Bilingual literacy in creole contexts

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Siegel, Jeff]On: 26 August 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 925797641]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297829

Bilingual literacy in creole contextsJeff Siegela

a School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale,Australia

Online publication date: 13 August 2010

To cite this Article Siegel, Jeff(2010) 'Bilingual literacy in creole contexts', Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment, 31: 4, 383 — 402To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2010.497217URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.497217

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297829

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.497217

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Bilingual literacy in creole contexts

Jeff Siegel*

School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale2351, Australia

(Received 16 December 2009; final version received 6 May 2010)

This article examines whether the conventional notion of bilingual literacy isapplicable to speakers of creole languages in terms of autonomy, codification,instrumentalisation, education and literacy practices. It then goes on to describealternative conceptions of both literacy and bilingualism that appear to be morerelevant to creole contexts � namely, the sociocultural literacy approach andtruncated bilingualism. The article concludes with a discussion of the educationalbenefits to creole speakers of adopting either conventional or alternative bilingualliteracy practices in the classroom.

Keywords: biliteracy; bilingualism; education; mother tongue education;vernacular languages

Introduction

Bilingual literacy (or ‘biliteracy’) usually refers to both the ability and the practice of

reading and writing in two languages. Hornberger’s (2004, 156) definition is ‘any or

all instances in which communication occurs in two (or more) languages in or aroundwriting’. The term is most commonly applied to situations in which individuals are

bilingual in two clearly distinct languages, each with its own writing system and

literature � for example, Spanish and English. As with so many other issues,

situations involving creole languages are not so clear. Does bilingual literacy exist for

speakers of creoles � for example, with Haitian Creole and French? And, more

generally, is the notion of bilingual literacy even relevant to creole contexts? And if

so, how?

In order to answer these questions in this article, I examine this conventionalnotion of bilingual literacy and show how it is problematic with regard to most

creole-speaking environments. Then I explore wider conceptions of both literacy and

bilingualism and demonstrate their greater applicability. But first, I present some

background information about creole languages and their speakers.

Background

Creoles are contact languages that develop in situations where groups of people who

do not share a common language have to communicate with each other � forexample, slaves or indentured labourers on colonial plantations. Most of the words in

the lexicon of a creole (or other contact language) are derived from the dominant

*Email: [email protected]

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Vol. 31, No. 4, July 2010, 383�402

ISSN 0143-4632 print/ISSN 1747-7557 online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2010.497217

http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded By: [Siegel, Jeff] At: 05:44 26 August 2010

http://www.informaworld.com

language, referred to as the ‘lexifier’. However, the phonology and morphosyntax of

a creole are very different from those of its lexifier.

Many creoles have a pidgin language predecessor. A pidgin begins to develop

when people who speak different languages communicate with words and phrases

they have learned from another, dominant language � for example, English in British

colonies. Certain communicative conventions may emerge, resulting in a new

language � a pidgin. This kind of pidgin has a small lexicon and little if any

morphological marking of grammatical categories, and it is highly restricted in use.In some situations, however, the use of the pidgin is extended into wider areas � for

example, as the everyday lingua franca in a multilingual environment. As a result, the

language becomes lexically and grammatically more complex, and it is called an

‘expanded pidgin’. Examples are Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea (spoken by over 4

million) and Nigerian Pidgin (over 30 million speakers). Both these expanded pidgins

are lexified by English and spoken mainly as a second language (L2) (or third

language, fourth language, etc.).

In other situations, a new community forms, made up of people whose parents orgrandparents came from different countries and spoke different languages. People in

this community use an expanded pidgin as their primary language and thus pass it

on to their children. Thus, this contact language becomes the mother tongue of the

community � and is referred to as a creole. Like any other vernacular language, a

creole has a full lexicon and complex grammatical rules, and is not at all restricted in

use, having a wide range of informal functions. Examples are Jamaican Creole

(lexified by English), Cape Verde Creole (lexified by Portuguese) and Haitian Creole

(lexified by French), the creole with the most speakers � over 7.3 million. Each ofthese creoles is the first language (L1) of the vast majority of the population of the

country where it is spoken.

The distinction between pidgins and creoles is often based on whether the

language is spoken mainly as an L2 (pidgins) or an L1 (creoles). However, expanded

pidgins, such as Tok Pisin, are often referred to as creoles because they are as

linguistically complex. And some creoles are widely learned as an L2 � for example,

Krio in Sierra Leone. For the purpose of this article, the term creoles is used to cover

contact languages spoken as an L1 as well as those spoken as an L2 (or L3, L4, etc.),including, expanded pidgins.

Conventional bilingual literacy

The prototypical notion of bilingual literacy (e.g. in Spanish and English) is based on

factors relating to both the languages involved and their speakers.

(1) The two varieties are seen as separate languages (Autonomy).(2) Each language has its own standardised orthography and grammar

(Codification).

(3) Each language has a body of written materials in a wide range of genres:

signage, media, literature, documents, instructions, etc. (Instrumentalisation).

(4) Speakers are taught literacy in both languages (Education).

(5) Speakers commonly read and write (e.g. letters, email) in both languages

(Literacy practices).

Each of these factors is discussed in the following sections.

384 J. Siegel


Autonomy

With regard to autonomy or Abstand (Kloss 1967), creoles are recognised as distinct

languages mainly in places where the official language is not the lexifier language �for example, Sranan in Suriname (official language Dutch; lexifier English); Islander

English in San Andres, Colombia (Spanish; English); Papiamentu in the Netherlands

Antilles and Aruba (Dutch; Spanish/Portuguese); and Kweyol in St. Lucia (English;

French). However, in places where the official language and the lexifier language are

the same, there is often a creole continuum � a cline of varieties ranging from the

basilect (linguistically furthest from the lexifier) to the acrolect (closest to the

lexifier), with mesolectal varieties in between. There is no clear dividing line between

varieties of the creole and those of the lexifier, and therefore a lack of autonomy � for

example, with English-lexified creoles in Hawai‘i, Jamaica, Trinidad and Guyana;

French-lexified creoles in Martinique and Guadeloupe; and Portuguese-lexified

creoles in Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau. Exceptions are Haitian Creole and Tok

Pisin (Papua New Guinea), which, for historical reasons, are relatively autonomous

from their lexifiers, French and English, respectively, which are the official languages

as well.

Codification

Issues involving the codification of creoles, or Ausbau (Kloss 1967), have been widely

discussed (e.g. Alleyne 1994; Muhleisen 2002, 2005; Siegel 2002). The development of

a ‘standard’ form of a creole often differs from that of other language varieties

because of two additional goals of codification:

(a) making the creole autonomous from its lexifier so that it is perceived as a

separate, legitimate language; and

(b) developing a variety of the creole that would be accessible to the majority of its

speakers.

The rationale for both goals is mainly sociopolitical, especially for the second one,

considering that a large proportion of the population is disenfranchised by not

knowing the established official language. The use of the creole in government and

other official domains, and the use of the most widely spoken form of the creole,

would give people greater access and allow them to participate in decision-making

processes, thus counteracting neo-colonialism and elitism (see, for example, Bebel-

Gisler 1981; Devonish 2007).

For most other languages that have been codified, the standard was developed on

the basis of a prestige variety used by the social elite and found in an established

literary tradition. In addition, it was often modelled on an already established

standard used in the community (such as Latin in the European context). In contrast,

a creole often has no established literary tradition. The prestige variety is the form

closest to the lexifier, and the established standard is often the lexifier itself �both spoken fluently by only a small elite class (see Sebba 1997). Obviously the

goals of autonomy and accessibility would not be accomplished by developing a

standard form of the creole on the basis of the lexifier.

Instead, codification of creoles has involved selecting the varieties distinct from

the lexifier that would be the most efficient to use for communication within the

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 385


creole-speaking community. Where there is a creole continuum, this could mean

selecting the most common intermediate or mesolectal varieties considered to be

acceptable forms of the creole. While such a method has been advocated for the

English-lexified creoles of the Caribbean (Devonish 2007, 122), it has not been

accomplished to any degree. An alternative is to select the most widespread variety of

the creole which is furthest from the lexifier, usually the rural or basilectal variety as

opposed to the urban variety more influenced by the lexifier. This is what has

occurred with Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea (Wurm 1980). The argument there

was that urban speakers would be more familiar with the more conservative rural

varieties than rural speakers would be with the more innovative and anglicised urban

varieties. In other places, such as Cape Verde and the French Antilles, social and

political movements have tried to promote more basilectal varieties (Lang 2000,

2005).

The choice of an orthography is again influenced by the nature of the creole and

people’s attitudes towards it (Muhleisen 2002). Most writing in creoles uses an

etymological orthography � i.e. based on the conventional spelling of the lexifier

language � for example, in Hawai‘i Creole:

Dey wen’ buy ’em las’ night.

[They bought it last night.]

This type of orthography is easy to read for those literate in the lexifier, but the use of

changed spellings to indicate different pronunciations and apostrophes for ‘missing’

sounds reinforces the view that the creole is a deviant variety of that language.

Furthermore, an etymological orthography is most often not standardised or

consistent, thus reinforcing as well the view that the creole is not rule-governed.

On the other hand, a phonemic orthography is based on the sounds that actually

occur in the creole without any reference to the lexifier, ideally with one symbol for

each sound (sometimes with the use of diacritics). Here is the same Hawai‘i Creole

sentence in a phonemic orthography:

Dei wen bai om læs nait.

This type of orthography reinforces the autonomy and rule-governed consistency of

the creole, but it is not easy to read for those literate in the lexifier.

Two types of compromise orthographic systems also exist. A modified

etymological orthography distinguishes the salient linguistic features of the creole,

avoids apostrophes and uses phonemic representation for words not from the lexifier

(Winer 1990). An intermediate phonemic orthography basically has a symbol (or

digraph) for one phoneme, but in some cases it uses the spelling conventions of the

lexifier � for example, Bou� for /u/ in French-lexified creoles (Schieffelin and

Doucet 1994).

Supporters of a phonemic orthography believe that it is easier for illiterate people

to learn to read and therefore, along with the autonomy factors, it is better suited to

fulfil the libertarian goals of access and equity. Supporters of etymological or

compromise orthography believe that there will always be bilingualism and a need to

become literate in the lexifier and that similar orthographies will promote this

biliteracy.

386 J. Siegel


With regard to English-lexified creoles, Tok Pisin is generally written with a

phonemic orthography that has resulted from a long tradition of orthographic

development and standardisation. This began in 1935 and culminated in 1968 with

the publication of the Tok Pisin translation of the New Testament (Wurm 1985).

However, other English-lexified creoles are usually written with etymological

orthographies, even though phonemic orthographies have been developed � for

example, for the Caribbean creoles by Cassidy (1961, 1993), Hawai‘i Creole by Odo

(1975) and Sierra Leone Krio by Fyle and Jones (1980) (see Romaine 1996, 285).Sranan (Suriname) also has an official (largely) phonemic orthography which is not

widely accepted (Sebba 2000). The etymological orthographies that are used are

generally not standardised � as Sala (2009) points out regarding Cameroon � or

various proposals for standardisation are in conflict. The Hawai‘i Creole translation

of the New Testament, Da Jesus Book (2000), has attempted to use a consistent

modified etymological orthography. But as Romaine (2005) points out, while

each word is spelled consistently, particular features of the language are not

represented consistently. For example, final /d/ deletion is indicated in words such asan ‘and’ and groun ‘ground’, but not in friend and pound. On the other hand, a ‘rule-

based’ intermediate orthography that was developed for Belize Kriol in the mid-

1990s has had more acceptance (Decker 1995).

With regard to French lexifier creoles, at least four different phonemically based

orthographies have been devised for Mauritian Creole, but none of these have

achieved official recognition. However, the Mauritius Ministry of Education has

recently released a proposal for a standard orthography that appears to have wide

acceptance (Hookoomsing 2004). One of the most successful cases of creoleorthographic development has been for Haitian Creole, beginning in the 1920s.

The current official system, otograf Institute Pedagogique National (IPN) is an

intermediate phonemic orthography developed in the mid-1970s and made official

in 1980. This system is now widely used by the writers of Haitian Creole (Lang 2004).

Orthographies based on the Haitian IPN model were developed for the French-

lexified creoles of Guadeloupe and Martinique in the mid-1970s and for those of

St. Lucia and Dominica in the early 1980s. These are in general use, although

alternatives have been proposed (Bernabe 2001; Hazael-Massieux 1993). In theIndian Ocean, a phonemic orthography was developed for Seselwa in 1976 (Bollee

1993), but this was later amended to be more similar to that of Haitian Creole.

Regarding other creoles, Papiamentu has two official orthographies, both widely

used: an etymological one used on the island of Aruba and a more phonemic

one used on Curacao and Bonaire (Kouwenberg and Muysken 1994). In 1998, the

government of Cape Verde decided to support officially an unified compromise

orthography for Cape Verdian Creole (Gonsalves 1999).

Another important aspect of standardisation of creoles is the availability ofdictionaries and grammars. At least 20 creoles have a dictionary or a detailed

grammar or both. Of course, some have more than one � for example, Haitian Creole

with at least half a dozen dictionaries. At the other end of the scale is Guyanese

Creole with none.

Instrumentalisation

With regard to instrumentalisation, one of the first extensions of the use of creolesinto writing has been their adaptation by various Christian churches for use in



religion. There are translations of the New Testament in many creoles � for

example: in Tok Pisin and the other two dialects of Melanesian Pidgin, Hawai‘i

Creole, Cameroon Pidgin, Sranan, Haitian Creole, St. Lucia Creole, Papiamentu

and Sango. These creoles are also commonly used in religious services by most

denominations.

Extension into secular written literature has also occurred for nearly all creoles,

but to varying degrees. Some literature is being written in Cape Verdean Creole,

although much more is written in Portuguese (Lang 2000, 276). In the Seychelles

short stories in Seselwa began to appear in 1979, and by the late 1980s six novels and

several collections of short stories and children’s stories were in print (Bollee 1993,

91). In Haiti, a more substantial body of Haitian Creole literature has developed in

novels, short stories, plays and poetry (Lang 2004). There are also newspapers in

Haitian Creole. Papiamentu is another creole that has a substantial and varied

written literature, and is widely used in daily newspapers and magazines (Lang 2000,

285, 298).

Most English-lexified creoles have also been used to some extent for secular

writing. In Papua New Guinea, Tok Pisin in the literature has been mainly

restricted to drama (Romaine 1996), but the language is widely used in government

notices and rural development materials. A 32-page Tok Pisin weekly, Wantok

Niuspepa, has a circulation of 12,000 (see http://www.wantokpng.org). In Africa,

Sierra Leone Kriol has been used mainly in drama (Romaine 1996) and plays, and

short stories have been written in Nigerian Pidgin and Cameroon Pidgin (Todd

1990, 75�7). Today in Cameroon Pidgin, the amount of writing is reported as

‘soaring’ (Sala 2009, 11). In the Caribbean region, Sranan (in Suriname) has the

longest, and perhaps deepest literary tradition (Lang 2000, 278), but most of the

literature is still written in Dutch (Van Kempen 2001). Throughout the Common-

wealth Caribbean, literature in English is most prevalent, but English-lexified

creoles are frequently in poems and plays, and also in short stories and novels. This

is especially in dialogue, but also as the voice of first and third person narration

(Muhleisen 2002; Warner-Lewis 2001; Winer 1990). In recent years, Hawai‘i Creole

has also become widely used in the literature with the appearance of many popular

poems and short stories and several novels using dialogue in the language (Romaine

1994, 1996, 2005).

The question remains, however, as to whether there is really English-lexified

creole literature. Lalla (2005) describes three phases in the use of English-lexified

creole languages in Jamaican literature. In the ‘ventriloquist phase’, non-creole-

speaking writers use English with a few creole features to invoke non-standard

speech. In the ‘alternation phase’, creole-speaking writers use substantial stretches of

authentic creole text, often for sociopolitical commentary. In the current ‘expansion

phase’, there is an extensive codeswitching to the creole and ‘the indigenous voice

occupies more if not all of the literary work’ (67). The fact remains, however, that

these literary works are written for readers literate in English. Works written entirely

in English-lexified creoles and meant specifically for creole speakers are very rare.

Furthermore, the use of English-based etymological orthography to represent the

creole reinforces the view that it is a form of English � a dialect rather than a

separate language. Novels written in English may have an indigenous voice, but they

are still considered as English literature.

388 J. Siegel


Education

To my knowledge, there are only four countries or territories where the creole has

been officially supported as the medium of instruction for the early years of primary

school, and is therefore the language in which speakers generally acquire initial

literacy. In the Seychelles, Seselwa has been the language of education for Grades

1�4 for more than 20 years (Bollee 1993; Mahoune 2000). More recently, its use has

been extended for some subjects up to five more years. The Seychelles has two other

official languages: English and French. English is used as a teaching language for

some subjects starting in Grade 3, and French is introduced in Grade 6.

In Haiti, a presidential decree issued in 1979 allowed the use of Haitian Creole in

schools along with French, and in 1982 the Ministry of Education issued its own

decree reorganising the education system so that the creole became the medium of

instruction and an object of study in primary school. However, the government did

not attempt to implement this education reform until 1989 (Howe 1993, 294).

Haitian Creole was made an official language along with French in the 1987

constitution and it is now used in primary education throughout the country.In the Netherlands Antilles (Curacao and Bonaire), where the official language is

Dutch, a law passed in 1982 allowed Papiamentu to be used as a language of

instruction in the first two years of primary school, but was not implemented

(Dijkhoff 1993, 2). In 1983, Papiamentu was introduced as a subject of study in all

grades in all schools, but only for half an hour a day. In 1993 a new educational plan

was issued, making Papiamentu the language of instruction throughout primary

school (Appel and Verhoeven 1994, 73). However, this led to a dispute about freedom

of choice that went to the courts. Now, schools can be either bilingual (Papiamentu

and either English or Dutch) or all Dutch (Christie 2003, 57). Nevertheless, the

official policy is still to strongly support Papiamentu as the language of education.Finally, in Aruba, a policy was written in 2002 for Papiamento (as it is spelled

there) to be used as a language of instruction in primary education (Kroon and

Kurvers 2008). This policy is being partly implemented while still waiting for

governmental approval.

The only other country where a creole is widely used in formal education to teach

initial literacy is Papua New Guinea. A total reform of the nation-wide education

system began in the early 1990s, changing the six years of primary schooling in the

medium of English to three years of elementary school followed by six years of

primary school. The language of instruction and initial literacy in elementary school

is chosen by the community; English is introduced in the second or third year of

elementary school and becomes the medium of instruction in primary school.

Although exact figures are not available, many communities, especially in urban

areas, have chosen Tok Pisin for their schools (Ray 1996). Also, at least in one rural

area, in the Sepik Province, there are at least 26 elementary schools using Tok Pisin

(Wiruk 2000).

Other places where local programmes have existed or currently exist include

Australia. A bilingual programme with Northern Territory Kriol and English began

at Barunga School in 1977. Kriol was used for teaching reading and writing from

Grade 1 until English was introduced in Grade 4 or 5. After then, Kriol was

restricted to subjects about cultural heritage (see Siegel 1993). Unfortunately, this

bilingual programme, along with others, was terminated by the territory government

at the end of 1998.



In West Africa, the Ministry of Education of Guinea-Bissau started an

experimental programme which ran from 1986 to 1994. The local creole, Crioulo

(or Kiriol), was used as the medium of instruction in the first 2 years of primary

education, with rapid transition in Grade 3 to the main language of education,

Portuguese (Benson 1994, 2004).

In the Caribbean, an experimental ‘trilingual’ programme using Islander English

(or Creole) was started on San Andres Island, Colombia, in 1999 (Morren 2001).

The creole is used as the medium of education in the two pre-primary years of schooland Grade 1. Oral English is introduced in Grade 1, and oral Spanish (the official

and national language) in Grade 2. English is used for reading and writing and to

teach some subjects from Grade 2. Spanish is similarly used from Grade 3. By Grade

4 all subjects are taught in English or Spanish.

On the island of Guadeloupe, there is an experimental (non-governmental)

elementary school run in which education is primarily in the local French-lexified

creole (Gwadloupean), and French is taught as a foreign language from around

Grade 3 (Faure 2000). There are also other experiments involving teachingGwadloupean as a subject to older students in junior and senior high schools.

(For a history of other educational efforts using Gwadloupean, see Schnepel 2004.)

In Jamaica, recent changes in attitudes towards the use of Jamaican Creole in

formal domains (Devonish 2007, 219�24) led to the establishment of a Bilingual

Education Project. This was approved by the government and implemented in 2004

in two pilot schools (Devonish and Carpenter 2007). The project involves full and

equal use of Jamaican Creole alongside standard Jamaican English in all aspects of

formal education from Grades 1 to 4.Finally, in the USA there have been bilingual programmes in Massachusetts, New

York and Florida for immigrants speaking Haitian Creole (Zephir 1997) and Cape

Verde Creole (Gonsalves 1996). In Massachusetts, however, the bilingual education

law was overturned by voters and scrapped by the state government in 2003 (de Jong-

Lambert 2003).

All these programmes, however, are the exception rather than the rule. The

majority of creole speakers are not taught to read and write in their own language in

the formal education system, but rather learn literacy in the standard language of theformer or current colonial power. In such contexts, writing using the creole language

is aimed at people who are already literate in the standard European language of

education, therefore using an etymological orthography. Sala (2009, 13) describes the

situation for Cameroon:

Writing is no advantage if it has no readership. Those who need CPE [Cameroon PidginEnglish] very badly are not the literates, who alternately have Cameroon English(CamE) to use. Reading and writing are literate activities, which are accessible only tothose who have formal education. Hence, submitting CPE to the ‘literate state’ ofwriting has not value for the illiterate, who paradoxically need it most. From thisperspective, therefore, CPE writing system is for the literate.

General and individual literacy practices

The preceding section again raises questions about literacy practices among speakers

of creoles who do not actually learn to read and write in their language but are

literate in the lexifier. Although they read passages of language in which creolelinguistic features are represented, can they really be considered to be engaged in

390 J. Siegel


bilingual literacy? This question is even more significant when the passages in

question can also be read and understood by the people who are not speakers of the

creole.

Furthermore, even in contexts where distinct monolingual creole literature

exists, this does not necessarily mean that many people read it. For example, Van

Kempen (2001, 544) notes that since standard Dutch is the only language taught in

school in Suriname, there is a problem of ‘the absence of a substantial audience’ for

creole literature. Even in countries where children are taught to read and write in

the creole and a substantial creole literature exists, this does not mean that its use in

literacy is widespread. For example, Mahoune (2000) reports that in the Seychelles,

people ‘subconsciously associate development with French and English’, and that

there is a growing tendency to use these languages rather than Seselwa, in public

functions. He notes that the people who actually write the standardised creole are

very few.

In other cases where there is clearly widespread creole literacy, as in Haiti and

Papua New Guinea, it is not known whether there is actually biliteracy � for

example, whether readers of the Wantok Niuspepa in Tok Pisin actually read

materials in English as well.

Furthermore, the fact that people read materials written in a creole does not

mean that they write in the language as well. For example, in a survey in Cameroon,

Schroder (2003, 221) found that 48% claimed reading ability in Cameroon Pidgin,

but only 34.2% claimed writing ability. In a smaller survey Sala (2009, 16n) found

that 98% of informants had never seen a personal letter written in Cameroon

Pidgin.

Discussion

According to the factors of Autonomy, Codification, Instrumentalisation, Education

and Actual literacy practices, the only creoles for which the conventional concept of

bilingual literacy appears to be relevant are Papiamentu, Haitian Creole and Tok

Pisin. Each is autonomous from its lexifier, has a relatively standardised and widely

used orthography, has a large body of published writing and is taught to children as

a language of literacy and widely used in the community. The only question is

whether or not people who practise literacy in these creoles also do so in another

language. Some individual bilingual literacy may also occur with other creoles that

are sometimes written in a distinct orthography but this is not that common.

However, the majority of creoles are not autonomous, do not have a widely used

standardised orthography, and are not used to teach children literacy. While they

may be represented in writing and widely read in this context, they are used

alongside the lexifier with the same orthography, and aimed at both creole- and non-

creole-speaking readers. Therefore, the conventional definition of bilingual literacy

does not seem to apply.

Alternative conceptions of literacy and bilingualism

Having looked at conventional conceptions of biliteracy, we now turn to some

alternative views of both literacy and bilingualism.



Literacy

There are several approaches to literacy, as described by Baker (2006). The preceding

section of this paper has more or less adopted the ‘skills approach’ (321), in whichliteracy is viewed as the ability to decode written symbols into sounds and meaning.

A much broader point of view is the ‘sociocultural literacy approach’. In this

approach literacy is the ability to engage with texts of different types as a purposeful

social activity (323) and the ability to construct appropriate cultural meaning from

these texts. Different kinds of texts are included, from newspapers and literature to

web pages to email and SMS. ‘Critical literacy’ (324) emphasises the detailed analysis

and understanding of such texts as a means of empowering people and removing

social inequities.The New London Group (1996) introduced the term ‘multiliteracies’, also referred

to as ‘multilingual literacies’, as described by Martin-Jones and Jones (2000, 45):

Literacies are social practices: ways of reading and writing and using written texts thatare bound up in social processes which locate individual action within social andcultural processes . . .Focusing on the plurality of literacies means recognizing thediversity of reading and writing practices and the different genres, styles and types oftexts associated with various activities, domains or social identities.

They also note (45): ‘In multilingual contexts, different languages, language varieties

and scripts all add dimensions to the diversity and complexity of literacies’.

An even wider view of the sociocultural literacy approach would include oral aswell as written texts. For example, Gee (2008) sees literacies as examples of

‘secondary Discourses’ � ways of being in the world that involve social institutions

beyond the family or primary socialisation. Some of these discourses may involve

print (as in the conventional view of literacy) while others do not, such as those

sometimes called ‘oral literature’ (Gee 2008, 176). Along the same lines, Hornberger

(2007) has recently expanded her view of literacy (described in the first paragraph of

this article) to include both written and oral modes.

Bilingualism

The term ‘bilingual’ usually refers to individuals or social groups who have the ability

to speak fluently in two languages, and who use both languages frequently.

‘Multilingual’ refers to the same ability and use with more than two languages.However, scholars have recently been describing other types of bilingualism and

multilingualism, including types in which speakers are not necessarily fluent in both

languages. For example, Li (2000, 6) uses the term ‘minimal bilingualism’ to refer to

‘someone with only a few words or phrases in a second language’. Blommaert,

Collins and Slembrouck (2005) refer to ‘truncated multilingualism � linguistic

competencies which are organised topically, on the basis of domains or specific

activities’. So for example, a Muslim Indo-Fijan linguist in Fiji would be fluent in his

mother tongue, Fiji Hindi, and in English, the language of education in Fiji.He would probably also know some Fijian to exchange pleasantries with people from

the village near his home and enough Classical Arabic to practise his religion. But he

wouldn’t be able to use Fiji Hindi to talk about linguistics, or talk to his family in

Classical Arabic, or discuss religion in Fijian.

392 J. Siegel


Furthermore, the conventional notion of individual bilingualism (or multi-

lingualism) assumes that the different languages are kept separate, and that speakers

switch from one to another for particular functions. In reality, however, bilinguals

often mix features of different languages when they are speaking to other bilinguals.

This is what Garcıa (2009, 140) calls ‘translanguaging’, defined as: ‘the act

performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes

of what are described as autonomous languages in order to maximise commu-

nicative potential’.

Discussion

These conceptions of bilingualism and literacy lead us to a view of bilingual literacy

that is not so rigid and compartmentalised as the conventional view, and one that

better reflects creole-speaking societies in general. With regard to oral language,

most creole speakers of all ages have some knowledge of the official language of theircountry (and the language of education). Some may know only a few words while

others have varying degrees of fluency in the official language and use it and the

creole in different contexts. Furthermore, educated creole speakers, especially when

there is a creole continuum, are constantly shifting between varieties of the creole

and the lexifier, and sometimes mixing them.

The same situation applies to written language. Creole speakers who are literate

have varying degrees of fluency in reading and writing the official language as well as

written representations of the creole. Even in places like Papua New Guinea, where anautonomous and standardised creole is widely used in writing, codeshifting and mixing

are still reflected in written texts. Here are two examples from public notices (Figures 1

and 2):

Em it tambu tru long rausim ol life jackets na ol narapela samthing long dispela balus.

It is illegal to remove life jackets or any other equipment from this aircraft.

Maski half sense na long long.

Noken spetim buai long rot na spredim sik TB.

‘Forget about being half-sensed and crazy.

Don’t spit betelnut on the road and spread TB.

Figure 1. Notice on air plane, Papua New Guinea. Own photo.



In addition, in many creole contexts, writing has become important in new genres

and domains, such as the internet. For example, with regard to Jamaican Creole

(locally referred to as Patois), Mullins (n.d.) writes:

Jamaican is a spoken language and was hardly written, except in folk poetry and folkstories, but now patois is frequently being written in internet chat rooms where spellingis gaining standardization and new words are being coined.

The use of writing in Tok Pisin can also be seen on ‘Mauswara Board’ Internet chat

room on the website http://tokpisin.net/ (mauswara ‘verbal diarrhoea’). Here is a

section from 10 July 2009 (Figure 3).

In this extract we can see the following features (Tok Pisin in bold italics):

� code switching (Tok pisin in italics) � e.g.:

I dont have hotmail sory stret [‘really sorry’]

since gmail no wok [doesn’t work’], u can send me a hot email and I will reply.

� use of SMS abbreviations � e.g.:

u, yr msgs

nonstandard Tok Pisin spelling � e.g.:

blo u (bilong yu) ‘your’, tankyou (tenkyu) ‘thank you’.

mi ting bi u tastim (mi ting bai yu testim) ‘I think you’ll test it (or taste it)’

� creative/expressive use of orthography � e.g.:

ice meriiiiiii, yu highway meriiiiiiiiii ‘Ice Meri, you’re a highway woman’

Figure 2. Public notice, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Own photo.

394 J. Siegel


Furthermore, as Lalla (2005, 71) points out for literature in English-lexified creole

contexts, the use of various creole varieties, and intermediate forms, as well as

frequent codeswitching into English, makes it difficult to determine boundaries. This

reflects actual language use better than pure monolingual, monovarietal creole text.

Lalla observes (75):

[T]he fact that the Creole is increasingly represented or ‘evoked’ reinforces its literarystatus even in the absence of any widely utilized formal systems of instrumentalisation.

1 min ago

Devil Original : ice.. u pukpuk..

1 min ago

Ice__Meri : hotmail send yr phone no, I will keep in

touch

2 mins ago

hotman : have a top weekend

2 mins ago

Ice__Meri : mi ting bi u tastim

2 mins ago

hotman : i will be back soon...catch up some other time

ICEMeri

2 mins ago

Ice__Meri : devil u too yah

2 mins ago

wikita : ice meriiiiiii, yu highway merrriiiiiiiiii

3 mins ago

Devil 360 : oi ice.. u chekim inbox 2 o? mi testim email

blo u ya..

3 mins ago

hotman : i dont have hotmail sory stret@ IM

3 mins ago

Ice__Meri : put up yr pic so I know who I m talking to

lol

3 mins ago

Jonny : oh okies no probes@jo

3 mins ago

Ice__Meri : eheheh hotman, since gmail no wok, u can

send me a hot email and I will reply

3 mins ago

Devil 360 : oi..mi out

4 mins ago

Jonny : tankyou very much sister..but wat baut 24@jo

4 mins ago

Devil 360 : oi ice.. chekim gen

4 mins ago

Ice__Meri : but I sure did acknowledge all yr msgs

Figure 3. Page from Tok Pisin website.



However, in not only co-existing with English but interacting with it . . . the Creole inliterature challenges the very concept of linguistic status � taking a hoe to the root oflinguistic prestige.

Muhleisen (2002, 199) points out that the boundaries between oral and literary

traditions in Caribbean English literature, and between popular and ‘high’ culture,

‘are becoming obsolete as the forms are mixed, imitated, challenged and renego-

tiated’. She also observes (215): ‘Caribbean writers have long transgressed the

boundaries of the oral/literate divide and the Creole/Standard English divisions’,

thus making Creole ‘an (unofficial) literary and increasingly textualized language’.

Therefore, if we apply these views of bilingualism and literacy, the scope the

relevance of bilingual literacy to creole contexts is much wider.

The benefits of bilingual literacy in creole contexts

This final section argues that there are benefits of bilingual literacy in creole contexts �specifically with regard to formal education. Here we look at educational advantages

of promoting bilingual literacy in both its narrow, conventional meaning (the

skills approach) and wider, more recent meaning (the sociocultural approach).

Conventional biliteracy in creole contexts

Research has shown that functional biliteracy is an important factor leading to

success in school for language minority students in bilingual education programmes

(e.g. Baker 2006, Cummins 2000). First, literacy and other academic skills are more

easily learned in the L1 and these can be readily transferred to the L2 (Cummins

2001). Second, promoting literacy in the L1 means that learning literacy in the L2 is

additive rather than subtractive. Third, promoting literacy in the L1 gets parents and

siblings who are already literate involved in the educational process. Last, use of the

students’ own language in the educational process increases interest and motivation.

Evidence also exists demonstrating the benefits of teaching initial literacy in a

creole language in ‘instrumental programmes’ (Siegel 1999, 2006). For example,

research in Papua New Guinea (Siegel 1997) showed that the students who learned to

read and write in Tok Pisin performed better throughout primary school than those

who learned to read and write in English. This was in all subjects, including English.

Research has also been done on students who learned initial literacy in Kriol in

Australia (Murtagh 1982), Seselwa in the Seychelles (Ravel and Thomas 1985) and

Crioulo in Guinea-Bissau (Benson 1994). This research showed similar benefits in

overall academic achievement, including performance in the official educational

language, or other benefits such as increased motivation.

Instrumental programmes teaching initial creole literacy have existed only in

autonomous creole contexts, except for experimental or pilot programmes such as

those in Guadeloupe and Jamaica, mentioned above. More often, in both

autonomous and non-autonomous contexts, negative attitudes towards creoles and

the view that they are not legitimate languages have meant that initial literacy is

taught only in the official educational language, which is not the creole. For example,

research in Hawai‘i (see Sakoda and Siegel 2004) has shown that existing attitudes

make it very unlikely that any instrumental programme using Hawai‘i Creole, even

396 J. Siegel


an experimental one, would be acceptable in the foreseeable future. Therefore,

functional biliteracy and its benefits are not relevant in such contexts.This is unfortunate because many studies have shown the problems caused by

students having to confront devaluation of their own varieties of language either

directly, by treating them as incorrect versions of the standard, or indirectly, by

excluding them from the educational process (see, for example, Au 2008). These

problems include development of a negative self-image, lack of motivation, inhibited

self-expression and sometimes rejection of the entire formal education system.

But what about sociocultural biliteracy?

Sociocultural literacy in creole contexts

Hornberger (2002, 2004) has proposed a ‘continua of biliteracy’ model ‘as a way to

situate research, teaching and language planning in multilingual settings’ (2002, 36).

This model uses ‘the notion of intersecting and nested continua to demonstrate the

multiple and complex interrelationships between bilingualism and literacy and the

importance of the contexts, media and content through which biliteracy develops’

(2004, 156). Four types of continua are divided into four groups of three each. These

are shown in Figure 4. (In the first continuum, micro/macro contexts are basically

the same as local/global.)

The model emphasises the interrelatedness of points across all the continua.

Hornberger’s view is that the greater the range of learning contexts and use along

each continuum, the greater the development of biliteracy (in the sociocultural

sense). However, as Hornberger points out (2004, 158), in general educational policy

and practice, attention is not given to the full range of the continua, but rather to one

Contexts

of biliteracy

micro [local] <------------------------------> macro [global]

oral <--------------------------------------------------> literate

bi(multi)lingual <------------------------------> monolingual

Development

of biliteracy

reception <---------------------------------------> production

oral <--------------------------------------------------> written

L1 <---------------------------------------------------------> L2

Content

of biliteracy

minority <--------------------------------------------> majority

vernacular <------------------------------------------> literary

contextualized <-------------------------> decontextualized

Media

of biliteracy

simultaneous exposure <--------> successive exposure

dissimilar structures <-----------------> similar structures

divergent scripts <--------------------> convergent scripts

Figure 4. The continua of biliteracy (Hornberger 2004, 158).



end � that on the right. This is the end most associated with the traditionally

powerful elements of society. In this way, the educational system privileges the

literacy practices of the more powerful to the detriment of the less powerful.

Formal education generally concentrates on the written, literary and decontex-

tualised forms of literacy, thus ignoring oral, popular, non-standard forms of literacy

found in genres such as rap music and in texts used in email and SMS. It also

concentrates on only one form of language � the standard official language of

education, thus ignoring the multiple language varieties and associated cultures and

identities that exist among the students in the classroom and in the community.

According to Hornberger (2002, 42�3), ‘what is needed is to find as many ways as

possible to open up ideological spaces for multiple languages and literacies in the

classroom, community and society’ � i.e. multilingual policies including ‘dissimilar,

divergent, non-standard varieties’. She reports (2002) that where this has occurred �for example, with Quechua-speaking children in Bolivia and Zulu-speaking children

in South Africa � children have benefited. Along similar lines, Garcıa (2009, 148)

describes the educational benefits of accepting and using translanguaging in the

classroom.

Much of Hornberger’s model and characterisation of educational policy can be

applied to creole contexts, as shown in Figure 5. The major difference from other

contexts is that in creole-speaking countries, it is the minority � the standard-

speaking educated elite � who are more powerful and the majority � less educated

and mainly creole-speaking � who are less powerful. Also, the continuum of

divergent/convergent scripts is not relevant, although it could be modified to

divergent/convergent orthographies for creoles for which phonemic or compromise

orthographies have been developed (e.g. Hawai‘i Creole, Sranan and Jamaican

Creole).

Contexts

of biliteracy

micro [local] <--------------------------------------> macro [global]

oral <---------------------------------------------------------> literate

bi(multi)lingual <-------------------------------------> monolingual

Development

of biliteracy

reception <---------------------------------------------> production

oral <--------------------------------------------------------> written

L1 <---------------------------------------------------------------> L2

Content

of biliteracy

non-elite majority <-----------------------------> elite minority

vernacular <------------------------------------------------> literary

contextualized <-------------------------------> decontextualized

Media

of biliteracy

simultaneous exposure <--------------> successive exposure

dissimilar structures <-----------------------> similar structures

divergent orthographies <--> convergent orthographies

Figure 5. Hornberger’s continua of biliteracy adapted to creole contexts.

398 J. Siegel


There is also some evidence of educational benefits in creole-speaking contexts

when the balance in the continua is redressed and aspects of children’s language and

culture are brought into the classroom. Siegel (1999, 2003, 2006) refers to the

‘awareness approach’ for teaching speakers of creole languages (and non-standard

dialects). In this approach, the creole is seen as a resource for learning the standard

language of education and for education in general, rather than something to be

ignored. The awareness approach has at least two of the following three components.

First, the use of the creole language is accepted in the classroom both orally and in

written texts such as poetry and song lyrics (the accommodation component).

Second, students explore variation in language and learn about the many different

varieties that exist, such as types of dialects and creoles. They also study about the

socio-historical processes that lead to a particular variety becoming accepted as the

standard (the sociolinguistic component). Third, students examine the rule-governed

nature and linguistic characteristics of their own varieties and see how they differ from

those of the varieties of other students and the standard (the contrastive component).

Evaluations of experimental studies and programmes using the awareness

approach with creole speakers in the Caribbean (Elsasser and Irvine 1987), Hawai‘i

(Actouka and Lai 1989; Afaga and Lai 1994) and the mainland USA (Fischer 1992a,

1992b) have demonstrated various educational advantages in both motivation and

academic performance. It seems likely that bringing more of creole-speaking

students’ own literacy activities into the classroom (for example, email and chat

room texts) and examining different ways of writing the creole (including phonemic

orthographies) would further enhance the effectiveness of awareness programmes,

and lead to the kind of benefits described by Hornberger and other proponents of

the wider, sociocultural view of bilingual literacy.

Acknowledgements

This article was written when I was an External Fellow at the Freiburg Institute for AdvancedStudies (FRIAS). I sincerely thank FRIAS for their generous support. Thanks also go to DianaEades, Vicki Knox and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References

Actouka, M., and M.K. Lai. 1989. Project Holopono, evaluation report, 1987�1988. Honolulu,HI: Curriculum Research and Development Group, College of Education, University ofHawai‘i.

Afaga, L.B., and M.K. Lai. 1994. Project Akamai, evaluation report, 1992�93, year four.Honolulu, HI: Curriculum Research and Development Group, College of Education,University of Hawai‘i.

Alleyne, M.C. 1994. Problems of standardization of creole languages. In The socialconstruction of identity in creole situations, ed. M. Morgan, 7�18. Los Angeles, CA:Center for Afro-American Studies, UCLA.

Appel, R., and L. Verhoeven. 1994. Decolonization, language planning and education. InPidgins and creoles: An introduction, ed. J. Arends, P. Muysken, and N. Smith, 65�74.Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.

Au, K.H. 2008. If can, can: Hawai‘i Creole and reading achievement. Educational Perspectives41, no. 1/2: 66�76.

Baker, C. 2006. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. 4th ed. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Bebel-Gisler, D. 1981. La langue creole, force jugulee [Creole language, a suppressed resource].Paris and Montreal: L’Harmattan/Nouvelle-Optique.



Benson, C. 1994. Teaching beginning literacy in the ‘‘mother tongue’’: A study of theexperimental Crioulo/Portuguese primary project in Guinea-Bissau. PhD diss., Universityof California at Los Angeles.

Benson, C. 2004. Trilingualism in Guinea-Bissau and the question of instructional language.In Trilingualism in family school and community, ed. C. Hoffmann and J. Ytsma, 166�84.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Bernabe, J. 2001. La graphie creole [Written representation of creoles]. Martinique: Ibis RougeEditions.

Blommaert, J., J. Collins, and S. Slembrouck. 2005. Spaces of multilingualism. Language &Communication 25, no. 3: 197�216.

Bollee, A. 1993. Language policy in the Seychelles and its consequences. International Journalof the Sociology of Language 102: 85�99.

Cassidy, F.G. 1961. Jamaica talk: Three hundred years of the English language in Jamaica.London: Macmillan.

Cassidy, F.G. 1993. Short note: On creole orthography. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages8: 135�7.

Christie, P. 2003. Language in Jamaica. Kingston: Arawak.Cummins, J. 2000. Biliteracy, empowerment, and transformative pedagogy. In The power of

two languages 2000: Effective dual-language use across the curriculum, ed. J.V. Tinajero andR.A. DeVillar, 9�19. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cummins, J. 2001. Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Da Jesus Book. 2000. Orlando, FL: Wycliffe Bible Translators.de Jong-Lambert, C. 2003. From the islands to the classroom and back. The Christian Science

Monitor, April 15.Decker, K. 1995. Orthography development for Belize creole. Paper read at Society for

Caribbean Linguistics Conference, August, at Georgetown, Guyana.Devonish, H.S. 2007. Language and liberation: Creole language and politics in the Caribbean.

2nd ed. Kingston: Arawak.Devonish, H.S., and K. Carpenter. 2007. Full bilingual education in a creole language situation:

The Jamaican Bilingual Primary Education Project. St. Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago:Society for Caribbean Linguistics. (Occasional Paper No. 35)

Dijkhoff, M. 1993. Report on the Netherlands Antilles. Pidgins and Creoles in Education(PACE) Newsletter 4: 1�2.

Elsasser, N., and P. Irvine. 1987. English and creole: The dialectics of choice in a collegewriting program. In Freire for the classroom: A sourcebook for literacy teaching, ed. I. Shor,129�49. Portsmouth, MA: Boynton/Cook.

Faure, E. 2000. Report: Guadeloupe. Pidgins and Creoles in Education (PACE) Newsletter 11:3�4.

Fischer, K. 1992a. Educating speakers of Caribbean English in the United States. In Pidgins,creoles and nonstandard dialects in education, ed. J. Siegel, 99�123. Melbourne, VIC:Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. (Occasional Paper no. 12)

Fischer, K. 1992b. Report. Pidgins and Creoles in Education (PACE) Newsletter 3: 1.Fyle, C.N., and E.D. Jones. 1980. A Krio-English dictionary. Oxford/New York: Oxford

University Press.Garcıa, O. 2009. Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Social

justice through multilingual education, ed. T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A.K.Mohanty, and M. Panda, 140�58. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Gee, J.P. 2008. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology and discourses, 3rd ed. Abingdon/NewYork: Routledge.

Gonsalves, G.E. 1996. Language policy and education reform: The case of Cape Verdean. InEducation reform and social change: Multicultural voices, struggles and visions, ed. C.E.Walsh, 31�6. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gonsalves, G.E. 1999. Report. Pidgins and Creoles in Education (PACE) Newsletter 10: 1.Hazael-Massieux, M-C. 1993. Ecrire en creole [Writing in creole]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Hookoomsing, V.Y. 2004. Proposal for a harmonized orthography for Mauritian Creole

language: Grafi-larmoni. http://www.potomitan.info/bibliographie/harmonized.php.

400 J. Siegel


http://www.potomitan.info/bibliographie/harmonized.php

Hornberger, N.H. 2002. Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: Anecological approach. Language Policy 1: 27�51.

Hornberger, N.H 2004. The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator: Educationallinguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7, no.2/3: 155�71.

Hornberger, N.H 2007. Biliteracy, transnationalism, multimodality, and identity: Trajectoriesacross time and space. Linguistics and Education 18: 325�34.

Howe, K. 1993. Haitian Creole as the official language in education and the media. In Atlanticmeets Pacific: A global view of pidginization and creolization, ed. F. Byrne and J. Holm,291�8. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kloss, H. 1967. Abstand languages and Ausbau languages. Anthropological Linguistics 9, no.7: 29�41.

Kouwenberg, S., and P. Muysken. 1994. Papiamento. In Pidgins and creoles: An introduction,ed. J. Arends, P. Muysken, and N. Smith, 205�18. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kroon, S., and J. Kurvers. 2008. Multilingualism and language policy in education in Surinamand Aruba. Paper read at the 17th Sociolinguistics Symposium, April, Amsterdam, theNetherlands.

Lalla, B. 2005. Creole and respec’ in the development of Jamaican literary discourse. Journalof Pidgin and Creole Languages 20, no. 1: 53�84.

Lang, G. 2000. Entwisted tongues: Comparative creole literatures. Amsterdam/Atlanta:Benjamins.

Lang, G. 2004. A primer of Haitian literature in Kreyol. Research in African Literatures 35, no.2: 128�40.

Lang, G. 2005. Basilects in creole literatures: Examples from Sranan, Capverdian Crioulo andAntillean Kreyol. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 20, no. 1: 85�99.

Li, W. 2000. Dimensions of bilingualism. In The bilingualism reader, ed. W. Li, 3�25. London:Routledge.

Mahoune, J-C.P. 2000. Seychellois creole: Development and evolution. Iias Newsletter Online22. http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/22/regions/22ISA1.html.

Martin-Jones, M., and K. Jones. 2000. Introduction: Multilingual literacies. In Multilingualliteracies: Reading and writing different worlds, ed. M. Martin-Jones and K. Jones, 1�15.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Morren, R.C. 2001. Creole-based trilingual education in the Caribbean archipelago of SanAndres, Providence and Santa Catalina. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 22, no. 3: 227�41.

Muhleisen, S. 2002. Creole discourse: Exploring prestige formation and change across CaribbeanEnglish-lexicon creoles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Muhleisen, S. 2005. Introduction: Creole languages in creole literatures. Status andstandardization. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 20, no. 1: 1�14.

Mullins, A. n.d. About the way Jamaicans talk. http://www.jamaica-beaches-lovers.com/jamaican-patois.html.

Murtagh, E.J. 1982. Creole and English as languages of instruction in bilingual education withAboriginal Australians: Some research findings. International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 36: 15�33.

New London Group. 1996. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. HarvardEducational Review 66, no. 1: 60�92.

Odo, C. 1975. Phonological processes in the English dialect of Hawaii. PhD diss., University ofHawai‘i.

Ravel, J-L., and P. Thomas. 1985. Etat de la reforme de l’enseignement aux Seychelles(1981�1985) [The state of the teaching reform in the Seychelles]. Paris: Ministere desRelations Exterieures, Cooperation et Developpement.

Ray, C. 1996. Report: Papua New Guinea. Pidgins and Creoles in Education (PACE)Newsletter 7: 3.

Romaine, S. 1994. Hawai‘i creole as a literary language. Language in Society 23: 527�54.Romaine, S. 1996. Pidgins and creoles as literary languages: Ausbau and abstand. In

Contrastive sociolinguistics, ed. M. Helliger and U. Ammon, 271�89. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.



http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/22/regions/22ISA1.html

http://www.jamaica-beaches-lovers.com/jamaican-patois.html

http://www.jamaica-beaches-lovers.com/jamaican-patois.html

Romaine, S. 2005. Orthographic practices in the standardization of pidgins and creoles: Pidginin Hawai‘i as anti-language and anti-standard. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 20,no. 1: 101�40.

Sakoda, K., and J. Siegel. 2004. Hawai‘i Creole: Phonology. In A handbook of varieties ofEnglish, volume 1: Phonology, ed. B. Kortmann and E. W. Schneider, 729�49. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.

Sala, B.M. 2009. Writing in Cameroon Pidgin English: Begging the question. English Today25, no. 2: 11�7.

Schieffelin, B.B., and R.C. Doucet. 1994. The ‘‘real’’ Haitian Creole: Ideology, metalinguistics,and orthographic choice. American Ethnologist 21: 176�200.

Schnepel, E.M. 2004. In search of a national identity: Creole and politics in Guadeloupe.Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

Schroder, A. 2003. Status, functions and prospects of Pidgin English. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Sebba, M. 1997. Contact languages: Pidgins and creoles. New York: St Martin’s Press.Sebba, M. 2000. Orthography and ideology: Issues in Sranan spelling. Linguistics 38, no. 5:

925�48.Siegel, J. 1993. Pidgins and creoles in education in Australia and the southwest Pacific. In

Atlantic meets Pacific: A global view of pidginization and creolization, ed. F. Byrne andJ. Holm, 299�308. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Siegel, J. 1997. Using a pidgin language in formal education: Help or hindrance? AppliedLinguistics 18: 86�100.

Siegel, J. 1999. Creoles and minority dialects in education: An overview. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development 20, no. 6: 508�31.

Siegel, J. 2002. Pidgins and creoles. In Handbook of applied linguistics, ed. R. Kaplan, 335�51.New York: Oxford University Press.

Siegel, J. 2003. Social context. In Handbook of second language acquisition, ed. C.J. Doughtyand M.H. Long, 178�223. Oxford: Blackwell.

Siegel, J. 2006. Keeping creoles and dialects out of the classroom: Is it justified? In Dialects,Englishes, creoles, and education, ed. S.J. Nero, 39�67. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Todd, L. 1990. Pidgins and creoles. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Van Kempen, M. 2001. Surinamese short narrative. In A history of literature in the Caribbean.

Volume 2: English- and Dutch-speaking regions, ed. A.J. Arnold, 543�60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Warner-Lewis, M. 2001. Language use in West Indian literature. In A history of literature in theCaribbean. Volume 2: English- and Dutch-speaking regions, ed. A.J. Arnold, 25�37.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Winer, L. 1990. Orthographic standardization for Trinidad and Tobago: Linguistic andsociopolitical considerations. Language Problems and Language Planning 14, no. 3:237�68.

Wiruk, E. 2000. Report: Papua New Guinea. Pidgins and Creoles in Education (PACE)Newsletter 11: 1.

Wurm, S.A. 1980. Standardisation and intrumentalisation in Tok Pisin. In Theoreticalorientations in creole studies, ed. A. Valdman and A. Highfield, 237�44. New York:Academic Press.

Wurm, S.A. 1985. Writing systems and the orthography of Tok Pisin. In Handbook of TokPisin (New Guinea Pidgin), ed. S.A. Wurm and P. Muhlhausler, 167�76. Canberra:Australian National University.

Zephir, F. 1997. Haitian creole language and bilingual education in the United States:Problem, right, or resource? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18, no.3: 223�37.

402 J. Siegel


Date post:	01-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	une-au
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Bilingual literacy in creole contexts

Documents