California, December 13-16, 1999: Sorting Fact from Friction in Bilingual Education

At a workshop in San Francisco on December 16, 1999, one participant, Anat Harrel, originally from Israel, expressed her outrage at the hypocrisy evident in many of the arguments against bilingual education. She shared with participants an advertisement that appeared in a local parent newspaper in July 1998 right in the aftermath of the Proposition 227 referendum that aimed to vote public school bilingual education out of existence. The advertisement was for a private school, the French-American School of Silicon Valley, and urged readers to “Give your children a wonderful gift: A bilingual education” (emphasis original). The text, with the Eiffel Tower in the background, continued: “The best of two educational worlds: The accurate planning of the French and the pragmatic openness of the American system.” (Bay Area Parent, July 1998: 105). What angered Anat was not the advertisement itself but rather the implicit assumptions that it pointed to in the broader educational discourse: French-English bilingual education is prestigious and legitimate whereas Spanish-English bilingual education is neither; bilingual education is “the best of two educational worlds” for those whose parents are wealthy enough to pay for a private school, but it causes educational failure among low-income public school students. Bilingualism is good for the rich but bad for the poor.

“In this day and age...everybody needs a second language. The English they teach at most Japanese schools is useless. I wanted Maki [her daughter] to speak real English in a natural manner” (1999: 3).

This parent’s confidence in the school appears to be well-justified from the careful evaluation carried out by Michael Bostwick (1999), the deputy director of the school, for his doctoral dissertation. Grade 5 students acquire considerable proficiency in English (roughly to the level of grade 3 native-speaker students in the United States and equivalent to grade 9 Japanese-L1 students in Japan). Their Japanese L1 academic development and mastery of academic content taught through English progresses at the same rate as that of control students in a Japanese monolingual program.
On December 14, I presented a workshop to educators of ELL students in Buena Park, a community on the outskirts of Los Angeles. I emphasized the potential for developing students’ critical language awareness when we encourage them to focus on language and make connections between their L1 and L2. This can and should happen even in monolingual English-medium classes (see Chapter 10). In particular, the wealth of cognates in Spanish and English deriving from their origins in Latin and Greek (see Chapter 3, and Corson, 1995, 1997) provide opportunities for students to become “language detectives” (Delpit, 1998) searching out connections between languages or varieties within the same language. Several participants noted that in their school districts, after the passage of Proposition 227, teachers were being instructed not to send Spanish books home for parents and children to read together. Furthermore, they were being told to discourage parents from reading to their children in Spanish and even from speaking to their children in Spanish. In these districts, bilingualism was clearly being constructed as part of the problem, rather than as part of the solution.

Yet just down the road from these districts were dual language programs such as the Korean-English program in Cahuenga School (see Chapter 8). These programs, also termed “two-way bilingual immersion,” serve both English-dominant and L1-dominant students with the goal of developing bilingualism and biliteracy among both groups. Despite the negative societal climate around bilingualism and bilingual education, these dual language programs have expanded significantly across the state during the past year, up from 95 in 1997-98 to 108 in 1998-99. According to the California Department of Education (1999b), these programs have increased 272% since 1990.

I spoke in one of the breaks with a group of educators from one of the districts that operated a Spanish-English dual language program which appeared to be functioning very successfully for both groups of students. These educators wondered how the focus on language connections could be put into practice in the context of their dual language program. Formal English literacy instruction was not introduced until grade 3 and there was some pressure to postpone it for another year, until grade 4, in order to provide even more “psychological space” for the minority language to develop to a higher level.

The discussion highlighted concerns about French immersion programs in Canada that I have had for more than 20 years (Cummins, 1977) and they appear highly relevant now in the context of dual language programs in the United States. It appears to me that we have become captive to the doctrines that emerged from the original St. Lambert model of French immersion implemented in the mid-1960s near Montreal. Among these are the following problematic assumptions:

·        The two languages of instruction in bilingual programs should be kept rigidly separate;

·        Models that provide exclusive or near-exclusive emphasis on the minority language in the early grades are superior to those that have more equal instruction in the two languages (e.g. 50/50 models) and/or introduce literacy in both languages in grade 1.

·        Transfer of literacy and concepts across languages will happen “automatically” and thus as much instructional time as possible should be provided for the minority language to develop because the majority language will “look after itself” and students will catch up rapidly after formal English instruction is introduced.

There is some substance to all three of these assumptions, but without qualifications they become dangerous half-truths. Certainly, languages of instruction should not be mixed in any kind of random way and it is important to provide students with appropriate oral and written models of each language. However, by not creating a context for bilingual language exploration in our classrooms we miss out on one of the most powerful tools that children in such programs have to develop their literacy and awareness of language. In French-English programs and Spanish-English programs, the cognate connections between the languages provide enormous possibilities for linguistic enrichment, but not if the program is set up to ensure that the two languages never meet.

The assumption that early exposure to the minority language should be maximized in the early grades is not in itself harmful. There are many highly successful 90/10 dual language programs in operation throughout the United States, and Canadian French immersion programs that follow a similar model have also been evaluated very positively. However, several 50/50 programs that develop literacy in both languages simultaneously or in quick succession in the early grades have also been highly successful (e.g. the Oyster Bilingual School in Washington, DC and the Amigos Program in Cambridge Massachusetts—see Chapter 8). Thus a strong case should not be made for the absolute superiority of one model over another.

It appears to me also that it is highly problematic to assume that transfer of academic skills across languages will always happen automatically. In French immersion programs where most children have experienced a strong culture of literacy (in English) in the home, “automatic” transfer usually does happen in the grade 1 or grade 2 year, but parental reinforcement of English literacy in the home plays a major role in this transfer (e.g. Cashion & Eagan, 1990; Cummins, 1977).

The dangers of assuming that instructional time through the minority language should be maximized for as long as possible and that the academic genres and conventions of literacy in the majority language do not require explicit formal teaching were brought home to me by debates that have been going on recently in New Zealand in the context of Maori medium programs. A discussion paper written by John McCaffrey, Colleen McMurchy-Pilkington, and Hemi Dale and presented at a conference in Palmerston North in late September 1998 highlighted both the considerable success that Maori medium programs have experienced in a short period of time but also some unresolved problematic issues. Among these is wide range of opinion and program implementations with respect to when and how English (students’ L1) should be introduced into the program. The authors point out that some Maori educators want no English whatsoever from Grades 1 through 8. However, they also note that many educators “are now seeking assistance with English developments after finding that total immersion in Mäori followed by total submersion in English is not leading to the high levels of Secondary school success they hoped for” (1998: 14). They also note that educators in some programs are concerned that “English is sometimes being delayed to the point of never being done or being done very badly and children are exited to all English Secondary programmes quite lost” (1998: 17). They recommend that English literacy should be introduced somewhere between grades 3 and 5 and that a Transition program to prepare students for the challenges of English-medium secondary school be implemented.

Both of these suggestions appear reasonable to me. When the introduction of English is delayed until secondary school, a number of questions must be addressed: What are students reading in the later grades of elementary school? The amount of Maori literature is limited (although great strides have been made in developing material for the early grades). Are students reading in English despite having received minimal (or no) formal English literacy instruction, or are they reading very little in either Maori or English, compared to children in English programs? If they are not engaged in extended reading (and writing), this to me would represent a major gap in their educational experience.

Another issue concerns the need for extensive opportunities to write in a wide variety of genres if students are to develop coherent and powerful writing proficiencies. Corrective feedback and guidance from teachers are also crucial in this process. Writing expertise may be a central cognitive ability, as suggested by Cumming’s (1989) findings, but extensive reading and exposure to academic registers, in addition to authentic opportunities for use of these registers, are required to realize this expertise in any particular language. For example, if students are not reading extensively in English, it is doubtful that their ability to spell correctly in English will develop adequately (e.g. Krashen, 1993). It does not surprise me at all that students who have not been encouraged to read and write extensively in English during their elementary school years experience significant difficulties in English when they enter secondary school.

However, the concern among many Maori educators about the quality of the Maori language that students are learning is also legitimate. They are concerned that when English is introduced too early (i.e. prior to grade 8) there is extensive Anglicization of the language due to interference from English. Discussions in the Summer of 1999 (and subsequent correspondence) with Maori educators Toni Waho and Penny Poutu brought home to me the difficulties of developing what Toni Waho calls “real Maori and not a mish-mash of English and Maori” (personal communication, January 19, 2000). Similar concerns have been frequently expressed in the context of Welsh and Irish language revival efforts. Research on these issues is lacking and thus educators must carefully observe the outcomes of different program options in order to work towards optimal development of both languages. As Toni Waho observed “I believe we are only part way there on the journey to create the best solution for true high quality bilingualism” (personal correspondence, January 19, 2000).

In the context of programs that aim to develop a high degree of bilingualism and biliteracy in non-threatened languages, I feel more comfortable with a program that unambiguously embraces bilingualism and biliteracy and takes steps to develop both languages at an early age. The research of Cashion and Eagan (1990) in Canadian French immersion programs and of Verhoeven (1991a) among minority language students in the Netherlands shows that transfer across languages is two-way (from L1 to L2 and then back from L2 to L1) if the sociolinguistic and educational conditions are right. Furthermore, the possibilities for linguistic enrichment as a result of encouraging students to compare and contrast their languages and develop a critical language awareness can be pursued only if both languages are acknowledged in the program (see Chapter 10). There is nothing in either the threshold or interdependence hypotheses (see Chapter 7) that would support neglect of the majority language. In fact, the data reviewed in Chapter 7 suggest that both L1 literacy and knowledge of the L2 are important determinants of successful literacy development in L2. Development of academic knowledge and skills in the majority language will not “just take care of itself;” it requires explicit teaching with a focus on the genres, functions, and conventions of the language itself in the context of extensive reading and writing of the language (see Chapter 10).

This is in accord with Hornberger’s (1989) discussion of cross-lingual transfer in the development of biliteracy. She notes that “highly efficient reading/writing ability in L1 does not make up altogether for lack of knowledge of L2” (1989: 286). Furthermore, she emphasizes that “the findings that a stronger first language leads to a stronger second language do not necessarily imply that the first language must be fully developed before the second language is introduced. Rather the first language must not be abandoned before it is fully developed, whether the second language is introduced simultaneously or successively, early or late, in that process” (1989: 287). In short, some anxiety in relation to the strength of the majority language is certainly justified, but protection and development of the minority language can be better achieved by providing extensive and motivating opportunities for its oral and written use rather than focusing on erecting barricades against English.

The idea of bilingual education is that students can learn a subject in their native tongue, and then “transfer” their skills to English once they have gained English proficiency. Some bilingual theorists, like the linguist Jim Cummins, argue that children should not switch to English until they have attained academic mastery in their native tongue, which takes at least five to six years—a staggering idea given the speed with which young children attain verbal fluency. ... Students in bilingual classes study all their subjects—and often English, too—in their native tongue. (1999: 33)

In these three sentences the inaccuracies are legion. A trivial one is that I am not a linguist (my academic degrees are in the area of psychology). I have never specified that any particular time period is required to attain “academic mastery” in children’s native tongue—clearly academic development in L1 continues for as long as there are opportunities for engagement with academic language in school or outside school. For English-L1 speakers in North America, academic development in L1 will continue throughout schooling and for many of us throughout our lifetimes. For speakers of minority languages, academic development will continue for as long as the school or home provides opportunities and encouragement for development to continue. There is no 5-6 year “cut-off” point. What I have said, and what the author and his informants have obviously confused, is that it typically takes at least 5 years for ELL students to catch up academically to their native-speaking peers in L2 (English).

Another confusion is the assertion that the speed with which “young children attain verbal fluency” (in English, presumably) implies that language learning occurs rapidly and therefore there is no need for bilingual education. Or if there is bilingual education, transition to an all-English program should occur as soon as students have attained “verbal fluency.” Traub clearly has no conception of the distinction between conversational and academic aspects of language proficiency nor of the relevance of this distinction for understanding patterns of achievement among bilingual students (see Chapters 3-6).

Traub also asserts that instruction in bilingual programs is in L1-only, with minimal exposure to English until students are transitioned to English programs after 5-6 years. In fact, the vast majority of bilingual programs spend only a small proportion of instruction through the L1 (Wong Fillmore & Valadez, 1996). Traub appears to believe that the “L1-only” pattern is what I have advocated. This is absolutely incorrect. What the research that I and many others have carried out does show is that there is a strong correlation between the attainment of literacy in the bilingual student’s two languages. Those who have strong L1 academic and conceptual skills when they start learning English tend to attain higher levels of English academic skills. However, as noted above, access to comprehensible input in English, and opportunities to use oral and written English powerfully, are also crucial. The strong L1-L2 relationship (see Chapter 7) certainly does not mean that English-medium academic instruction should be withheld from bilingual/ELL children for at least five years. I believe, and have strenuously argued, that a bilingual program should be fully bilingual with a strong English language arts (reading and writing) program together with a strong L1 (e.g. Spanish) language arts program. There is no set formula as to how much of each language should be used at particular grade levels (research suggests that a variety of options is possible and the sociolinguistic context with respect to the status of, and students’ exposure to, each language will be a major consideration—see Chapters 7 and 8). Similarly, there is no formula as to which language reading should be introduced in during the early grades. My personal belief is that there are significant advantages in aiming to have children reading and writing (or beginning to read and write) in both languages by at least grade 2.

The Ides of March, 2000

Julius Caesar ignored the warning to “beware the Ides of March” to his cost, but for advocates of bilingual education two millennia later the Ides of March brought mixed messages. An article in The Economist (March 11-17, 2000) by John Micklethwait warned us that the “One-Stop Disinformation” service operated by opponents of bilingual education in the United States was still functioning very smoothly, as was also evident in Traub’s (1999) article ten months previously. During the same week, however, U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley, delivered a speech in which he strongly endorsed dual language programs aimed at developing full biliteracy among Latino/Latina and other students. He advocated that these programs should be quadrupled in the next five years. Take your pick from two diametrically opposed versions of reality.

 

Richard W. Riley (U.S. Secretary of Education):

First, I want to address the promise of language. For many, language is at the core of the Latino experience in this country, and it must be at the center of future opportunities for this community and for this nation. Parents and educators want all children to learn English because it is essential for success. And we also know how valuable two languages can be.

It is high time we begin to treat language skills as the asset they are, particularly in this global economy. Anything that encourages a person to know more than one language is positive—and should be treated as such. ... Unfortunately, some have viewed those who use a foreign language with suspicion and their language itself as a barrier to success. In some places, even the idea of “bilingual education” is controversial. It shouldn’t be. ...

Proficiency in English and one other language is something that we need to encourage among all young people. That is why I am delighted to see and highlight the growth and promise of so many dual-language bilingual programs across the country. They are challenging young people with high standards, high expectations, and curriculum in two languages. ...

Our nation needs to encourage more of these kinds of learning opportunities, in many different languages. That is why I am challenging our nation to increase the number of dual-language schools to at least 1,000 over the next five years, and with strong federal, state and local support we can have many more. (2000: 3-4)

John Micklethwait (The Economist, March 11-17)

New York is the next target for Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley millionaire who was the guiding force behind California’s Proposition 227. This measure replaced bilingual education, which around half the students with poor English were receiving, with crash courses in English. Bilingual education, originally invented as a way to steer funds to poor people in the southwest, has always produced disappointing results. It is now merely a sop to the teachers’ unions. Since bilingual education was banned in California about a year ago, test scores have risen. Even more tellingly, the students who were put on the English crash course or into mainstream classes are well ahead of those still stuck in bilingual ones (which a few students have waivers to continue). (2000:15) <2>

Out of the six sentences in this passage, the first is true; the other five are blatantly false. Going through them in order:

·        Prior to Proposition 227, only 30% of English language learners in California were in any form of bilingual program and less than 20% were in classes taught by a credentialed bilingual teacher.

·        Bilingual education was not originally “invented” in the United States—these programs have been operating since Greek and Roman times. Furthermore, the spread of these programs in countries around the world, including the spread of dual language programs in the United States, is hardly consistent with the claim that they have “always produced disappointing results” (see Baker & Prys Jones, 1998).

·        Contrary to the claim that bilingual education is a “sop” to teachers’ unions, teachers unions in California and elsewhere have tended to be very ambivalent about bilingual education for the simple reason that only a small fraction of their members are in fact bilingual teachers.

·        The implication that test scores rose in California as a result of the banning of bilingual education is without foundation. Changes in scores occurred in districts in ways that appeared to be completely unrelated to what kind of program a district implemented (Hakuta, 1999).

·        There is absolutely no data to support the claim that students put into all-English classes made better progress than those who were “still stuck in bilingual ones” (Hakuta, 1999).

The remainder of this volume addresses these issues in much more depth. At this juncture, it is sufficient to note that Micklethwait’s sketch of bilingual education would receive an “F” grade in any assessment of journalistic competence or responsibility. He has taken the views of Ron Unz, or one of his associates, and has reported them as “fact” rather than attributing them as the particular perspective of his source (e.g. “Ron Unz claims that bilingual education has always produced disappointing results, etc.). He has obviously not checked out any of the data that might back up his claims nor even bothered to note that there is any alternative viewpoints on these data other than those he reports as “fact.” Even a five-minute excursion into the Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998) or into journalist James Crawford’s web site on Language Policy (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford), would have indicated to him that the vast majority of academic analysis of bilingual education is at variance with what he reports as undisputed fact. In this regard, the gaps in his coverage unfortunately appear typical of journalistic efforts in this area (see Crawford, 1998, for analysis of media coverage of Proposition 227).
Opponents of bilingual education in the United States have consistently distorted its rationale—the example of Traub’s and Micklethwait’s articles could be multiplied thousands of times (see Crawford, 1998; McQuillan and Tse, 1996). However, advocates of bilingual education have also sometimes failed to understand what is central and what is peripheral in bilingual programs. This was brought home to me when I made a presentation at a conference on “Reading and the English Language Learner” in Sacramento, California in March, 1998. The conference atmosphere was tense because of the assault on bilingual education in the media in the lead-up the Proposition 227 referendum to be held in June of that year. Many of the educators present were also strong believers in whole-language approaches to reading which were now being castigated by the State Board of Education as the cause of the state’s poor academic showing in nationwide tests. Intensive and sustained phonics instruction was seen as the savior of the next generation. The “buzzword” of the conference was that we should adopt a “balanced” approach to reading instruction—a sentiment few could disagree with—phonics and whole-language advocates alike claimed that their approach was “balanced.”

In my presentation, I tried to make essentially the two points sketched above (a variety of options is possible regarding [a] the amount of time each language should be used instructionally and [b] the language in which reading should be introduced). These issues seemed to me to be “surface structure” considerations that were less fundamental than “deep structure” issues related to the ways in which identities were being negotiated in classroom interactions.

The response from some advocates of bilingual education was less than enthusiastic. I was seen as “selling out” to the new status quo. Many in the audience had spent 20+ years passionately defending bilingual education against its critics and arguing for the importance of strongly developing students’ L1. My work had served a useful role in this battle (e.g. Cummins, 1981a). Now I was perceived as saying that there is no “best” proportion of L1 instruction in the early grades and that it may not matter much whether reading is introduced in English or in students’ L1 (usually Spanish). Many advocates of bilingual education had interpreted my work as saying that we should strive for the maximum amount of L1 instruction in the early grades and that introducing reading in L1 was a crucial component of an effective program.

In discussion with some participants afterwards, I tried to point out that I had not in any sense changed my position or emphasis from when I first started writing about these issues in the late 1970s. I had always maintained that there should be a strong emphasis on maintaining and developing literacy in the L1. In most cases, it will make good sense to introduce reading in that language; Spanish, for example, has a more regular sound-symbol relationship than English and is the language Spanish-L1 speakers know better when they enter school, so it will make sense in most circumstances to use that as the language of initial reading instruction. However, the data show clearly that under some circumstances Spanish-L1 students can learn to read first in English or in both languages in quick succession, and reviews of the literature for more than 20 years have shown no clearcut or absolute superiority for introducing reading in L1 as compared to L2 (e.g. Cummins, 1979a; Engle, 1975; Fitzgerald, 1995; Wagner, 1998). To make initial literacy in the L1 central to the rationale for bilingual education placed the whole enterprise on very shaky empirical and theoretical grounds. Similarly, with respect to the amount of L1 instruction in the early grades, I suggested that there is no one “best” solution that applies across particular sociolinguistic contexts.

There seemed to me to be a danger of focusing predominantly on promoting L1 literacy in the early grades with some “oral ESL” accompaniment and then transitioning students in grades 2 or 3 into all-English programs with no ongoing academic support in the mainstream classes. Under these circumstances where there has been little focus on helping students transfer the language and literacy knowledge gained in L1 to L2, students are likely to flounder in an English-only program. This is particularly the case when students’ L1 literacy accomplishments are neither acknowledged nor further developed after transition to the “mainstream.” Rather than being suspicious of English and delaying its introduction, my belief is that we should encourage the development of biliteracy where students are writing bilingual books (according to well-established whole-language procedures), reading them with parents and peers, and generally augmenting their awareness of language and how it works. Strong and uncompromising promotion of L1 literacy is a crucial component of this approach but we should adopt a both/and rather than an either/or orientation to L1 and L2. When promoted together, the two languages enrich each other rather than subtracting from each other. We can promote critical language awareness among bilingual students by providing them with opportunities to carry out projects on language and its relation to their own lives. <3>

Conclusion

These illustrations of disputes, debates, and power struggles surrounding bilingual education could be multiplied many times over. Among the high-stakes issues whose specifics are beyond the scope of this volume are the following:

·        The intense public and policy debate in the Hong Kong context over the sequencing and intensity of Chinese- and English-medium instruction at elementary and secondary school levels (Johnson, 1997; Lin, 1997; Lin & Man, 1999);

·        Debates regarding the instructional uses of mother tongue, regional/national languages, and former colonial languages in many African societies and other post-colonial contexts (e.g. Dutcher, 1995; Obando, 1996, 1997; Bunyi, 1997; Williams, 1996);

·        Controversies surrounding bilingual education for Deaf children—specifically, the extent to which in the North American context, American Sign Language (ASL) should be used as a medium of instruction and the degree to which linguistic and conceptual transfer will occur from ASL to written English (Gibson, Small, & Mason, 1997; Mahshie, 1995; Mason, 1997; Meyer & Wells, 1996).

·        The implementation of bilingual education, and the proportion of L1 and L2 instruction, in a variety of indigenous contexts throughout the world; for example, in the territory of Nunavut in the Eastern Arctic in Canada (Arnaqaq, Pitsiulak, & Tompkins, 1999; McGregor, Pitsiulak, & O’Donoghue, 1999; O’Donoghue, 1998; Tompkins, 1998) or in Australian Aboriginal contexts (e.g. Devlin, 1997; Harris, 1990).

In all of these contexts (and clearly many more), the theoretical and empirical issues discussed in this volume intersect in complex ways. The controversies that characterize policy-making in contexts of linguistic diversity in education can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives; for example, with respect to how power is negotiated between dominant and subordinated groups, how “language proficiency” is conceptualized and assessed with high-stakes consequences for students and groups, the extent to which different languages of instruction are incorporated in school systems and the academic outcomes of different models, and the types of pedagogy that are appropriate to develop language skills and high levels of academic achievement in different sociolinguistic contexts. These issues have often been seen as relatively independent of each other, with the consequence that theoretical analyses and empirical research have remained locked within different disciplinary perspectives (e.g. sociology, linguistics, psychology, etc.)

My goal in this volume is to bring these perspectives together. Every interaction between teachers and students can be analyzed from multiple perspectives (how effective is it pedagogically, what conception of language is implicated in the instruction, what messages related to status and power are being communicated, etc.). The development of coherent policies and effective instructional practices requires that the theory and research be re-integrated rather than remain isolated in discipline-based chunks. Thus, although the topics discussed in the following chapters may initially appear quite distant from each other (e.g. the focus on power relations in Chapter 2, academic and language assessment in Chapter 6, and pedagogy in Chapter 10), they are fused in educational interactions. If theory is going to inform practice, and in turn be informed by practice, then the theory must search for coherence through an integrated interdisciplinary perspective that brings disparate fields into dialogue with each other.

1.  On a lighter note, Bryan MacMahon, in his wonderful autobiography, The Master, highlights the fact that the efforts of teachers will not always be appreciated by the wider society. Walking home from school on the day he retired after almost 50 years of teaching in rural Kerry, in Ireland, he had this encounter

A genteel old woman paused as she passed me by. “Was it all boys you taught up there in the school?” “Yes,” I said. “No girls?” “None.” “Ach, sure you’re only half a schoolmaster,” came her verdict on my lifetime of endeavor. (1992: 202)

2.          I became aware of John Micklethwait’s article as a result of a contribution by Gisele A. Waters, a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology at Auburn University, to the BILING listserve on March 26, 2000.