This article was downloaded by: [University of Pennsylvania], [Dr NelsonFlores]On: 18 November 2013, At: 12:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Critical Inquiry in LanguageStudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcil20

Silencing the Subaltern:Nation-State/ColonialGovernmentality and BilingualEducation in the United StatesNelson Flores aa University of PennsylvaniaPublished online: 18 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Nelson Flores (2013) Silencing the Subaltern: Nation-State/Colonial Governmentality and Bilingual Education in the United States, Critical Inquiryin Language Studies, 10:4, 263-287

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2013.846210

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

SILENCING THE SUBALTERN: NATION-STATE/COLONIAL

GOVERNMENTALITY AND BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN

THE UNITED STATES

NELSON FLORES

University of Pennsylvania

This article introduces the concept of nation-state/colonial governmentalityas a framework for analyzing the ways current language ideologies marginalizethe language practices of subaltern populations. Specifically, the article focuseson the innate limitations of re-appropriating nation-state/colonial govern-mentality in an attempt to advocate for the subaltern. It offers the case ofbilingual education in the United States to demonstrate this point. It argues thatalthough the struggle for bilingual education in the United Statesre-appropriated nation-state/colonial governmentality in ways that advocatedfor language-minoritized populations, this re-appropriation was eventuallyreincorporated into hegemonic language ideologies that continue to reproducecolonial relations of power that erase the fluid language practices of language-minoritized students. The article ends with some recommendations for movingtoward a language ideology that allows subaltern voices to be heard outside ofcolonial relations of power.

Postcolonial literary critic Gayatri Spivak (1988) once famouslyasked the question, “can the subaltern speak?” Provocatively, sheconcluded that they cannot. Of course, she did not mean thisliterally. Clearly, most marginalized people can physically speak.The problem is that what they say is inevitably produced withinand interpreted through a perspective produced as part ofEuropean colonization. Spivak’s provocative assertion sent wavesthroughout academia and is seen as a pivotal moment in the riseof postcolonial studies. Knowledge production was no longer seen

263

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nelson Flores,University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, 3700 Walnut Street,Philadelphia, PA 19104-6216. E-mail: nflores@gse.upenn.edu

Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(4):263–287, 2013Copyright q Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1542-7587 print/1542-7595 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15427587.2013.846210

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

as a disinterested and objective process but was now understoodto be embedded in colonial relations of power.

More than 20 years later, I pose this same question: Canthe subaltern speak? However, I position my question withinboth a different socio-historical period and a differentdiscipline. Spivak focused on Indian women and situatedherself within literary theory; I focus on language-minoritizedpopulations in the United States and I situate myself withincritical applied linguistics (Pennycook, 2001). Despite thesedifferences, I come to the same conclusion as Spivak did: Thesubaltern cannot speak. Once again, it is not an issue ofwhether they can physically speak—clearly they can. Yet, currentframings of their language practices continue to represent theirspeech through a colonizing perspective that refuses toembrace the fluidity of their experiences and the dynamismof their language practices.

In this article I first describe nation-state/colonial govern-mentality, the theoretical framework I use to make my claims.Next, I use bilingual education as a case study to demonstrate theimpact of nation-state/colonial governmentality on language-minoritized populations in the United States. In the case study,I examine how nation-state/colonial governmentality was re-appropriated by advocates for bilingual education as part of theCivil Rights Movement. I argue that although this re-appropria-tion has pushed nation-state/colonial governmentality to becomemore inclusive of difference, it failed to challenge the underlyingcolonial perspective that lies at the root of the marginalization oflanguage-minoritized populations. The article then examines therepresentation of language-minoritized populations in thecontemporary literature on bilingual education and demon-strates the ways that the re-appropriation of bilingual educationeventually became reincorporated into the colonizing languageideologies it originally intended to critique. Finally, I end withsome promising turns in critical applied linguistics that areattempting to excavate the subaltern knowledge of language-minoritized populations and beginning to imagine languageanalysis in ways outside these colonial language ideologies. I usethis emerging literature as a basis for offering a new direction foranalyzing the language practices of U.S. language-minoritizedpopulations that allow them to speak outside of this colonizing

N. Flores264

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

perspective—a process that I refer to as dynamically lingualeducation.1

Rise of Nation-State/Colonial Governmentality

The concept of nation-state/colonial governmentality builds onthe concept of governmentality developed by Michel Foucault inhis lectures at the College de France. Foucault (2007) definedgovernmentality as:

the ensemble formed by institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections,calculations, and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific, albeitcomplex, power that has the population as its target, political economy asits major form of knowledge, and apparatuses of security as its essentialtechnical instrument. (p. 108)

Governmentality is the process by which subjects and populationsare made to fulfill their role in the governing structure throughparticular relationships of power and knowledge. Yet govern-mentality should not be thought of as a top-down process in whichthe elites at the top of the government coerce others into doingtheir bidding. Instead, in line with Foucault’s conception ofpower as omnipresent, governmentality emerges from analignment of the administrative apparatus of the state with theknowledge being produced in other institutions, such asuniversities and hospitals.

Foucault identified the rise of governmentality as inextricablyentwined with the rise of nation-states as the primary politicalentity of Europe. According to Foucault (2003), this nation-building process marked an epistemological shift from “we haveto defend ourselves against society” [to] “we have to defendsociety against all the biological threats posed by the other race,the subrace, the counterrace that we are despite ourselves,bringing into existence” (pp. 61–62). In other words, when there

1Certainly, any approach to thinking outside of nation-state/colonial governmentalitymust also work to think outside of linguality completely and explore non-linguistic waysthat people communicate. However, because language has been so central to nation-state/colonial governmentality, my focus here is an attempt to reconceptualize linguistic ways ofcommunicating outside of this framework.

Silencing the Subaltern 265

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

was centralized power in the form of a monarch, thecorresponding understanding of governance was one of defend-ing against an abuse of power by the monarch. However, with thegradual decline of monarchical power in Europe alongside therise to political power of the European bourgeoisie, the discourseshifted to defending “the people” (as represented by theEuropean bourgeoisie) against the inferior races within thepopulace. As theories of race begin to merge with theories ofbiology, this inferiority began to be framed in terms of lack ofcleanliness and impurity—the inferior races were both physicallyand culturally polluted and would contaminate the superior raceunless something was done to prevent them from doing so.Foucault marked this state racism as an overarching theme ofEuropean modernity that culminated in Nazism.

While Foucault connected the rise of governmentality to theemergence of nation-states in Europe, Stoler (1995) argued thatcolonization was also integral to the emergence of governmen-tality. She demonstrated how the European bourgeois subject wasnot only produced in relation to the unclean inferior racedsubject of Europe (i.e., the lower classes) but also constructed inopposition to the colonial Other, who was perceived as even loweron the scale of human civilization and cleanliness. Just as itmarked a shift in thinking in Europe, this discourse of impurityand the need for cleansing marked a shift in colonial relations.Whereas the colonized were once seen as subhuman, they werenow seen as impure humans and in need of purification.As Mignolo (2000) argued:

While the sixteenth century was the scene of a heated debate about theboundaries of humanity, toward the nineteenth century the question wasno longer whether primitives or Orientals were human but, rather, howfar removed from the present and civilized stage of humanity theywere. (p. 283)

In short, rather than being seen as unable to become fully human,colonized subjects were now seen as simply stuck at a differentstage of universal human development. They could, therefore, betaught how to be properly human and cleansed of their bad habitsthrough education in Enlightenment ideals of freedom anddemocracy.

N. Flores266

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

In summary, as centralized power began to decline in Europeduring the 18th and 19th centuries, a new form of governanceascended to dominance, one that was inextricably entwined withthe rise of the nation-state as a political entity. This form ofgovernance was premised on a universalizing narrative of humanprogress that necessitated the cleansing of impurities from thenational body. This discourse prompted national revolutions inEurope and culminated in the rise of Nazism in Europe(Foucault, 2003). While Foucault left colonization unaddressedin his narrative, Stoler (1995) argued that the emergence ofgovernmentality would not have been possible without coloniza-tion. This is why, instead of discussing governmentalitygenerically, as Foucault did, I use the phrase nation-state/colonialgovernmentality to demonstrate the mutually constitutive nature ofthe formation of nation-states and colonization.

Language Ideologies Associated with Nation-State/ColonialGovernmentality

Nation-state/colonial governmentality produced particularlanguage ideologies as part of its epistemological framework.The core of this language ideology was the idea of “a language” asan enumerable construct that can be clearly and objectivelynamed and associated with a particular race of people(Mulhausler, 1996). Argentine postcolonial critic Walter Mignolotraced the origins of these language ideologies to the EuropeanRenaissance. He marked its origins with the work of Spanishgrammarian Antonio de Nebrija, who worked on codifyingCastilian as the language of Spain soon after the “cleansing” ofSpain of the last Moors and Jews as part of La Reconquista and atthe same time Columbus was beginning the process of expandingSpain’s empire abroad. Nebrija explicitly identified the codifica-tion of Castilian as necessary for the growth of the SpanishEmpire. As Mignolo (1995) argued, “he knew that the power of aunified language, via its grammar, lay in teaching it to barbarians,as well as controlling barbarian languages by writing theirgrammars” (p. 39). In short, in Nebrija’s eyes, codifying thevernacular spoken by the royal family and “cleansing” it ofimpurities was vital to maintaining power over their subjects in

Silencing the Subaltern 267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

their newly “cleansed” territory. It was equally important for theroyal family to exert control over the codification of the languagesof the colonized populations in their newly acquired coloniesoverseas.

Gal (2006) described the next phase of the history of theselanguage ideologies and looked specifically at how they wenthand-in-hand with the construction of nation-states as part of thecreation of docile national subjects, that is, people who served thepolitical and economic interests of the rising Europeanbourgeoisie. She documented how European nationalists adopt-ing this language ideology began to see heterogeneity in languagepractices as an impediment to the creation of a purified nation-state. They, therefore, saw it as necessary to create codifiedstandardized languages to cleanse the language of perceivedimpurities. These codified, standardized varieties were named“a language” that represented “a people,” with rights to “a land.”Although this certainly was not the first time in human historythat certain ways of speaking were privileged over others, nation-state/colonial governmentality positioned monolingualism in thestandardized variety as the expectation for the ideal nationalsubject (Irvine & Gal, 2000).

As nation-states and their associating language ideologieswere producing docile national subjects in Europe, a similarprocess to produce docile colonial subjects was occurring as part ofEuropean colonization. In their colonies, Europeans imposed thesame idea of codified, standardized, and enumerable languagesdespite the fact that these language ideologies made little senseoutside of the nation-state/colonial paradigm (Mulhausler,1996). This imposition of language ideologies is a prime exampleof what Spivak (1988) termed epistemic violence—the imposition ofa Western epistemology on the world’s population and thesubjugation of subaltern epistemologies. In other words, byinterpreting the language practices of colonized populationsthrough the perspective of European nation-states, Europeancolonizers stripped colonial subjects of their voices and replacedthem with the voice of the colonizer (Makoni & Makoni, 2010;Mignolo, 1995; Mulhausler, 1996; Pennycook, 2002).

This process of epistemic violence was not made possiblesolely by a decree of national governments. Instead, academicknowledge produced through the emerging scientific study of

N. Flores268

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

language played an integral role in the creation and perpetuationof this colonizing lens. Bauman and Briggs (2000) described howthe emergence of particular language ideologies associated withnation-state/colonial governmentality did not occur in isolationfrom changes in academic knowledge but instead took place intandem with them. As they argued, “a transformation of languageideologies and metadiscursive practices was shaped by and helpedconstruct and legitimate the intellectual, technological, and socialrevolutions associated with the emergence of modern science”(p. 144). In other words, nation-state/colonial governmentalityand its resulting language ideologies were produced by the sameepistemological orientation that also made possible the rise of the“objective” study of language. Therefore, rather than being anobjective science, the modern study of language is embedded inrelations of power that have been used to colonize much of theworld’s population.

In order to prove this provocative assertion, Bauman andBriggs (2000) examined the work of political theorist John Locke(1632–1704) and German nationalist Johann Gottfried Herder(1744–1803). Bauman and Briggs showed that although Lockewas attempting to theorize a science of language and Herder wasattempting to theorize a language ideology that would supportthe formation of a homogenous German national identity, theyboth shared the same epistemological orientation. According toBauman and Briggs, despite superficial differences between thetwo thinkers in regards to language, their language ideologies arefundamentally the same in that they “relegate folk linguisticknowledge to or beyond the margins of linguistic inquiry”(p. 199). In other words, both thinkers, whose ideas wereemerging along with the formation of nation-state/colonialgovernmentality, did not see the language practices of actualpeople as important to developing either a scientific under-standing of language or a more affective and nationalistunderstanding of language. Language, in their view, could onlybe understood at a step removed from the actual languagepractices of people.

This dismissal of “folk linguistics” in favor of either ascientific or nationalist linguistics eventually converges in the riseof structural linguistics, which is attributed to Ferdinand deSaussure (1857–1913). In The Course on General Linguistics

Silencing the Subaltern 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

Saussure differentiates between langue (language) and parole(speech). For Saussure, langue is an abstract system that is put intopractice through parole. In short, langue represents a structure thatis hidden deep under the actual practice of language manifestedin parole. According to Saussure, linguistics should, therefore,attempt to understand this underlying structure as opposed toanalyze actual language practices. In Saussure’s view, thisstructure should be the focus of a science of language that strivesto be objective and neutral.

While it is clear that Saussure has much in common withLocke in that both were attempting to create a science oflanguage, there are also interesting parallels between Saussure’sideas and those of Herder. In short, just as Bauman and Briggs seeparallels between Locke’s scientific pursuit and Herder’snationalist pursuit, parallels can also be made between Saussure’sscientific pursuit and Herder’s project, which sought to createhomogenous German national subjects through the codificationof a Standard German. In fact, Crowley (1990) makes an explicitparallel between Saussure’s conceptualization of langue and thestandard language ideologies that were disseminated by Herderand other nationalist grammarians as part of the nation buildingprocess:

The phrase ‘standard language’ was in fact a coinage of these linguists inthe 1850s and was a necessary methodological concept for their work.It was invented—in precisely the same way that langue served forSaussure—in order to provide stability and unity into an apparentlyheterogeneous mess. (pp. 46–47)

While some might try to differentiate the views of Saussure andHerder in that one was an attempt to create an objective sciencewhile the other was a clearly ideological attempt to createnationalist subjects, Crowley (1990) argues that both are madepossible only by a “deliberate blindness to difference” which is “anengagement in the politics of language rather than its scientificstudy” (p. 48).

This is not to say that Herder and Saussure had identicalpositions. For Herder, it was necessary to engage in an activeprocess of standardization while for Saussure such standardiz-ation was antithetical to the scientific study of language. However,

N. Flores270

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

similar to Herder’s nationalist language ideology, Saussure’sconcept of langue assumes homogenous ethnolinguistic commu-nities that use a homogenous linguistic system. That is, at the coreof the concept of langue is the idea that every ethnolinguisticcommunity has a homogenous linguistic system that members ofthat community do not deviate from. In Saussure’s framework,this is said to be true of both standardized linguistic forms as wellas non-standard dialects of a particular language. This concep-tualization of language serves a similar effect to Herder in that iterases both differences in language use between members of asupposed homogenous ethnolinguistic community and thedynamic language practices of multilingual communities wheredifferent language varieties are in contact with one another. Inshort, both language ideologies were products of the Europeanmodernist project of cleansing difference. Therefore, bothlanguage ideologies are mutually constitutive with nation-state/colonial governmentality.

In summary, the formation of nation-states along with theEuropean colonization of the world was inextricably entwinedwith particular language ideologies that represented languages asenumerable constructs that represented the essence of a people.As part of the creation of docile national subjects, standardizedlanguages were codified in an attempt to unite the people intoone nation. In terms of colonization, docile colonial subjects werecreated through an imposition of Eurocentric languageideologies that made little sense outside of the nation-stateframework of European society. Perhaps more insidiously, theselanguage ideologies were also reproduced in the emergingscientific study of language, which also framed heterogeneity inlanguage use as a barrier—though in this case as a barrier to thescientific understanding of language. Both national and scientificlanguage ideologies were produced as part of nation-state/colonial governmentality, and both have been complicit in theperpetuation of colonial relations of power.

Re-appropriating Nation-State/Colonial Governmentality

Although nation-state/colonial governmentality has perpetuatedthe marginalization of language-minoritized communities, these

Silencing the Subaltern 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

communities have constantly resisted their marginalization. Thisresistance has taken many forms, thoughmost fall under the largeumbrella of identity politics, namely, movements that seek toempower a particular group of people who have historically beenoppressed. Identity politics accept the static and homogenousethnolinguistic identities associated with nation-state/colonialgovernmentality but re-appropriate these ethnolinguistic iden-tities in ways that seek to challenge societal hierarchies. Thisfailure of identity politics to explicitly challenge nation-state/colonial governmentality has limited the impact of this activism inchallenging colonial relations of power. I offer the followingcase study of the Civil Rights era struggle for bilingual educationin the United States as an example of how attempts to re-appropriate nation-state/colonial governmentality inadvertentlyrisk reproducing the same colonial relations of power that they setout to resist.

One of the first bilingual programs to be implementedduring this era was spearheaded by Cuban refugees who arrived inMiami-Dade County, Florida, shortly after Fidel Castro came topower. Because the Cuban refugees were treated as foreignnationals by the U.S. government, it was deemed appropriate thatthey should maintain their national language (Crawford, 1992).However, this bilingual education program opened the door forother U.S. Latino activists to re-appropriate nation-state/colonialgovernmentality in ways that advocated for bilingual educationfor all U.S. Latino students, not just those who were supposedlygoing back to their country of origin. For example, the dominantideology emerging from the Chicano Power Movement in theSouthwest was an explicitly nationalist discourse that argued thatChicanos should not have to give up their native culture in orderto succeed in the United States (Acuna, 2010). Similarly,a maintenance model that sought to maintain Puerto Ricannational identities alongside developing American nationalidentities was very popular and in line with the grassrootsmovement in the Puerto Rican community of New York City (DelValle, 1998). In short, Latino activists across the country re-appropriated nation-state/colonial governmentality in ways thatresisted the idea of the monolingual nationalist subject of the eraand sought to produce bilingual and bicultural subjects. Thisactivism sought to open spaces for new subjectivities that did not

N. Flores272

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

conform to themonolingualism imposed on previous generationsof U.S. society.

Though Latino activists were able to re-appropriate nation-state/colonial governmentality in ways that made it moreinclusive of bilingual national subjects, they were not able tochange the epistemological terms of the debate. The result wasthat bilingual education activism was eventually overwhelmed bystrong criticism of bilingual education from supporters ofimposed monolingualism. This backlash began first through ashift away from maintenance bilingual education dedicated tocreating bilingual national subjects and a shift to transitionalbilingual education programs that had the ultimate goal ofproducing monolingual speakers of Standardized AmericanEnglish (Del Valle, 1998). The backlash eventually became anall-out assault on all forms of bilingual education spearheaded byconservative leaders such as Ron Unz (Crawford, 1999).

More important for the purpose of this article, though,is how the academic support for bilingual education shifted. Manysupporters of bilingual education gradually moved away fromengaging in political critique to a more technocratic andcognitive understanding of language learning and bilingualism.This shift has gradually reframed bilingual education away fromthe goal of community empowerment toward a focus onbureaucratic regulations and predefined “research-based” curri-cula (Grinberg & Saavedra, 2000). As bilingual education becameinstitutionalized, it shifted away from making nation-state/colonial governmentality more inclusive of difference and insteadbecame a tool for reinforcing existing power relations. In the nextsection, I examine more closely the role of current under-standings of bilingual education in reproducing the colonialpower relations of nation-state/colonial governmentality.

Limits of Re-Appropriating Nation-State/ColonialGovernmentality

Though language-minoritized populations have sought tore-appropriate nation-state/colonial governmentality in waysthat open up spaces of possibility for new subjectivities, thesere-appropriations have gradually been closed off in ways that

Silencing the Subaltern 273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

continue to reinforce colonial relations of power. In what follows,I analyze the general narrative currently provided in support ofbilingual education as laid out by Jim Cummins, a prominentscholar in the field. I have chosen Cummins because it is rare forscholars advocating bilingual education do so without citing hiswork (Baker & Hornberger, 2001) and because even whenacknowledging the political dimensions of bilingual education,he has consistently positioned his work as an objective researchpursuit into the understanding of bilingualism (Cummins, 2000).Therefore, Cummins’s work provides a window both into thedominant justification for bilingual education offered by currentsupporters and a sense of what the current science of languagehas to say about bilingualism. Looking at Cummins’s theorythrough the lens of nation-state/colonial governmentality, I arguethat what was once a re-appropriation that attempted to developnew subjectivities as part of a larger political struggle has becomea largely technocratic and assimilatory narrative that seeks tomold language-minoritized populations into ideal (bilingual)national subjects.

The foundation of Cummins’s framework is the distinctionbetween social and academic language. According to Cummins,academic language is the context-reduced language needed inorder to be successful in school. As he described it:

Many minority language students acquire certain context-embeddedEnglish skills and become almost indistinguishable from native speakersin face-to-face situations within a relatively short period. In other words,they quickly acquire . . . communicative skills. However, this does not implythat such students have sufficient proficiency in context-reduced aspectsof language to survive academically in an all-English class on an equalfooting with native speakers of English. (Cummins, 1982/2001, p. 145)

Cummins (1979, 1981a, 1981b, 2000) proposed that it takes five toseven years to develop this context-reduced academic language,whereas students usually acquire the social language of everydaycommunication in one to three years. In Cummins’s view, masteryof academic language is not only a prerequisite for success inschool but also something with which language-minoritizedstudents often struggle.

Related to this argument are Cummins’s linguistic inter-dependence and threshold hypotheses. The linguistic interde-

N. Flores274

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

pendence hypothesis argues that academic skills learned in onelanguage transfer to a new language (Cummins, 1979, 1981a,1981b, 2000). This principle is most succinctly defined as “to theextent that instruction in Lx [one language] is effective inpromoting proficiency in Lx [that language], transfer of thisproficiency to Ly [the additional language] will occur providedthere is adequate exposure to Ly” (Cummins, 2000, p. 38). Thethreshold hypothesis extends this argument, positing that“continued academic development of both languages conferredcognitive/linguistic benefits whereas less developed academicproficiency in both languages limited children’s ability to benefitcognitively and academically from interaction with theirenvironment through those languages (e.g., in school)”(Cummins, 2000, p. 175). In short, the teaching of academiclanguage in two languages has strong cognitive benefits forbilingual students.

Merging all of these ideas provides the traditional narrativethat dominates the field of bilingual education in the UnitedStates. Students are quick to learn social language, which oftenleads teachers to mistakenly assume that they are already fullyproficient in English. However, because the students still strugglewith academic language, they underperform in mainstreamEnglish classrooms. On the other hand, a bilingual educationprogram allows students to build their academic language in theirhome language while they learn English as an additionallanguage. The academic skills that students learn in their homelanguage eventually transfer to English as they becomesufficiently exposed to English. Continued development of bothlanguages results in strong cognitive benefits, which allowslanguage-minoritized students in these programs to surpassacademically their peers who did not benefit from such programs.

Somebody providing a traditional analysis of this narrativemight argue that this narrative is in opposition to the dominantlanguage ideologies of our time. Indeed, in an era of strongsupport for making English the official language and strongopposition to bilingual education (Crawford, 1999), a narrativethat argues for the benefits of bilingualism is certainly important,and it is not my intention to suggest that these argumentsshould not be made. However, looking through the lens ofnation-state/colonial governmentality indicates that, as in

Silencing the Subaltern 275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

previous generations, the scientific understanding of languageattempted by Cummins continues to utilize the same languageideologies that were inextricably intertwined with colonialrelations of power.

For one, there is an assumption of the need for a homogenouslanguage to unite a community. In the case of nation-states, astandardized language is seen as necessary for uniting all people inthe nation. In the case of bilingual education, a standardizedacademic language is seen as necessary for uniting all of the peoplein a school community. Academic language is treated as anobjective and neutral medium of communication in the same waythat standardized languageshave been treatedundernation-state/colonial governmentality. That is, academic language is positionedas integral to the identity of educated citizens in the way thatmastery of standardized language is positioned as integral to theidentity of the ideal national subject.

In addition to the assumption of the need for a homogenouslanguage to unite educated citizens is the assumed universality ofacademic language—specifically, that the language is context-reduced.This descriptionof academic languageas context-reducederases the ways that language practices labeled as “academiclanguage” closely resemble the context-embedded languagepractices of a specific group of people. Rather than beingcontext-reduced, academic language could be better described asthe idealized context-embedded language practices of the Americanbourgeoisie. Cummins himself notes that academic language ismoreprominent in the homeof thosehe terms “languagemajority”than those he terms “language minority” when he argues that “theprerequisites for acquiring literacy skills are instilled in mostmiddle-class majority language children by their linguisticexperience in the home” (Cummins, 1979/2001, p. 76). Thisdescription of the home language practices ofmiddle-classmajoritylanguage students is a sharp contrast to the way he describes thehome language practices of language-minoritized students:

The child’s L1 abilities (i.e. the development of concepts and thinkingskills in L1) may be poorly developed on entry to school. This leaveschildren without a conceptual basis for learning L2 in an L2-only schoolsituation and consequently they may achieve only low levels of proficiency(e.g. reading skills) in both languages. (Cummins, 1982/2001, p. 128)

N. Flores276

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

At the core of Cummins’s theorizing is the idea that the languagepractices of “language majority” households are more concep-tually rich than the language practices of the “language minority”because their language practices are more closely aligned withacademic language. Therefore, the description of academiclanguage as the context-reduced language of school universalizesthe idealized language practices of the American bourgeoisie asthe language practices that all students must master, and itcontinues to produce the racial Other of nation-state/colonialgovernmentality who must be socialized into these normalizedlanguage practices. Within this framework, the role of school is tocreate structured programs that expose the racial Other to thelanguage of the American bourgeoisie, and to reframe thelanguage of the American bourgeoisie as the language practicesnecessary for students to become truly educated people.

It would be disingenuous to claim that there are nodifferences between Cummins’s framework and the imposedmonolingualism traditionally associated with nation-state/colo-nial governmentality. The key difference is that rather thandesiring the creation of monolingual subjects who identify withonly one nation, Cummins advocates the creation of bilingualsubjects who identify with two nations equally and who havecompetence in the standardized academic language of both oftheir languages. As Cummins (2000) described it:

Continued development of both languages into literate domains (additivebilingualism) is a precondition for enhanced cognitive, linguistic, andacademic growth. By contrast, when bilingual students develop low orminimal literacy in L1 and L2 as a result of inadequate instructionalsupport (e.g. in submersion programs), their ability to understandincreasingly complex instruction (in L2) and benefit from schooling willdecline. (p. 37)

Cummins (1986/2001) argued that this process must begin withan affirmation of the cultural identity students bring to school:

Considerable research data suggest that, for dominated minorities, theextent to which students’ language and culture are incorporated into theschool program constitutes a significant predictor of academic success.As outlined earlier, students’ school success appears to reflect both themore solid cognitive/academic foundation developed through intensiveL1 instruction and the reinforcement of their cultural identity. (p. 181)

Silencing the Subaltern 277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

He argued that this affirmation of cultural identity is part of aprocess of empowerment that will ensure academic success forlanguage minority students:

Students who are empowered by their school experiences develop theability, confidence, and motivation to succeed academically. Theyparticipate competently in instruction as a result of having developed aconfident cultural identity as well as appropriate school-based knowledgeand interactional structures. Students who are disempowered or ‘disabled’by their school experiences do not develop this type of cognitive/academic and social/emotional foundation. Thus, school empowermentis regarded as both a mediating construct influencing academicperformance and as an outcome variable itself. (Cummins, 1986/2001,p. 179)

For Cummins, the way to empower students is to affirm theircultural identity and build up academic language in their L1 whileworking to introduce them to their L2. This is, of course, a directcontrast with the imposed monolingualism of other strands ofnation-state/colonial governmentality.

Yet it would be equally disingenuous to gloss over theimportant similarities between Cummins’ justification forbilingual education and nation-state/colonial governmentality.Although the need to defend society against contamination by theracial Other is not apparent in Cummins’s work, an Otherizingprocess still lies at its core. In his framework, the languagepractices of the “language majority” parallels the languagepractices of the idealized bourgeois subject that were codified aspart of nation-state/colonial governmentality. The “languageminority” in Cummins’s framework parallels the racial Other ofnation-state/colonial governmentality. Although the labels aredifferent, the conclusion remains the same—the languagepractices of the linguistic Other must be changed to mimic thelanguage practices of the bourgeoisie. Nation-state/colonialgovernmentality has historically treated this Otherizing processas an objective and inevitable process, and Cummins’s frameworkcontinues to treat it as such. The difference is that the dominantframing of bilingual education seeks to produce imposed doublemonolingualism—that is, an imposition of standardized varietiesthat reflect the idealized language practices of the bourgeoisie ofboth languages.

N. Flores278

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

I should reiterate that I am not calling for the completeoverthrow of Cummins’s defense of bilingual education. On thecontrary, as somebody who has dedicated my life to advocating forlanguage-minoritized students, I have used this very narrative inparticular contexts and will continue to do so. However, I refuse tobe bound to a narrative whose epistemological orientationperpetuates their marginalization by representing their languagepractices through a colonizing lens. That is, I refuse to stay boundto a narrative that is complicit in the continued silencing of thesubaltern. In what follows, I attempt to develop a new languageideology outside of this colonizing lens. My intention is not topropose this shift in language ideology as a replacement for thecurrent narrative but rather as a supplement that can be used inconjunction with the current narrative to develop more nuancedrepresentations of the dynamic language practices of language-minoritized populations—one that attempts to excavate thesubaltern knowledge represented in their refusal to conform to“normal” language practices.

Developing Language Ideologies Outside of Nation-State/Colonial Governmentality

In my analysis, I have used the history of the struggle for bilingualeducation in the United States to demonstrate the limits ofre-appropriating nation-state/colonial governmentality to advocatefor language-minoritizedpopulations.Thecruxofmyargumenthasbeen that because these re-appropriations do not challenge theunderlying epistemological framework of nation-state/colonialgovernmentality, they are easily reincorporated into the colonialrelations of power that lie at its core. In this section, I once again usethe case of bilingual education, but this time in an attempt totheorize language ideologies outside of nation-state/colonialgovernmentality. I propose language ideologies that allow formorenuanced representationsof thedynamic languagepracticesoflanguage-minoritized populations and that open up spaces for thesubaltern to be heard outside of colonial relations of power.

The new language ideologies I am advocating are informedby the dynamic turn in applied linguistics that seeks to break outof the static conceptualization of language (Flores, 2013). This

Silencing the Subaltern 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

dynamic turn is emerging simultaneously from various disciplin-ary perspectives. Some psycholinguistically oriented scholars havedeveloped dynamic language ideologies by adapting ideas fromthe natural sciences in an attempt to better understand the innatedynamism that lies at the core of actual language use. Their workhas not been developed in response to the colonizing powerrelations of nation-state/colonial governmentality. Instead, theirwork is positioned as continuing in the tradition of the naturalsciences and as adapting insights from the natural sciences to thestudy of language.

For example, Herdina and Jessner (2002) offer a model theyterm a dynamic model of multilingualism (DMM), which is premisedon the idea that multilingual people and populations are not twomonolingual. As they argue:

In contrast to an analytic approach to multilingualism which presents thelanguage systems individually, DMM provides a model of multilingualproficiency which is based on a wholistic, synthetic approach tomultilingualism: the language systems involved are seen as a unity.(Herdina & Jessner, p. 58)

In Herdina and Jessner’s view, multilingualism is always more thanthe sum of its parts. Although it is possible to separate these partsfor analytical purposes, in the end they comprise a single dynamicsystem. Based on this premise, Herdina and Jessner argue that“DMM works on the assumption that human beings are complexbiological systems and therefore are best studied and explainedon the basis of systems theory, complexity theory, and chaostheory rather than fundamentally mentalist and methodologicalmodels” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 154). Other appliedlinguists have used other theories from the natural sciences tomake similar arguments, such as complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) and ecological theory (Van Lier,2004). The basic argument at the core of all these theories is thatmultilingualism is a dynamic and emergent process that is noteasily categorized into discrete languages.

Importantly, Cummins has also embraced this dynamic turnand has begun to explicitly engage with DMM. In particular, heuses this framework to advocate for bilingual instructionalstrategies. As Cummins (2007) argues:

N. Flores280

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

When we free ourselves from exclusive reliance on monolingualinstructional approaches, a wide variety of opportunities arise forteaching languages by means of bilingual instructional strategies thatacknowledge the reality of, and strongly promote, two-way cross-languagetransfer. (p. 222)

He goes on to describe three interrelated monolingual strategiesin language learning classrooms that DMM does not support:(1) the direct method, which argues that instruction should beexclusively in the target language; (2) the no translationassumption, which argues that translation between the L1 andtheL2 should be prohibited; and (3) the two solitudes assumption,which argues that the two languages should be strictly separated inbilingual programs. Though using some terminology such as L1andL2 thatDMMcalls into question,Cummins’ argument extendsinsights developed by DMM to pedagogy by advocating the fluiduse of language in the classroom.

Though this psycholinguistic strand of the dynamic turn inapplied linguistics describes language in ways that seem toundermine nation-state/colonial governmentality, its explicitpositioning as an objective scientific pursuit as well as its failureto explicitly engage with issues of power indicates the need forcaution in using this framework to advocate for language-minoritized populations (Flores, 2013). In short, as has been thecase with the scientific study of language in previous generations,this new generation may inadvertently continue to privilege thelanguage practices of dominant groups. Nevertheless, thedynamic conceptualization of language that is characteristic ofthis strand could be combined with an explicitly political critiqueof nation-state/colonial governmentality in order to develop anew framework that allows language-minoritized populations tospeak in ways that are outside of these colonial relations of power.

One notable recent example of an attempt to merge thispsycholinguistic perspective with a larger political critique is thework of Garcıa (2009a) in reconceptualizing bilingualism andbilingual education. Garcıa calls into question many of the taken-for-granted assumptions of scholars of bilingualism. She noteshow the vast majority of the literature on bilingual education hasemerged from a U.S. and Canadian context and, therefore,conceptualizes bilingualism through a nation-state paradigm as

Silencing the Subaltern 281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

the ability to speak two autonomous and enumerable languages.She argues that we need to shift from thinking about languages tothinking about languaging so that we no longer see languages asseparable and countable but instead as interacting in fluid andcomplex ways—what she calls a shift from thinking in terms oflanguages as bounded entities to thinking about them as dynamicprocesses. In her dynamic reconceptualization of bilingualism, sheargues that bilingual children make meaning in the worldthrough a process she terms translanguaging, which she defines as“multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in orderto make sense of their bilingual worlds” (p. 45).

Garcıa (2009b) offers several examples of translanguaging ina Spanish-English bilingual kindergarten classroom, includingthis:

Teacher: This tree is bigger. That tree is smaller.Adriana: [tries out under her breath]. This tree is grander.

In this example, Garcıa argues that this student is using her entirelanguage repertoire to negotiate meaning, blending herdiscourses in creative and innovative ways. She uses this example,along with others, to argue that “the translanguaging practicesthat are constructed always bring the other language to theforefront, even when that language is not activated by theinstruction” (p. 156). In short, in the minds of these children,there are not two enumerable languages but rather a dynamicinteraction between different language practices. This opens uppossibilities for allowing for a representation of language-minoritized students that sees their fluid and dynamic languagepractices as the norm rather than as a threat to the nation-state.

Garcıa’s conception of dynamic bilingualism goes a long waytoward reconceptualizing language and language use, but thepsycholinguistic strand of the dynamic turnmight allow us to pushthis reconceptualization even further. For example, althoughGarcıa accepts the inherent fluidity of bilingualism, her use of theterm bilingualism continues to reinforce the idea of enumerablelanguages that she hopes to undermine. Not only is the use of theterm bilingual politically limiting in its reinforcement of certainaspects of nation-state/colonial governmentality but it also seemsto be psycholinguistically limiting in that it creates artificial

N. Flores282

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

boundaries that obscure actual language processing and use.Rather than conceiving of people as monolingual or bilingual, wecould begin to see people as lingual, in that we all have languageand this language is continuously dynamic and not easily placedinto any particular box. In the case of language-minoritizedpopulations, this would mean not treating them as speakers oftheir home language(s) and English but rather as legitimate usersof fluid language forms that reflect the dynamic nature of thecommunities that they come from. In the following section I lay outfive principles that could be part of this dynamically lingualapproach to education.

Toward Dynamically Lingual Education

Principle one: Reject linguistic Othering. The first principle ofdynamically lingual education is a rejection of the linguisticOthering that is a product of a state racism embedded withinnation-state/colonial governmentality. This means treating allusers of a language as legitimate users of dynamic linguisticrepertoires. A rejection of linguistic Othering requires eliminat-ing any hierarchical conceptions of language proficiency.

Principle two: Reject static and idealized notions of language. Thesecond principle, which is closely related to the first principle,is to treat all languages as social constructions—inventions thatare embedded in exclusionary relations of power (Makoni &Pennycook, 2005). What we consider English, Spanish, oracademic language, along with even more specific dialecticalvariations, such as Indian English, African American VernacularEnglish, or Puerto Rican Spanish, are not objective labels butrather social constructions that erase the heterogeneity oflanguage practices and silence fluid ethnolinguistic subjectivities.Dynamically lingual education no longer conceptualizes studentsin terms of being monolingual or bilingual or multilingual butsimply lingual. A shift toward seeing all people as dynamicallylingual acknowledges all people as legitimate language users ofdynamic language practices—none superior to the other.

Principle three: Provide spaces for students to experiment with theirfluid language practices. In order to acknowledge the dynamiclingualism of all students, it is necessary to provide opportunities

Silencing the Subaltern 283

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

for students to use their entire linguistic repertoire. This meansreframing classroom instruction from one that is centered onbuilding students’ academic language to working with them todevelop their fluid voices through the use of dynamic languageand literacy practices in the classroom. Rather than working withthem to develop “pure” academic texts, dynamically lingualeducation would embrace the creation of fluid texts that allowstudents to experiment with a range of ethnolinguisticsubjectivities.

Principle four: Make language into a contested part of thecurriculum. Undermining nation-state/colonial governmentalitymeans placing conflict and struggle at the center of any pedagogyas part of a process of developing in students what Lu (1992)terms a “mestiza consciousness” (p. 888) that allows them to blenddifferent discourses in their language use and repositionthemselves in relation to both their home language practicesand the language practices expected in school. Rather thantreating language use as removed from ideological processes,dynamically lingual education must be centered on a denatur-alization process that attempts to make the ideological under-pinnings of all language use an explicit part of instruction.

Principle five: Treat language as an indeterminate “always becomingprocess” that is shaped and re-shaped through collaboration withindynamic and ever-changing communities of practice. In this ontology ofbecoming, language is not treated as a static and countable entitythat can be defined but rather as an always-becoming process thatis worked and reworked in interaction with race, gender, class, themedia, professional role, in the continuous creation of newsubjectivities. In dynamically lingual education, language is nottreated as an entity that needs to be mastered but rather as a toolthat is part of an ongoing process of transformation throughinteraction with the self and others.

How might the approach I am advocating change the way werepresent the language practices of language-minoritizedpopulations? Let us go back to Garcia’s example of translangua-ging. In her original analysis, she italicized grander because theidea is that the student is being influenced by the Spanish wordfor big (grande) and has, therefore, created the word grander.Although this may be the case, it is also important to note thatgrander is a word in what we currently construct as English.

N. Flores284

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

Although its meaning is similar to bigger (which most peoplewould likely say is the more appropriate word to use given thecontext of the lesson), according to the dictionary grander hasmore of a connotation of magnificence and splendor, while biggersimply refers to size. I would imagine that grande did have an effecton the language produced by this child; yet what she spokeimplied something that could not be expressed by bigger. Perhapsher intention was to say bigger but the word was simply not part ofher language repertoire, or perhaps she was trying to provide aliterary description of the magnificence of one of the trees in waysthat utilized her entire linguistic repertoire in an innovative way.The point is, until we break out of idealized notions of languagethat position language-minoritized people like Adriana as lessproficient in “a language” than the idealized nationalist subjectwho theoretically uses one homogenous language form, we won’tbegin to ask these questions.

This is just one example of what a dynamically lingualeducational approach that might look like. It no longer privilegesidealized notions of language. It treats language-minoritizedpeople as legitimate users of fluid language practices who are ableto use their language repertoire in innovative and dynamic ways.It means that we can no longer assume that we know whatlanguage-minoritized students really mean to say and correctthem accordingly. This instinct to correct may serve toinadvertently prevent them from speaking in all of their fluidity.Instead, we must open ourselves up to the ability of language-minoritized people to re-appropriate the codes they have learnedfrom what are currently constructed as separate languages anduse them in ways never imagined. In short, we must openourselves up to truly hearing what the subaltern want to tell us.

References

Acuna, R. (2010). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Baker, C., & Hornberger, N. (2001). Jim Cummins: A biographical introduction.In C. Baker & N. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings of JimCummins (pp. 1–16). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. (2000). Language philosophy as language ideology:John Locke and Johann Gottfried Herder. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of

Silencing the Subaltern 285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

language: Ideologies, politics, and identities (pp. 139–204). Santa Fe, NM: Schoolof American Press.

bigger. (n.d.). Dictionary.com unabridged. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigger.

Crawford, J. (1992). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of English only.Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. LosAngeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.

Crowley, T. (1990). The obscure object of desire: A science of language.In J. Joseph & T. Taylor (Eds.), Ideologies of language (pp. 27–50). London,England: Routledge.

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguisticinterdependence, the optimum age question, and some other matters.Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.

Cummins, J. (1979/2001). Linguistic interdependence and the educationaldevelopment of bilingual children. In C. Baker & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Anintroductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins (pp. 63–95). Clevedon,England: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1981a). Bilingualism & minority language children. Toronto, Canada:Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Cummins, J. (1981b). The role of primary language development in promotingeducational success for language minority students. In California StateDepartment of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students:A theoretical framework (pp. 3–50). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Disseminationand Assessment Center.

Cummins, J. (1982/2001). Tests, achievement, and bilingual students.In C. Baker & N. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings ofJim Cummins (pp. 139–147). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1986/2001). Empowering minority students: A framework forintervention. In C. Baker & N. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to thewritings of Jim Cummins (pp. 175–194). Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in thecrossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies inmultilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2),221–240.

Del Valle, S. (1998). Bilingual education for Puerto Ricans in New York City:From hope to compromise. Harvard Educational Review, 68(2), 193–217.

Flores, N. (2013). The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism andplurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 500–520.

Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the College de France 1975–1976. New York, NY: Picador.

Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the College de France1977–1978. New York, NY: Picador.

Gal, S. (2006). Contradictions of standard language in Europe: Implications forthe study of practices and publics. Social Anthropology, 14, 163–181.

N. Flores286

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

Garcıa, O. (2009a). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective.Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Garcıa, O. (2009b). Education, multilingualism, and translanguaging in the 21stcentury. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. Mohanty, & M. Panda(Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 125–139). Tonawanda,NY: Multilingual Matters.

grander. (n.d.). Dictionary.com unabridged. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grander.

Grinberg, J., & Saavedra, E. (2000). The constitution of bilingual/ESL educationas a disciplinary practice: Genealogical explorations. Review of EducationalResearch, 70, 419–441.

Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives ofchange in psycholinguistics. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Irvine, J., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation.In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, politics, and identities(pp. 35–84). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lu, M. (1992). Conflict and struggle: The enemies or preconditions of basicwriting? College English, 54, 887–913.

Makoni, B., & Makoni, S. (2010). Multilingual discourses on wheels and publicEnglish in Africa. In J. Maybin & J. Swann (Eds.), The Routledge companion guideto English language studies (pp. 258–270). New York, NY: Routledge.

Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2005). Disinventing and (re)constitutinglanguages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2, 137–156.

Mignolo, W. (1995). The darker side of the Renaissance: Literacy, territoriality, andcolonization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Mignolo, W. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges,and border thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mulhausler, P. (1996). Linguistic ecology: Language change and linguistic imperialismin the Pacific Rim. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Pennycook, A. (2002). Mother tongues, governmentality, and protectionism.International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 154, 11–28.

Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York, NY: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.),Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Basingstoke, England:Macmillan Education.

Stoler, A. (1995). Race and the education of desire: Foucault’s history of sexuality and thecolonial order of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A socioculturalperspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Silencing the Subaltern 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia],

[D

r N

elso

n Fl

ores

] at

12:

28 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2013