aausc 2019 volume—issues in language program directionlibrary of congress control number:...

AAUSC 2019 Volume—Issues in Language Program Direction

Pathways to Paradigm Change: Critical Examinations of Prevailing Discourses and Ideologies in Second Language Education

Johanna Watzinger-TharpUniversity of Utah

Kate PaesaniUniversity of Minnesota

Series Editors

Beatrice DupuyUniversity of Arizona

Kristen MichelsonTexas Tech University

Editors

Australia • Brazil • Mexico • Singapore • United Kingdom • United States

37988_fm_ptg01_i-xx.indd 1 01/10/19 2:42 PM

© 2021, 2020, 2019 Cengage Learning, Inc.

Unless otherwise noted, all content is © Cengage.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Customer & Sales Support,

1-800-354-9706 or support.cengage.com.

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at

www.cengage.com/permissions.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019913119

Student Edition: ISBN: 978-0-357-43798-8

Cengage 200 Pier 4 Boulevard Boston, MA 02210 USA

Cengage is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with employees residing in nearly 40 different countries and sales in more than 125 countries around the world. Find your local representative at www.cengage.com.

Cengage products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

To learn more about Cengage platforms and services, register or access your online learning solution, or purchase materials for your course, visit www.cengage.com.

AAUSC 2019 Volume: Pathways to Paradigm Change: Critical Examinations of Prevailing Discourses and Ideologies in Second Language EducationBeatrice Dupuy, Kristen Michelson, Johanna Watzinger-Tharp, and Kate Paesani

Sr. Product Team Manager: Heather Bradley Cole

Marketing Manager: Sean Ketchem

Content Manager: Rebecca Charles

IP Analyst: Ann Hoffman

IP Project Manager: Betsy Hathaway

Production Service/Compositor: Lumina Datamatics, Inc.

Senior Designer: Sarah Cole

Printed in the United States of AmericaPrint Number: 01 Print Year: 2019

37988_fm_ptg01_i-xx.indd 2 01/10/19 2:42 PM

32

Chapter 2Beyond the Idealized Native Speaker in L2 Spanish Contexts: Standard Language Ideology, Authenticity, and Consequences for Learner Identity Construction

Katharine E. Burns, Carnegie Mellon University

IntroductionThe reproduction of standard language ideology has been documented in both Spanish foreign language (SFL) and Spanish heritage language (SHL) contexts at the university level (Beaudrie, 2015a; Burns, 2018; Burns Al Masaeed, 2014; Burns & Waugh, 2018; Lowther Pereira, 2010). Previous studies have been critical of standard language ideologies in university-level L2 Spanish instruction for their role in contributing to the power of hegemonic (socially, culturally, politically, or economically dominant) groups through their language varieties, chiefly Castilian and Latin American norma culta. The notion of a “standard” language has been identified as an abstract construct by some scholars, who have argued that it pro-motes an image of an idealized native speaker that is not reflective of authentic conversational contexts (Ortega, 1999; Pomerantz, 2002; Train, 2003). Therefore, reinforcing standard language ideology in L2 curricula not only contributes to the power of hegemonic groups while marginalizing others but it also leaves students unprepared for the linguistic diversity found in target language speech communi-ties. This chapter draws on data from both SFL and SHL focus group discussions to examine the consequences of language standardization in SFL and SHL curric-ula for both learner groups and addresses ideologies affecting L2 learner identity construction. Suggestions are made for concrete ways to challenge the standard language ideology through discourses of heteroglossia in order to align learning outcomes with the goals of situated learning.

BackgroundStandard Language IdeologyLanguages become standardized over time, and the process typically involves con-solidation or reproduction of power on the part of a hegemonic group through

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 32 01/10/19 2:40 PM

Beyond the Idealized Native Speaker in L2 Spanish Contexts 33

the promotion of their own language variety as a means of acquiring Bourdieu’s (1991) economic, political, social, or cultural capital. The kinds of language vari-ation often associated with sociolinguistic factors, such as ethnicity, race, social class, and so on, are minimized in this process. Therefore, as Milroy (2001) points out, “Commonly ‘standard variety’ has been equated with ‘the highest prestige variety,’ rather than with the variety that is characterized by the highest degree of uniformity” (p. 532). Lippi-Green (2012), taking a critical stance, defines stan-dard language ideology as “a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogenous spoken language which is imposed and maintained by dominant bloc institutions and which names as its model the written language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle class” (p. 67). Lippi-Green (2012) also notes that educational institutions are central to the reproduction of standard language ideology (see also Gee, 2012; Hornberger, 2011; van Dijk, 2001). Often, this takes the form of requiring students to use exclusively the “standard” form of their L1 or of the dominant language in their society (if it is not their L1). How-ever, the same concerns are present in courses designed for those who choose to study a foreign or heritage language. Given that language standardization seeks to eliminate variation, but that variation is still very much a hallmark of spoken language, standard language ideology should be of concern to L2 instructors and program administrators as we prepare students to become autonomous users of a foreign or heritage language in the target culture or community.

Standard Language Ideology and SpanishIn the case of Spanish, the “standard” is identified with Castilian Spanish (castellano), the variety of the most historically powerful Spanish speakers, as well as the “educated” Latin American norma culta variety. Castilian Spanish was exported to Latin America through the colonization process and is one of the linguistic forebearers of that region’s “standard” norma culta educated variety (Moraña, 2005; Train, 2007). This “standard” Spanish is identified with the “educated” sectors of Hispanophone societies and is supported by institutions such as the Real Academia Española (RAE; Royal Spanish [Language] Academy) and its related institutions in former Spanish colonies, which are known as the member academies of the Asociación de las Academias de la Lengua Española (ASALE; Association of Spanish Language Academies). Though both RAE and ASALE, which are under the same leadership, have explicitly stated missions to promote the use of Spanish globally, scholars have found that in RAE materials, Castilian Spanish is dominant, and other global varieties of Spanish and other languages of Spain (e.g., Catalan) are virtually ignored (Paffey & Mar-Molinero, 2009; Vann, 2002). In publications of La Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española (ANLE; The North American Spanish Language Academy, an ASALE member) aimed at Spanish-English bilinguals, Lynch and Potowski (2014) found evidence of erroneous or misleading information on sociolinguistic variation in U.S.

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 33 01/10/19 2:40 PM

34 Katharine E. Burns

varieties of Spanish as well as tacit disparagement of Anglicisms and the effects of Spanish and English in contact. Taking a critical stance, we can argue that this institutionalized perpetuation of standard language ideology is problematic not only because it reinforces power dynamics in favor of hegemonic groups but also because “standard” Spanish has been, by some scholars, critiqued and deemed an abstract construct that does not reflect the language diversity of authentic conversational contexts in the Hispanophone world. Furthermore, Train (2003) has posited that this abstract construct of “standard” Spanish is tied to ideologies of nativeness; it gives rise to the belief that an idealized native speaker of “standard” Spanish exists and should serve as a role model for L2 students. However, Train (2003) argues that “standard” Spanish is an abstraction and, therefore, cannot be the native language of anyone, so by extension, the idealized native speaker is also an abstraction. Efforts to aspire to emulate this artificial ideological construct can have a confounding effect on L2 learner progress (discussed later in the chapter). Whether L2 learners should indeed aspire to native speaker norms has been called into question in the literature (Kramsch, 2003, 2009), but Train (2003) points out that if native-like proficiency is in fact sought, L2 courses should embrace language variation in order to reflect more accurately the language practices of target language speakers and communities of practice.

The perpetuation of standard language ideologies constitutes an obstacle to the goals of situated L2 learning in two main ways. First, by minimizing or erasing the language variation characteristic of spoken and written discourse, students will not be meaningfully aware of or able to participate in the diverse social and linguistic realities of Spanish as it is used in authentic conversational and written contexts. Second, without acknowledging the process of language standardization and its related ideologies, students cannot understand the historical, political, and cultural reasons for why some language varieties have prestige over others. As Bourdieu (1991) notes, when language varieties or features are marginalized, the social groups with which they are associated are also marginalized. Therefore, insofar as situated L2 learning is concerned with preparing students for participa-tion in target communities and cultures, a paradigm change is needed in order to counteract the discourses and effects of standard language ideology.

Spanish at the University Level in the United StatesEvidence of standard language ideology’s pervasiveness in Spanish departments and both SFL and SHL courses at the university level has been documented by many scholars (Leeman, 2012; Martínez, 2003; Pomerantz, 2002; Valdés, González, García, & Márquez, 2003, 2008). In addition, studies have noted the lack of information about Spanish sociolinguistic variation and, in some cases, the active delegitimization of certain varieties (U.S. varieties in particular) in L2 Spanish pedagogical materials and in departmental cultures (Ducar, 2009; Ortega, 1999; Train, 2009; Valdés et al., 2003). Despite calls for classroom environments

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 34 01/10/19 2:40 PM


and pedagogical materials that include evidence-based sociolinguistic information about variation, languages in contact, and the linguistic characteristics of bilin-gualism (Beaudrie, 2015b; Ducar, 2009; Geeslin, 2011; Martínez, 2003; Parodi, 2008; Schoonmaker-Gates, 2017; Shenk, 2014), studies have shown that in prac-tice, the presence and effects of standard language ideology in the SFL and SHL materials, curricula, and classrooms persist (Beaudrie, 2015a; Burns, 2018; Burns Al Masaeed, 2014; Burns & Waugh, 2018; Lowther Pereira, 2010).

In addition to standard language ideologies, García and Torres-Guevara (2010) have noted the presence of monoglossic language ideologies in classroom L2 contexts in the U.S. monoglossic ideologies, which, they argue, only consider monolingual norms and position language study as driven by the acquisition of a skill independent of situated or social contexts. That is, Spanish as it is used by bilinguals, in particular by U.S. Latinx speakers, is not valued or perhaps even considered. In fact, varieties of U.S. Spanish have consistently been discursively positioned as inferior not only to “standard” varieties but also to the Spanish of L2 learners (Leeman, 2012, 2014; Leeman & Martínez, 2007; Pomerantz, 2010). These ideologies have been shown to have a significant influence on the expe-riences, perspectives, and classroom practices of SHL students. Lowther Pereira (2010) describes how SHL instructors, whether consciously or unconsciously, transmit prescriptivist messages in favor of standard, monoglossic language in SHL classroom contexts. Coryell, Clark, and Pomerantz (2010) show how SHL learners’ deeply held convictions about the need to speak “proper Spanish,” as opposed to their own U.S. variety, have profound consequences for their learn-ing motivations and practices. Specifically, they feel the need to disconnect their learning processes and behaviors from their own situated, bilingual communities in the U.S. Southwest in order to access the practices and behaviors of monolin-gual communities that speak a more prestigious variety of Spanish. Showstack (2017), on the other hand, demonstrates how standard and monoglossic language ideologies are reproduced but also challenged in SHL classrooms as students take on both expert and novice roles at various points.

While the reproduction of standard language ideologies has been found in SFL textbooks and curricula (Burns, 2018) and SHL textbooks, curricula, and classrooms (Beaudrie, 2015a; Burns & Waugh, 2018; Lowther Pereira, 2010; Showstack, 2015), the current study builds on this work by drawing on focus group interview data from both SFL and SHL populations to examine the conse-quences of the presence of standard language ideologies for both learner popula-tions from the perspectives of SFL and SHL instructors. Educational institutions and policies have been important sites for the reproduction of standard language ideology (Bourdieu, 1991), and since instructors are the primary implementers of institutional policies, their perspectives are a key factor in establishing ways to challenge and change discourses of standard language ideology in programs seek-ing to deliver situated language learning outcomes to their students.

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 35 01/10/19 2:40 PM


MethodologySetting and ParticipantsThis case study was conducted at a public university in the U.S. Southwest that houses large SFL and SHL programs. The SHL program includes beginner courses for students who are primarily receptive bilinguals (third-generation Spanish-speakers, for example) and who have higher receptive than productive competence in Spanish.

The participants in the focus groups for this study (n = 9) were graduate instructors of Spanish and enrolled in doctoral programs in either SLA or His-panic Linguistics at the time of the study. All participants (seven females, two males) had three to more than five years of experience in teaching Spanish at the university level, and for the study, they were divided into two focus groups: those who had experience teaching only SFL courses (Group A) and those who had experience teaching both SFL and SHL courses (Group B). Two participants were native speakers of Spanish (Mexican and Salvadoran), while the other seven were native English speakers. The participants volunteered for the study by responding to a recruitment e-mail sent to a Spanish and Portuguese departmental listserv; they were assigned pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality.

Data Collection and AnalysisThe two focus group discussions were conducted in semi-structured format and moderated by the author. Each focus group discussion lasted approximately 60 minutes and was audio recorded in full using a digital audio recording appli-cation. The focus group interview questions were designed to elicit information about instructor beliefs and practices regarding the ways in which sociolinguistic variation is portrayed and taught in SFL and SHL classrooms at the university where the case study was conducted. (See Appendix A for information about tran-scription abbreviations and conventions used herein, and see Appendix B for the sample focus group interview protocol.)

To analyze the data, the author listened to the focus group interview audio recordings in their entirety several times while simultaneously taking written notes on the conversations’ subjects and themes and the opinions of participants. Episodes in the data of particular thematic relevance to standard and other lan-guage ideologies were identified and transcribed using a style inspired by Conver-sation Analysis and adapted mainly from Gee (2011) and Bloomer, Griffiths, and Merrison (2005).

The larger project from which the data for this study are taken also included analysis of the presentation of sociolinguistic variation in the text-books used at beginning and intermediate levels in the SHL and SFL courses at the university. This chapter focuses primarily on focus group interview results.

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 36 01/10/19 2:40 PM


The reader can refer to Burns (2018) and Burns and Waugh (2018) for more detail on textbook results.

Results and DiscussionDespite a consensus that both the textbooks and the programs/syllabi have stated missions to encourage oral communication and realistic language use and to val-idate students’ home varieties (in the case of SHL learners), both focus groups identified a disconnect between these missions and their claim that, in practice, sociolinguistic variation is neither prioritized in the textbooks nor in the curric-ula. Group B (SFL) participants asserted that the textbooks mainly addressed soci-olinguistic variation through lists of lexical items specific to certain areas (e.g., Chilean Spanish), but that they were not part of assessments nor emphasized in the classroom. While Group A (SHL-SFL) confirmed this, they also discussed some of the issues unique to SHL students, such as the treatment of linguistic fea-tures common to students’ home varieties by the SHL textbooks, including overtly prescriptivist messages about “correct” and “incorrect” language that seem to be biased against varieties often used in the United States and/or by SHL students. Therefore, standard language ideology is perpetuated in the pedagogical materi-als and, according to the participants, in the classroom to some degree as well. However, in addition to standard language ideology, evidence of additional, com-plementary ideological currents are present in the groups’ discussions, including the construct of the “idealized native speaker” versus the “problem speaker,” the racialization of Spanish speakers in the United States, and Spanish as extrinsic to the United States.

The Idealized Native Speaker, the Blank Slate, and the Problem SpeakerIn both focus group discussions, instructors brought up the “idealized native speaker” construct (Train, 2003) that students have internalized and seek to emulate. This concept is related to, and indeed a consequence of, standard language ideology. For SFL students, the idealized native speaker is limiting—it prevents students from recognizing the diversity of Spanish varieties and from acquiring the patterns of authentic oral conversation, such as discourse markers, as Alejandra (Group B—SFL) observes:

But it’s not like in the conversation in the book (.) is not like a normal conversation like you would have pués, como,((Spanish discourse markers)) da da da (1.0) bueno … ((Spanish discourse marker))

For SHL students, the idealized native speaker can reflect and reinforce inter-nal linguistic struggles that many SHL students experience, which is why

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 37 01/10/19 2:40 PM


the instructors in Group A (SFL-SHL) agreed that sociolinguistic variation is an important part of the SHL curriculum in particular, as Matthew (Group A—SFL-SHL) maintains:

It’s important to do it ((include information on sociolinguistic vari-ation in the classroom)) because many of them come in with this (.) idealized native speaker that they (.) that they try to fight (.) against (.) that (.) that they’re comparing themselves t?o (.) and I don’t think that (.) I think once they realize that (.) that there is no (2.0) idealized native speaker (.) that they (.) that the pressure (.) is off of them (.) and once the pressure is off of them then they can start (2.0) feeling better about their own varieties and learning more (.) about others

Giving students a view of the breadth of global variation in Spanish may allow them to begin the process of problematizing standard language ideology and the idealized native speaker. In Matthew’s experience (lines 4–6), this can be helpful in combating low linguistic self-esteem experienced by many SHL students from internalized linguistic prejudice about their own varieties of Spanish.

As mentioned earlier, Group A (SFL-SHL) discussed the overtly prescriptiv-ist tone that SHL textbooks often take. Melissa speculated that one explanation for this prescriptivism, which contradicts the textbooks’ own stated mission of validating all student varieties of Spanish, might involve the reputation of SHL students as “problem speakers”:

I think it’s because (.) um I think (.) I don’t know (.) I don’t write textbooks but (.) (laugh) I imagine that when they’re writing a her-itage book they’re already worried that they already have a certain language (.) like (.) dialect and that they wanna (.) um narrow it from avoiding adding more problems to their dialect because I think heritage speakers are seen as like problem speakers (.) where they don’t do things right and I think “to avoid giving you more problematic language don’t use this” (…) Versus foreign lan-guage speakers that are a clean slate when they start and they’re gonna pick up more on one dialect than anything else so (.) and it’s gonna be from standard textbook more than anything

Melissa’s thoughts on the characterization of SHL students as “problem speakers” calls to mind Ruiz’s (1984) identification of the discourse of “language as problem” versus “language as resource” in language planning. Rather than using students’ life experiences and language features as a resource, the SHL text-books treat them as problems to be solved since they do not conform to the ideo-logical construct of the monolithic “standard” language. Recently, scholars have called for approaches to heritage language education in which student varieties are seen as an asset rather than an obstacle (Ducar, 2009; Martínez, 2003). For example, Fairclough (2016) proposes Second Dialect Acquisition (SDA), which is

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 38 01/10/19 2:40 PM


additive in nature and does not seek to replace the student’s language variety with the standard but to approach it as a second dialect and include information on sociolinguistic variation. This approach is intended to make students aware of the historical and sociopolitical realities of standard language ideology to empower them to make their own decisions regarding language/dialect use.

Related as well to Melissa’s comments and to the perpetuation of standard language ideology in general are ideologies of nativism, which promote United States as a monolingual English-speaking country, reproduce the hegemony of Castilian Spanish to the detriment of other varieties (Leeman, 2014; Moraña, 2005; Train, 2012), and often have colonial and racist origins.

Racialization of Spanish Speakers in the United StatesIdeologies of racialization surrounding Spanish speakers in the United States came up in Group B’s (SFL) discussion when the conversation turned to the incorporation of sociolinguistic variation in the SFL classroom, particularly in relation to the university’s location in the U.S. Southwest, as Charlotte recounts:

Sometimes I like to bring in like sociolinguistic stuff and like talk about differences in like words in other cul?tures that speak Spa?nish (.) and like we did like that one section in ((second- semester SFL)) about like Spanglish (.) and like all the kids like went into riots and like they were talking like “you’re a racist like why are we talking about this? You should just talk about what the book talks about” and I was like o:h my gosh like what is your prob-(laugh)-lem (.) (…) then I talked about like my experience like living in Texas and like the different varieties and stuff there? compared to like when I was living in like Spa?in and stuff like this (.) and they were just like “we:ll that’s not like real Spanish” and I was like (…) well then I don’t want to try to make you speak with a real person ‘cause if they don’t speak like the Spanish that you learned or like are familiar with you’re just gonna think like … ((Charlotte shrugs))

This example also appears in Burns, 2018.

First, we see evidence of standard language ideology in Charlotte’s students’ strong notion that a “real Spanish” exists (lines 8 and 9); likewise, we see evi-dence of ideologies of castellano hegemony in her students’ belief that this “real Spanish” does not include U.S. varieties that are characterized by contact with English. Charlotte calls these varieties Spanglish, which can be a controversial term (see Lipski, 2008; Otheguy & Stern, 2011; Zentella, 2009 for more informa-tion). The students’ characterization of Charlotte as “a racist” (line 4) for bringing up U.S. varieties of Spanish suggests that they are making a connection between language or language variety and race, specifically as regards the United States. As some scholars have argued, Spanish speakers and ethnic Hispanics are increas-ingly racialized in the United States, and language or language variety can be one

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 39 01/10/19 2:40 PM


way in which this racialization is indexed, leading to discrimination in many cases (Cobas, Duany, & Feagin, 2009; Hill, 2008). From Charlotte’s comments, we see that students are aware of this phenomenon (whether consciously or not), and while the textbooks in this study did not acknowledge racialization of Spanish speakers and ethnic Hispanics in the United States (nor the Civil Rights struggles of the same groups), we can see an opportunity here for instructors to engage with these ideologies and ask students to think critically about their origins and consequences.

Spanish as Extrinsic to the United StatesThe instructor focus groups (and textbooks, as discussed in Burns, 2018; Burns & Waugh, 2018) also showed evidence of an ideology of Spanish as extrinsic—in other words, as if speaking Spanish were a phenomenon that mostly occurs in faraway places. This is tied to the textbooks’ perpetuation of standard language ideology and the devaluation of U.S. varieties of Spanish in favor of Iberian and higher-prestige Latin American varieties, which, of course, are spoken in far-away places. The instructors in both focus groups agreed that the SFL program, despite being located in the Southwest, did not include significant involvement with local Spanish speakers. In contrast, students were regularly encouraged to participate in the department’s study abroad programs in Spain and Central and South America. Group A (SFL-SHL) instructors pointed out that while studying abroad in Spain and Latin America is important and should be encouraged, there is a certain irony to the promotion of such programs while not taking the oppor-tunity to engage with the local community since, as Jessica pointed out, the high population of Spanish speakers in the area makes it “the closest you could get” to studying abroad without leaving the United States. The instructors in Group A (SFL-SHL) also argued that the SFL program should increase connections to the local community of Spanish speakers as a resource in order to expose students to local varieties of Spanish. Not doing so perpetuates the ideology of Spanish as extrinsic to the United States and the Iberian-centric ideologies that perhaps lead administrators to privilege “standard” varieties of Spanish over local ones.

Jessica and Melissa (Group A SFL-SHL) observe the textbooks’ practice of pre-senting lists of lexical items, at times decontextualized, as a means of addressing sociolinguistic variation in the SFL program. In this example, they are discussing a list of lexical items given in the beginner SFL textbook showing the diversity of terms to describe the same food item:

Jessica: I remember complete disinterest (.) and (2.0) one (.) they weren’t being tested on it and two you’re not gonna learn ten ways to say avo-cado on the off chance you end up in [Latin American country] (.) and they’re not teaching ‘boot’ ((UK English)) over at [local ESL center] just in case someone goes on vacation this summer to London […]

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 40 01/10/19 2:40 PM


I don’t know why in our Spanish classes in the U.S. we don’t just focus on (2.0) Mexican Spanish

Melissa: You focus on what’s closest to you (.) so here in the Southwest it’s gonna be Mexican Spanish (.) if you’re in the East Coast it’s gonna be Spanish from Spain

Here, Melissa and Jessica raise some issues around sociolinguistic variation in the SFL classroom in particular: On the one hand, overwhelming students with decontextualized lists of examples of lexical variation for which they are not held accountable and for which they have little practical use has, perhaps logically, resulted in a lack of interest in students. Additionally, they discuss the idea that rather than reproducing standard language ideology and ideologies of Spanish as extrinsic to the United States in the classroom by focusing on high-prestige lan-guage varieties or the monolithic “standard” Spanish, students would benefit from a concentration on the varieties of Spanish that are used in or closest to their local area. Melissa mentions Spain as a possibility for the U.S. East Coast, though of course long-standing communities of Spanish speakers in both the Northeast and the Southeast could provide a focus for local connections in SFL courses there as well. This ties in with points raised by Leeman (2014) and Train (2009), who have problematized the characterization of Spanish as a “foreign” language in the United States, which is home to one of the world’s largest Spanish-speaking populations.

In summary, both focus groups discussed the strong presence of standard lan-guage ideology in the pedagogical materials and curricula of the SFL and SHL programs at the university, and their comments also revealed ideologies of the construct of the “idealized native speaker” versus the “problem speaker,” the racialization of Spanish speakers in the United States, and Spanish as extrinsic to the United States.

Pedagogical Implications and Future DirectionsThe instructors identified a disconnect between the programs’ stated goals—of encouraging SFL students’ communication skills and validating and expand-ing SHL students’ communicative repertoires—and the presence and effects of standard language ideology that, at times, serve as an obstacle to achieving these aims. In their conversations, they shared some ideas and experiences focused on narrowing that gap.

Collaboration with Community and PeersThe instructors discussed the possibility of encouraging more connections out-side the classroom to increase students’ exposure to sociolinguistic variation, including the development of relationships with the local community such as

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 41 01/10/19 2:40 PM


Spanish–English conversation exchanges with native Spanish-speaking students at the campus ESL center and a familia-amiga program in which students might be invited periodically to do an activity with a local Spanish-speaking family. The Group A (SFL-SHL) instructors also mentioned the possibility of expanding service-learning opportunities in the SHL program, which have been beneficial to SHL students (see Lowther Pereira, 2015), to SFL students. Group B (SFL) instructors, however, were unsure of the feasibility of such endeavors due to the large size of the SFL program.

The Group A (SFL-SHL) instructors who had experience in both programs were enthusiastic about the prospect of collaboration between SFL and SHL stu-dents, though none exists at the moment. When asked whether they thought SHL and SFL students could be mutually beneficial resources to each other, the follow-ing exchange resulted:

Matthew: I think the strengths of the heritage students are speaking (2.0) and the strengths of the L2 students are writing (1.0) so I think [that

Patrick: [and some grammar knowledgeMatthew: and some grammar knowledge so I think putting the two

together (.) you can (1.0) um (.) focus on the strengths of both (.) and I’ve even done that when I taught in ((XX)) I had a class that was half heritage and half um (.) L2 and I would pair them up and they would work in groups and the L2 person would have to do the speaking and the heritage would have to do the writing and the grammar so you’re (.) you’re focusing on the strengths of the other

Melissa: Yeah (.) and even if you’re saying reaching out to the commu-nity (.) that is the community (.) the heritage language learners could easily be someone like to have a chat with (.) like because they’re reinforcing themselves by showing a second-language learner (.) you know (.) the language on how to speak (.) yeah they’re making themselves the expert and the other person is actually getting input from someone (.) I mean (.) pretty much native-speaker (.)

Researcher: And a peer too (.) which is niceMelissa: Yeah (.) and it balances out (.) ri?ght (.) and they meet someone

who they probably would have never met (.) like and you never know (.) maybe it will be something that will actually push them to keep learning Spanish (.) versus (.) you know (.) it’s just for credit

The advantages of such a partnership, according to the instructors, are numerous. Matthew and Patrick agree (lines 2–9) that SHL and SFL students have

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 42 01/10/19 2:40 PM


opposite strengths and can thus, in a sense, fill in each other’s gaps, mentoring one another in their respective areas of strength. Melissa adds that this would be a relatively convenient way to accomplish several objectives because it would provide (a) community engagement for SFL students, since most SHL students are members of local or regional Spanish-speaking communities; (b) a chance for SHL students, some of whom suffer from low linguistic self-esteem, to assume the “expert” role and gain confidence; and (c) the opportunity for SFL students to receive one-on-one help from peers proficient in Spanish. Such a collaboration might show SFL students the potential for using Spanish in their own commu-nities rather than assuming it would only be useful abroad. As Melissa remarks (lines 28–30), this might incentivize them to continue their study of Spanish beyond their language requirement, and even if this is not the case, they will almost certainly have gained a deeper understanding of their own community and of U.S. culture. Finally, such an experience would give students firsthand experi-ence with authentic, spoken Spanish of the kind they are most likely to encounter in their daily lives as Americans, thus challenging the ideology of “standard” lan-guage so pervasive in their SFL textbooks and curricula. Elsewhere in the discus-sion, Melissa also points out that, in her experience, SHL students can be used as resources to model sociolinguistic variation, as they come from families with diverse Spanish-speaking heritage and language varieties.

On the issue of SFL-SHL student collaboration, the Group B (SFL) instruc-tors were divided: Some felt it would be unrealistic due to logistical challenges, while others were more optimistic about the possibilities. This group had not worked with SHL students before.

Colleen: I think that we would (.) need training on how to help students work as equals with each other (.) in language and value each other (2.0) but I think it would be excellent … it’s doable (.) but would be tough

Diane: I think logistically it would be a real headache (2.0) I know they’ve tried it before and saw what happened (.) and so it would have to be re:ally carefully orchestrated ((Diane discusses communication and logistical issues with past implementation)) […] and you know, we’ve got so much else to do … though I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a good idea

Supplementation and Changes to Courses and MaterialsIn addition to encouraging collaborations outside the classroom, instructors and program administrators might also consider building evidence-based information on sociolinguistic variation into syllabi and giving instructors the resources they need to supplement textbooks, as some instructors may not have a background in this area. Group B (SFL) instructors were enthusiastic about the possibility of offering conversation/speaking-focused courses to beginner- and

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 43 01/10/19 2:40 PM


intermediate-level Spanish students (rather than at the high 200 or 300 levels, where they are typically offered), which would provide an avenue for discussing language variation and meet the needs of students who prefer a conversational focus to a grammar-driven syllabus. Group A (SFL-SHL) instructors also felt that students should be provided with metalinguistic information about U.S. varieties of Spanish and the natural linguistic consequences of languages in contact so they can feel empowered not only to make their own choices about language varieties but also to challenge ideologies of language and think critically about their origins.

ConclusionsThis study has shown how standard language ideology may give rise to related ideologies of nativism and idealized models, racialization of Spanish speakers in the United States, and Spanish as extrinsic to the United States. These ideologies affect learning outcomes for both SFL and SHL populations and are not in line with the goals of situated language learning because they do not allow for the complexity of language and language-in-context to be presented and processed by students.

Instructors and language program directors seeking to mitigate the effects of standard language ideology in their programs might consider concrete policies that explicitly introduce and promote discourses of Spanish (or other target lan-guages) as heteroglossic (Huang, 2016). This could begin with ensuring that the program’s written objectives include an acknowledgment that spoken and written forms of a language are distinct (Lippi-Green, 2012), that spoken varieties are het-erogeneous, and that all are equally valid. In keeping with the goals of situated language learning, these objectives might state that students will become famil-iar with language diversity among global target language communities of prac-tice and will thus be empowered to make choices about the particular form(s) of spoken language they would like to use. Incorporating the concept of critical language awareness and presenting evidence-based sociolinguistic information, which is traditionally absent, peripheral, or punitive in L2 contexts, may allow students to get a sense of languages as complex social systems that are subject to power dynamics based on their social, historical, and political contexts. They can be asked to think critically about why certain language varieties are consid-ered prestigious and worthy of study while others are not. From there, students can be empowered to make their own choices about language use, thus building sociolinguistic agency, defined by van Compernolle and Williams (2012) as “the socioculturally mediated act of recognizing, interpreting, and using the social and symbolic meaning-making possibilities of language” (p. 237). For both FL and HL learners, sociolinguistic agency is a crucial part of constructing an identity as a target language learner and user. Kramsch (2003) argues that L2 learners should

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 44 01/10/19 2:40 PM


not be expected to “disregard their unique multilingual perspective on the foreign language … to emulate the idealized native speaker” (pp. 251–252). This speaks both to the need to avoid perpetuating standard language ideology and monolithic “standard” language forms and reminds us to see students not as blank slates or as “problem speakers” but as emerging multilinguals with their own set of resources and assets who need not seek to emulate the idealized monolingual native speaker—which is, itself, an ideologically motivated abstraction that does not nec-essarily reflect authentic conversational contexts (Lippi-Green, 2012; Train, 2007; Turnbull, 2018; Villa, 2009). As van Compernolle (2016) argues, L2 learners use language authentically when they synthesize target language norms to which they have been exposed, and actions and choices are born of their agency: “Authentic-ity cannot, therefore, be achieved without correspondence to some set of avail-able patterns of language and meanings, but neither can it be achieved without the agency of the speaker” (p. 81). For authentic communication to occur, then, learners should be given accurate information about sociolinguistic variation and the freedom to exercise their agency to continually construct and perform their identity/ies as multilingual target language users. Critical awareness of standard language ideology and the power dynamics surrounding language standardization are vital to this process.

Course syllabi should make the wider program objectives more specific and concrete. The learning outcomes on each syllabus could include level-appropriate, explicit statements about the degree to which students are expected to become familiar with sociolinguistic variation in general and potentially a particular variety or set of varieties, depending on the geographic or demographic realities of the institution (as Jessica and Melissa point out in their exchange above). This might include a specific commitment, for example, to examining the linguistic characteristics of Spanish and English in contact in the United States but also a critical discussion about some of the ways that language discrimination can index wider ideologies of racialization and nativism, as discussed previously in relation to Charlotte’s description of her class’s reaction to a lesson on U.S. varieties of Spanish.

Of particular importance for this kind of paradigm change is strong internal alignment in syllabi between course objectives promoting discourses of hetero-glossia and the assignments and assessments students are expected to complete. Including lower- and higher-stakes assessments designed to evaluate students’ progress toward these objectives sends the message that they are, in fact, crucial to the course and program goals. In general, this might entail asking students to provide descriptive information about sociolinguistic variation or share a criti-cal perspective on the discourses of language prestige and stigmatization related to the target language worldwide or more locally. Specifically, these tasks should be included on summative assessments, such as written exams or higher-stakes projects and presentations, and infused throughout lower-stakes course

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 45 01/10/19 2:40 PM


assignments and formative assessments. For example, students might initially be asked to reflect on diversity and variation within their L1 or dominant language and research similarities and differences within the target language. They might also benefit from reflection assignments in which they begin to develop a sense of agency about the choices they will make in creating their linguistic identity as a new speaker of the target language; reflection on their reasons for those choices may make reference to course information about the characteristics of spoken varieties of the target language and the social and cultural identities associated with those features.

One challenge for language program directors and instructors seeking to enact paradigm changes that resist the discourses of standard language ideology is finding appropriate pedagogical materials to support the promotion of hetero-glossic discourses; textbooks have been found to perpetuate standard language ideology and are thus typically inadequate for, or even directly in opposition to, this purpose (Burns, 2018; Burns & Waugh, 2018; Ducar, 2009; Villa, 2002). The instructors in both focus group interviews for this study discussed the importance of supplementing textbooks with authentic materials such as films, and the Group A (SFL-SHL) participants also mentioned highlighting the linguistic diversity of SHL students themselves as an important strategy for supplementing textbooks and as a way of engendering linguistic and cultural pride. However, there was a consensus among participants that there is a dearth of materials written for beginning- and intermediate-level L2 students that present evidence-based soci-olinguistic information and/or a critical framework for analysis. The creation of such materials is an important avenue for future development, but for the time being, instructors and language program directors can adapt resources from the scholarly literature for their preferred uses with students (some suggestions for Spanish resources include Díaz-Campos & Newall, 2014; Escobar & Potowski, 2015; Klee & Lynch, 2009; Lipski, 2008).

Such resources can be an important part of professional development and training for instructors to provide education on standard language ideologies, their consequences, how to identify them, and the specific ways in which the program is committed to counteracting these ideologies with aligned program, course, and assessment objectives. This will be an ongoing process since standard language ideology is deeply entrenched in our society and in the educational sys-tem in particular. Individuals and institutions have deeply held and often uncon-scious beliefs about which language varieties are more valuable than others and which have a place in the classroom. One role of a university education should be to identify and challenge those ideological positions. If students and instructors can see efforts to open up new discursive avenues made public via written learn-ing outcomes and aligned assessments for the program and their courses, then they can become partners in the effort to engage critically with standard language ideologies.

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 46 01/10/19 2:40 PM


References

Beaudrie, S. M. (2015a). Instructional effectiveness in the SHL classroom: Compar-ing teacher and student perspectives. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(3), 274–297.

Beaudrie, S. M. (2015b). Approaches to language variation: Goals and objectives of the Spanish heritage language syllabus. Heritage Language Journal, 12(1), 1–21.

Bloomer, A., Griffiths, P., & Merrison, A. J. (2005). Introducing language in use. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Burns Al Masaeed, K. (2014). The ideology of U.S. Spanish in foreign and her-itage language curricula: Insights from textbooks and instructor focus groups (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Burns, K. E. (2018). Marginalization of local varieties in the L2 classroom: The case of U.S. Spanish. L2 Journal, 10(1), 20–38.

Burns, K. E., & Waugh, L. R. (2018). Mixed messages in the SHL classroom: Insights from CDA of textbooks and instructor focus group discussions. Heritage Lan-guage Journal, 15(1), 1–24.

Cobas, J. A., Duany, J., & Feagin, J. R. (Eds.). (2009). How the United States racializes Latinos: White hegemony and its consequences. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Coryell, J. E., Clark, M. C., & Pomerantz, A. (2010). Cultural fantasy narratives and heritage language learning: A case study of adult heritage learners of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 453–469.

Díaz-Campos, M., & Newall, G. (2014). Introducción a la Sociolingüística Hispánica (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ducar, C. M. (2009). The sound of silence: Spanish heritage textbooks’ treatment of language variation. In M. Lacorte & J. Leeman (Eds.), Español en Estados Unidos y otros contextosde contacto: Sociolingüística, ideología y pedagogía/ Spanish in the United States and other contact environments: Sociolinguistics, ideology and pedagogy (pp. 347–367). Madrid, Spain: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.

Escobar, A. M., & Potowski, K. (2015). El español de los Estados Unidos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fairclough, M. (2016). Incorporating additional varieties to the linguistic repertoires of heritage language learners: A multidialectal model. In M. Fairclough & S. M. Beaudrie (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 143–165). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

García, O., & Torres-Guevara, R. (2010). Monoglossic ideologies and language pol-icies in the education of U.S. Latinas/os. In J. Enrique G. Murillo, S. A. Villenas, R. T. Galván, J. S. Muñoz, C. Martínez, & M. Machado-Casas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 183–193). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York, NY: Routledge.Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York,

NY: Routledge.Geeslin, K. L. (2011). Variation in L2 Spanish: The state of the discipline. Studies in

Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 4(2), 461–517.Hill, J. H. (2008). The everyday language of white racism. Malden, MA:

Wiley-Blackwell.Hornberger, N. H. (2011). Dell H. Hymes: His scholarship and legacy in anthropol-

ogy and education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 42(4), 310–318.Huang, J. (2016). Heteroglossic practices and language ideologies: Combining het-

eroglossia with critical discourse studies to investigate digital multilingual dis-courses on language policies. In E. W. Barakos & J. Unger (Eds.), Discursive approaches to language policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 47 01/10/19 2:40 PM


Klee, C., & Lynch, A. (2009). El español en contacto con otras lenguas. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2003). The privilege of the non-native speaker. In C. E. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign language classrooms: The contributions of the native, near-native, and non-native speaker (pp. 251–262). Boston, MA: Heinle.

Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Leeman, J. (2012). Investigating language ideologies in Spanish as a Heritage

Language. In S. M. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 43–59). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Leeman, J. (2014). Critical approaches to teaching Spanish as a local/foreign language. In M. Lacorte (Ed.), Routledge handbook of Hispanic applied linguistics (pp. 275–292). Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis.

Leeman, J., & Martínez, G. (2007). From identity to commodity: Ideologies of Spanish in heritage language textbooks. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 4(1), 35–65.

Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimi-nation in the United States. London: Routledge.

Lipski, J. M. (2008). Varieties of Spanish in the United States. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Lowther Pereira, K. (2010). Identity and language ideology in the intermediate Spanish heritage language classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Lowther Pereira, K. (2015). Developing critical language awareness via service-learning for Spanish heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 12(2), 159–185.

Lynch, A., & Potowski, K. (2014). La valoración del habla bilingüe en Estados Unidos: Fundamentos sociolingüísticos y pedagógicos en Hablando bien se entiende la gente. Hispania, 97, 32–46.

Martínez, G. (2003). Classroom-based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1), 44–57.

Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555.

Moraña, M. (2005). Ideologies of Hispanism. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Ortega, L. (1999). Language and equality: Ideological and structural constraints in foreign language education in the U.S. In T. Huebner & K. Davis (Eds.), Sociopo-litical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA (pp. 243–266). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Otheguy, R., & Stern, N. (2011). On so-called Spanglish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(1), 85–100.

Paffey, J., & Mar-Molinero, C. (2009). Globalisation, linguistic norms and language authorities: Spain and the Pan-Hispanic language policy. In M. Lacorte & J. Leeman (Eds.), Spanish in the United States and other contact environments: Sociolinguistics, ideology and pedagogy (pp. 159–173). Madrid, Spain/Frankfurt, Germany: IberoAmericana/Vervuert.

Parodi, C. (2008). Stigmatized Spanish inside the classroom and out. In D. M. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 199–214). New York, NY: Routledge.

Pomerantz, A. (2002). Language ideologies and the production of identities: Spanish as a resource for participation in a multilingual marketplace. Multilingua, 21(2), 275–302.

Pomerantz, A. (2010). Speaking Spanish outside the foreign language classroom: An analysis of learner narratives. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 7(1), 1–27.

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 48 01/10/19 2:40 PM


Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8, 15–34.

Schoonmaker-Gates, E. (2017). Regional variation in the language classroom and beyond: Mapping learners’ developing dialectal competence. Foreign Language Annals, 50(1), 177–194.

Shenk, E. M. (2014). Teaching sociolinguistic variation in the intermediate language classroom: Voseo in Latin America. Hispania, 97(3), 368–381.

Showstack, R. E. (2015). Institutional representations of ‘Spanish’ and ‘Spanglish’: Managing competing discourses in heritage language instruction. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(3), 341–361.

Showstack, R. E. (2017). Stancetaking and language ideologies in heritage language learner classroom discourse. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 16(5), 21–284.

Train, R. (2003). The (non)native standard language in foreign language education: A critical perspective. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign language classrooms: Contributions of the native, the near-native, and the non-native speaker (pp. 3–39). Boston, MA: Thompson/Heinle.

Train, R. (2007). “Real Spanish”: Historical perspectives on the ideological construc-tion of a (foreign) language. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 4(2–3), 2–3.

Train, R. W. (2009). Todos los peregrinos de nuestra lengua: Ideologies and accounts of Spanish-as-a-(foreign) language. In M. Lacorte & J. Leeman (Eds.), Spanish in the United States and other contact environments: Sociolinguistics, ideology and pedagogy (pp. 191–208). Madrid, Spain: IberoAmericana.

Train, R. W. (2012). Postcolonial complexities in foreign language education and the humanities. In G. Levine & A. M. Phipps (Eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 141–160). Boston, MA: Heinle.

Turnbull, B. (2018). Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual education: Epistemological changes towards the emergent bilingual. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(8), 1041–1048.

Valdés, G., González, S. V., García, D. L., & Márquez, P. (2003). Language ideol-ogy: The case of Spanish in departments of foreign languages. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34(1), 3–26.

Valdés, G., González, S. V., García, D. L., & Márquez, P. (2008). Heritage language and ideologies of language: Unexamined challenges. In D. M. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 107–130). New York, NY: Routledge.

van Compernolle, R. A. (2016). Sociolinguistic authenticity and classroom L2 learn-ers: Production, perception and metapragmatics. In R. A. van Compernolle & J. McGregor (Eds.), Authenticity, Language and Interaction in Second Language Contexts (pp. 61–81). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012). Reconceptualizing sociolinguistic competence as mediated action: Identity, meaning-making, agency. The Modern Language Journal, 96(ii), 234–250.

van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Vann, R. (2002). Linguistic ideology in Spain’s ivory tower: (not) analyzing Catalan Spanish. Multilingua, 21(2), 227.

Villa, D. J. (2002). The sanitizing of U.S. Spanish in academia. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 222–230.

Villa, D. J. (2009). General versus standard Spanish: Establishing empirical norms for the study of U.S. Spanish. In M. Lacorte & J. Leeman (Eds.), Spanish in the United States and other contact environments: Sociolinguistics, ideology and pedagogy (pp. 175–189). Madrid: IberoAmericana.

Zentella, A. C. (2009, February). Discussion on the use of the term “Spanglish.” Debate conducted at the Spanish in the United States Conference, Coral Gables, FL.

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 49 01/10/19 2:40 PM


Appendix

Appendix A: Transcription Abbreviations and Conventions

: Vowel or consonant elongation

? Rising intontion

(.) Micro pause

(2.0) Length of pause in seconds

[ Simultaneous speech

(( ))Extra-textual information provided by the transcriber and/or transcriber comment

(…) Omitted section

((XX)) Identifiable information omitted

(-inaud) Undecipherable speech

(laugh) Laugh

… Speaker trails off mid-utterance

word Emphatic stress

“words” Indicates speaker’s use of reported speech

Appendix B: Sample Focus Group Interview Protocol

Also appears in Burns, 2018

1. What is your current status in the department (Graduate Associate in Teaching, adjunct, etc.)? If you are a student, what program are you in?

2. How long have you been teaching Spanish? How long at this university?

3. Which levels have you taught at this university? At other institutions?

4. I would like to talk to you about Class X (first year, second year, etc.). What do you believe are the learning outcome goals of the course? That is, what do you think the course designers want students to be able to do when they finish the course?

5. Of the four language skills (listening, reading, speaking, and writing), which do you think is/are most important to students?

6. Of the four language skills (listening, reading, speaking, and writing), which do you think is/are most emphasized by the course syllabus or design?

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 50 01/10/19 2:40 PM


7. In practice, what are your goals for your students? What areas or skills do you most emphasize? Why?

8. Which tools or strategies do you think are most effective in teaching speaking in a foreign language setting? Why?

9. Which tools do you think are least effective in teaching speaking in a foreign language setting? Why?

10. Spanish is spoken in many countries and has several regional differ-ences in vocabulary, particularly in its spoken form. Are you aware of any attempts by the course textbook or other instructional materials to make students aware of these differences in vocabulary? If so, how?

11. Are you aware of any attempts by the course syllabus to make students aware of these differences in vocabulary? If so, how?

12. There also exists a wide variety of regional pronunciation differences in the Spanish-speaking world. Are you aware of any attempts by the course textbook or other instructional materials to make students aware of these differences in pronunciation? If so, how?

13. Are you aware of any attempts by the course syllabus to make students aware of these differences in pronunciation? If so, how?

14. In many parts of Latin America, the use of the pronoun vos is an important part of daily conversation. Are you aware of any attempts by the course textbook or other instructional materials to make students aware of the existence of vos and how to recognize or use it? If so, how?

15. Are you aware of any attempts by the course syllabus to make students aware of the existence of vos and how to recognize or use it? If so, how?

16. When speaking, we often include words or phrases that help to struc-ture the conversation. Some examples in English might be like, you know, well, or so. We do the same thing in Spanish; for example, como, entonces, bueno, tú sabes, o sea, este, bien, ándale, and so on. Have you run across these “conversation words” in a classroom setting? If so, in what context(s)?

17. Do you feel that “conversation words” are an important part of spoken language?

18. Are you aware of any attempts by the course textbook or other instruc-tional materials to teach the use of these “conversation words”? If so, how?

19. Are you aware of any attempts by the course syllabus to teach the use of these “conversation words”? If so, how?

20. Have you ever supplemented the course syllabus and/or textbook with attempts to teach any of the features we’ve talked about (regional vocab-ulary, pronunciation differences, the use of vos, “conversation words”)? If so, how?

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 51 01/10/19 2:40 PM


21. How would you gauge your success at any attempts to teach these features of different kinds of spoken Spanish? Did you attempt to mea-sure that success in a formal way?

22. In your opinion, should different geographical features of Spanish be included in foreign language curricula? Why or why not?

23. If “yes” to the previous question, what suggestions would you have for incorporating them into existing curricula (or for changing/improving how they are taught)?

24. Do you have any other thoughts on teaching speaking or on the incor-poration of different kinds of spoken Spanish in the classroom?

37988_ch02_ptg01_032-052.indd 52 01/10/19 2:40 PM

aausc 2019 volume—issues in language program directionlibrary of congress control number:...

Documents