work together in
bilingual settings like the one illustrated in the present study. There is a need to examine how
teachers can use instructional strategies to better even out the language terrain in DLE
classrooms, which would allow for all students’ cultural capital in terms of linguistic capabilities
to be used to their fullest potential. The teachers’ use of bilingual partners in this study seemed
to facilitate language learning because it was in those partnerships where students took risks like
speaking English gibberish or challenging each others’ bilingual competency. In fact, several
researchers have begun to explore the development of instructional strategies for multilingual
contexts like the dual language classroom (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Cummins, 2005; Palmer
& Martinez, 2013). If practitioners are able to balance the language terrain via instructional
strategies, it is possible that what happens in a DLE kindergarten classroom may serve to
partially counteract the inequitable social relations that exist in society.
BILINGUAL STATUS IN A KINDERGARTEN TWO-WAY DUAL LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
71
Conclusion and Policy Implications
Internationally, bilingual education is considered something of the norm, and for schoolaged children, being bilingual or trilingual can be considered a day-to-day necessity (Cenoz &
Valencia, 1994; Swain, Lapkin, Rowen, & Hart, 1990). Nationally, bilingual programs like DLE
or two-way immersion have been slow to be implemented because of the heavily contested
reputation of the more common, though less effective, models of bilingual education (i.e.,
transitional bilingual education and self-contained English as a second language instruction) in
many parts of the country (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Locally, the Bottomline Elementary
community is reaping the benefits of years of hard advocacy work to implement dual language
education in the public school system.
Policy supporting the use of minority languages (i.e., Spanish) alongside majority
languages (i.e., English) in bilingual learning contexts should explore the importance of
programs like DLE immersion. This study points towards the need for future research to explore
what must be done in the bilingual immersion context to allow students to challenge the
dominant societal discourses that give power to people with certain types of linguistic capital
(Bordieu, 1982). Additionally, researchers and practitioners should examine the ways the dual
immersion context has the potential to harness students’ efforts to position themselves as
powerful and legitimate as an investment for learning.
About the Author
Suzanne Garcia Mateus is a doctoral candidate at the University of Texas at Austin. Her
research interests include heritage language learners’ interactional co-construction of identity in
dual language programs. She currently lives in Guayaquil, Ecuador, while writing her
dissertation.
References
Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D. (2006). Peer teaching and learning: Coconstructing language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education, 20(3),
173–189.
Bartlett, L., & García, O. (2011). Additive schooling in subtractive times: Bilingual education
and Dominican immigrant youth in the Heights. Vanderbilt University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1982) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Brodkin, A. M. (2000). ‘Oohblugabah!’ Early Childhood Today, 15(2), 16–17. Retrieved from
EBSCO host.
Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. F. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195–207.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy
for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.
Cummins, J. (2005) A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language
competence as a learning resource with the mainstream classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 89, 585–592.
72
Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 44–63.
DiMaggio, P. (2005). Cultural capital. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory, (Vol.
1, pp. 167–170). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Duncan, S. E., & DeAvila, E. A. (1985). How to administer Pre-LAS, 2012. Retrieved from
http://clas.uiuc.edu/special/evaltools/cl03589.html
Gomez, L., & Gomez, R. (1999). Dual language training institute. Retrieved from
http://dlti.us/first.html
Great Schools. (2010–2011). Student subgroups. Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org
/texas/Austin/578-Ridgetop-Elementary School/?tab=demographics
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Holland, D., Lachiotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural
worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2005). Review of research and best practices on effective features of
dual language education programs. San Jose, CA: San Jose State University.
Palmer, D., & Martínez, R. A. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: A fresh look at
preparing teachers to educate Latina/o bilingual children. Review of Research in
Education, 37(1), 269–297.
Palmer, D. K. (2007). A Dual immersion strand programme in California: Carrying out the
promise of dual language education in an English-dominant context. The International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(6), 752–768.
Palmer, D. K. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual
classroom: “Everybody should be listening to Jonathan right now…”. TESOL Quarterly,
43(2), 177–202.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly,
29(1), 9–31.
Potowski, K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom:
Implications for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. The
Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 75–101.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N., & Hart, D. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third
language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 3(1), 65–81.
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A National Study of School Effectiveness for LanguageMinority Students’ Long Term Academic Achievement. Final Reports. Berkeley, CA:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence, UC Berkeley.
BILINGUAL STATUS IN A KINDERGARTEN TWO-WAY DUAL LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
73
74
Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education