From Identity to Commodity: Ideologies of Spanish in Heritage Language Textbooks more

CRITICAL INQUIRY IN LANGUAGE STUDIES, 4(1), 35--65 Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. FROM IDENTITY TO COMMODITY: IDEOLOGIES OF SPANISH IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE TEXTBOOKS JENNIFER LEEMAN George Mason University, Fairax, Virginia GLENN MARTÍNEZ The University of Texas Pan American, Edinburg, Texas This article presents a critical analysis of language ideologies in the instructional discourse of Spanish for heritage speakers in the United States. We focus on the discourse present in prefaces and introductions to Spanish for heritage speakers textbooks published between 1970 and 2000. Whereas previous research on language ideologies in heritage language instruction has tended to focus on standard language ideologies, in our analysis we broaden the perspective to examine a wider range of ideologies that are part of an institutionally entrenched and socially pervasive politics of knowledge. Our analysis revealed that the intertextual discourse emerging in Spanish Heritage Language (SHL) textbooks correlates with broader ideologies regarding the societal role of the university, the positioning of ethnic studies programs, and the portrayal of cultural and linguistic diversity within academia and society at large. Further, mirroring the evolution of these ideologies, we found that discourses of textbooks from the 1970s and 1980s tend to underscore access, inclusion, and representation for minority Spanish language students while textbooks published in the 1990s emphasize economic competitiveness and globalization. In our discussion of this move from the portrayal of Spanish as linked to student identity to the commodification of linguistic and cultural diversity, we underscore the multifaceted and often contradictory implications of these two ideological constructions. Introduction Since the 1970s, when specialized courses for heritage speakers of Spanish began to gain scholarly attention among language teaching specialists (Valdés, 1981), the number of US universities offering such courses has vastly increased. As a result of this enhanced interest in Spanish Heritage Language (SHL) instruction, as well as predictions of continued growth in the percentAddress correspondence to Jennifer Leeman, Dept. of Modern and Classical Languages, Mail Stop 3E5, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: jleeman@gmu.edu 35 36 J. Leeman and G. Martínez age of the US populace that identifies as Latino and/or reports speaking Spanish at home, SHL textbooks are one of the fastest growing sectors of the language teaching materials market in the United States. The growth patterns in program and material development demand that scholars and educators undertake critical examinations of the ideologies of language embodied in SHL instructional practices and materials, as well of the relationships of these ideologies to the wider sociopolitical context. Previous research in the area of language ideologies in SHL has focused largely on standard language ideologies and the role of SHL instruction in the subordination of local or nonprestige varieties of Spanish. For example, Valdés’ (1981) seminal work critiqued the dominant pedagogical approaches of the time, which were designed to eradicate speakers’ home language varieties by replacing them with a more prestigious ‘standard’ variety. Valdés proposed an alternative curriculum based on a language arts model, one designed to expand speakers’ linguistic repertoires through the acquisition of additional varieties and registers. Since that time, researchers have discussed and debated the linguistic and sociolinguistic components that an expansionoriented SHL curriculum might entail (e.g., Carreira, 2000; BernalEnríquez & Hernández Chávez, 2003; Martínez, 2003; Villa, 1996) and they have critically interrogated the ideological underpinnings of expansion-oriented approaches (Leeman, 2005; Villa, 2002). This line of critical research has suggested that although the shift from eradication-oriented to expansion-oriented pedagogies on the surface appears to assign greater value to speakers’ home varieties, in many cases the subordination of such varieties to ‘standard’ Spanish has not been eliminated, but rather, it has simply been made less explicit. The present study builds on the previous research on ideologies in SHL instruction, but here we emphasize that pedagogical materials and practices are ideologically multifaceted, and that standard language ideologies coexist and interact with other kinds of ideologies, such as ideologies of national, racial, and ethnic identity, as well as ideologies about the meaning and value of diversity and the role of education (Bonfiglio, 2002; Fairclough, 1995; Joseph, 2004; Lippi-Green, 1997). Further, language ideologies are embedded within larger social management systems that buttress fundamental assumptions about the source and the substance of legitimate knowl- From Identity to Commodity 37 edge, and are thus closely tied to a more overarching politics of knowledge (Canagarajah, 2002; Mignolo, 2000). Thus, a critical analysis of language ideologies in SHL curricula and materials must also take these larger issues into account. In this article, we investigate ideologies of Spanish in SHL instruction and the interrelationship of these ideologies to the politics of knowledge, paying special attention to the portrayal of the connection between Spanish and Latino identity, and to the reasons given for valuing and/or studying Spanish. We are particularly interested in the evolution of the valorization of Spanish from the 1970s to the end of the twentieth century, as well as the interaction between ideologies about Spanish and changing ideologies regarding the societal role of the university, the positioning of ethnic studies programs both inside and outside the university, and the portrayal of cultural and linguistic diversity within academia and society at large. Because critical educators have long recognized the status of textbooks as cultural artifacts that both embody particular ideologies of knowledge and at the same time reify specific types of knowledge (Apple, 1985; Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991; De Castell, Luke, & Luke, 1989), we analyze constructions of Spanish instantiated in college level SHL textbooks. We focus our analysis on textbook titles and prefaces, as these elements constitute a particular kind of discourse, one that frames the entire teaching and learning endeavor. As we will show, there has been a shift in SHL from the construction of Spanish as rooted in the local community and linked to students’ identity, towards its construction as a commodity for economic competitiveness in a globalized world. In addition, we argue that there has been a shift in the construction of latinidad from something that heritage speakers carry within, to something acquired from without, and an evolution away from the representation of Latin America as a source of student identity, and towards a portrayal of the Spanish-speaking world as a site where students can deploy their commodified language skills. Methodology Our goal was to identify ideologies about Spanish embedded in SHL texts, as well as the relationship of these ideologies to the 38 J. Leeman and G. Martínez sociopolitical and ideological context surrounding Spanish and Spanish speakers in the United States. In addition to providing an introduction to the format of the textbook, prefaces outline and motivate the particular learning goals of the textbook, and they justify the value of the subject matter covered. It is important to recognize that the pedagogical content of a given textbook may not match what is set forth in the preface; instead, the preface serves to highlight what the author or publisher wants to foreground, or what she thinks will make the book attractive to instructors and students. In this way, prefaces transmit subtle messages to students (and instructors) about the value of Spanish, as well as about language and education more generally. Titles and prefaces thus embody a particular kind of discourse that not only reflects ideologies of Spanish but that also help constitute them. The analysis of textbook prefaces can thus provide insights into ideologies about Spanish and language, as well as about education more generally, and a historical analysis can shed light on the ways that such discourses unfold over time. In this study, because we are interested in examining discourses about Spanish, rather than pedagogical methods or activities, we limit our analysis to the titles and prefaces. We want to stress that our goal is not to assess the teaching methodologies of the texts nor to critique the ideological positioning of individual textbooks. Instead, our goal is to explore the discourse about Spanish being produced across SHL texts and to analyze the different ideological orientations towards Spanish, heritage speakers, and latinidad. In order to investigate the relationship of this discourse to constructions of ethnicity, diversity, and education, as well as the broader politics of knowledge, we ground our analysis of SHL textbooks in the critical examination of funding patterns in academia (Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997; Yúdice, 2003b), genealogies of knowledge in area and ethnic studies (Mignolo, 2000, 2003; Poblete, 2003), the construction of diversity in corporate and academic arenas (Dávila, 2001; Heller, 2003; Urciuoli, 2003), and the effects of globalization on ideologies of language and language teaching (Block & Cameron, 2002; Canagarajah, 2005; Mar-Molinero, 2006). For our analysis, we collected a corpus of SHL university-level textbooks published in the US between 1970 and 2000. Because a preliminary analysis revealed that revised editions did not vary From Identity to Commodity 39 TABLE 1 Title and Year of First Edition Español para el bilingüe: A reading/writing/speaking text (1972) Español escrito: Curso para hispanohablantes bilingües (1977) Español: Lo esencial para el bilingüe (1977) Mejora tu español (1979) Nuestro Español: Curso para estudiantes bilingües (1981) La lengua que heredamos: Curso de español para bilingües (1986) Español para el hispanohablante en los Estados Unidos (1987) Jauja: Método integral de español para bilingües (1987) ¡Ahora sí! Expresión comunicativa para hispanohablantes (1995) Mundo 21 (1995)1 Entre mundos: An integrated approach for the native speaker (1996) Nuevos mundos: Curso de español para estudiantes bilingües (1999) greatly from one edition to the next, and because titles are not generally changed, we decided that in order to maintain uniformity in our analysis, we would include only first editions. After eliminating revised editions, we analyzed the titles and prefaces of the remaining 12 textbooks (see Table 1). These included general prefaces, as well as prefaces directed specifically to instructors and/or students. From Area to Ethnic Studies Given that the creation of SHL courses and programs was closely tied to student civil rights movements and the development of Chicano and Puerto Rican studies programs, it is worthwhile to discuss the sociopolitical context of these movements. In particular, we examine the ideological orientation of these Chicano and Puerto Rican studies, highlighting the contrast between such programs and the existing area studies programs which had begun to appear on US campuses shortly after WWII. The appearance of area studies programs can be seen as a response to the political, technological, and military rise of the Soviet Bloc. In that period, the US government was increasingly 1 The preface of Mundo 21 states that it is designed for both heritage and L2 students. 40 J. Leeman and G. Martínez interested in developing and leveraging university resources in order to contain Soviet expansion and to safeguard US interests, both by preparing personnel with necessary language skills and area knowledge to curtail the spread of communism, and by bolstering the US in scientific competition with the USSR (Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997). In the 1960s, in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis, Latin America became an important focus of government initiatives (US Department of Education, a). The flow of federal dollars into scientific and medical research and development both strengthened US industry and consolidated the ideological construction of the US as a primary producer of scientific knowledge, while Title VI funding to Latin American studies programs tended to privilege US-based expertise about Latin America, rather than localized knowledge produced within Latin America (Mignolo, 2003). As the result of the perception of a growing communist threat to US national and business interests emanating from south of the US-Mexico border, and of a need for US personnel with expertise in Latin American history, culture, and language, policymakers and funding organizations increasingly stressed the importance of university-level foreign language education. Spanish departments were able to cash in on some of this increased emphasis on Latin America by way of new graduate student fellowships provided for by the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) program, as well as university dollars targeted towards research on Latin America. However, although there was also increased government funding targeted towards improving language pedagogy, and an increased university emphasis on language learning, this emphasis was primarily on foreign language learning by native English speakers, and on the learning of English by speakers of other languages, rather than on developing the non-English language skills of multilingual members of the US populace. Ethnic studies programs emerged at the height of, and in response to, the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Chicanos in the Southwest and Puerto Ricans in New York and Chicago, among others, called for economic, legal, and social justice for marginalized groups. The movements that had initiated among field laborers and factory workers quickly extended to stu- From Identity to Commodity 41 dents who demanded equal educational opportunity and access in the face of exclusionary school policies. These demands culminated in events such as the Los Angeles walkouts in 1968 and the City University of New York (CUNY) student strike in 1969. Activists contended that equal educational access and opportunity required the creation of curricular spaces in which to recognize and explore the cultural and historical roots of Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and other marginalized groups. The inextricable connection between civil rights, social justice, educational access, and curricular inclusion was made explicit in El Plan de Santa Barbara of 1969 (Rosales, 1996), which calls on the university to be more representative of, and more responsive to, all segments of society. The demands of student civil rights activists led to the establishment of Chicano and Puerto Rican studies programs, as well as African American and Women’s studies programs, within US universities. These ethnic studies programs represented significant ideological challenges to the earlier area studies paradigm which, as a result of their ability to channel both economic as well as ideological resources, had played a pivotal role in shaping the value assigned to knowledge produced in Latin America, in Spanish, and by Latinos. In stark contrast to the area studies focus on foreign policy and quelling the perceived communist threat, the new ethnic studies programs focused on inclusion and representation, and saw the struggle for social justice, as well as the forging of relationships between the university and the community, as crucial elements of their mandate. Further, they highlighted alternative epistemologies by stressing the historical and cultural links between US Latinos and Latin America, and calling for the incorporation of a broader knowledge base within academia. For example, Chicano students recentered their civil rights movement along the central axis of the Chicano indigenous heritage and its claim to the mythic province of Aztlán, adopting the very term in its own nomenclature: El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, or MEChA. Thus, the demands for, and the creation of, ethnic studies programs linked the broader goal of political organization and activism of Latinos to greater Latino access to the university as well as to a reconfiguration of the curriculum to include the knowledge and experience of Latinos. The inclusion 42 J. Leeman and G. Martínez of marginalized students’ knowledge and experience in the curriculum was deemed essential, not just as a step towards equal representation in the institution, but also as a means of ensuring Latino students’ academic success.2 In turn, inclusion and academic success were seen as steps towards the greater objective of the advancement of Latino communities outside of academia. In sum, the civil rights movements and Latino student movements shared a commitment to social justice and called for both greater access to universities for Latino students and greater aperture for Latino issues within the curriculum. The development and expansion of ethnic studies programs, and the ideological importance of Spanish in Latino student movements, had a direct impact on Spanish departments. Whereas MeChA defined Aztlán as the focal point of an emerging cultural nationalism and adopted Spanish as the symbolic language that would substantiate and ratify membership in this new imagined community (Limón, 1982), for Puerto Rican nationalists, Spanish was symbolic of resistance to US colonialism. The adoption of Spanish as the emblematic language of solidarity resulted in greater numbers of Latino students seeking academic coursework in the language of the movimiento. Although US Latino cultural production generally was not integrated into upper division and graduate level Spanish Department curricula (Poblete, 2003; Yúdice, 2003a), it was in the context of these new Chicano and Puerto Rican studies programs, the general trend towards a more inclusive university and the democratization of learning and knowledge production, that some of the first SHL programs were created (Valdés, 1981). Given the general ‘‘purging [of] politics from American curriculum design’’ (Herman, 2002, p. 3), the political grounding of early SHL programs is particularly noteworthy. We now turn to the analysis of the textbooks from this period, and to the illustration of how they reflect the discourses of access, inclusion, and the link between Spanish language and Latino identity. 2 Students and educators who argued for the inclusion of marginalized groups’ points of view also sought to broaden the canon more generally. They called for all students, not just minorities, to be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints in both survey courses and general education requirements. From Identity to Commodity 43 Access, Inclusion, and Identity: SHL 1970–1990 Despite the simultaneity of Puerto Rican and Chicano student movements and civil rights struggles, early SHL textbooks were clearly targeted towards the latter group. In fact, many textbooks explicitly identified the Chicano student as the primary beneficiary of the teaching materials presented, and the Southwest as the primary educational context in which they would be utilized. For example, the introduction to Nuestro Español states that: ‘‘Universities in the south-western United States seen from the point of view of the linguistic characteristics of their students are unique to say the least. In most, a significant portion are bilingual speakers of Spanish and English’’ (1981, p. xv). The usefulness of some of these texts to students outside of the Southwest, when mentioned, is represented as secondary. For example, the introduction to Jauja states: ‘‘queremos añadir que cuando hablamos de integración, nos referimos al binomio cultural y lingüístico chicano. Sin embargo, creemos que esto incluye también las realidades culturales y lingüísticas de otros sectores hispanos de los Estados Unidos como variantes de una metacultura’’ [‘‘: : : we would add that when we say integration, we are referring to the cultural and linguistic binomial of the Chicano. However, we believe that this also includes the cultural and linguistic realities of other Hispanic groups in the US as a variant of a meta-culture’’] (1987, p. xvi). Despite the imagining of a meta-culture uniting various Latino groups, the textbooks of this early period stress the importance of integrating students’ particular experiences and knowledges within the curriculum, coalescing with the emphasis on access and inclusion emerging from the student and civil rights movements. There is a focus on, and an elevation of, local community knowledge with Spanish both discursively located in the students’ community and portrayed as a crucial to a community membership. This emphasis on the local community can be seen in Examples 1–4. 1. ‘‘Localización de las lecturas en la realidad histórica de los alumnos’’ [‘‘Readings situated in the historical reality of students’’] (Jauja, 1987, p. xv). 44 J. Leeman and G. Martínez 2. ‘‘el método integral : : : integra al hablante en su comunidad, intensificando su pertenencia al grupo’’ [‘‘the whole method : : : integrates the speaker in her community, intensifying the sense of group belonging’’] (Jauja, 1987, p. xvi). 3. ‘‘se han incluido tambien selecciones cubanas, puertorriqueñas e hispanoamericanas de autores que han tenido experiencias vitales en los Estados Unidos. Estas selecciones pueden ser usadas de acuerdo con las características culturales específicas del alumnado’’ [‘‘[Reading] selections from Cubans, Puerto Ricans and other Latin American who have had lived experiences in the US have also been included. These selections may be used according to the specific cultural characteristics of students’’] (Jauja, 1987, p. xvi). 4. ‘‘the Mexican American, the Puerto Rican, or the Cuban American whose mother tongue, Spanish, is preserved in family and community contacts’’ (Nuestro Español, 1981, p. xv). By situating the reading selections in the historical realities of students (Example 1), Jauja not only recognizes local knowledge as valuable to the curricular objectives of the classroom, but also constitutes it as the foundation of effective pedagogy. Furthermore, in Example 2, we see that this pedagogy is premised on the concept not only that Spanish is key for integration in the community, but that the promotion of students’ sense of belonging in the community is an important pedagogical goal. The matching of pedagogical materials to students’ culture is stressed in Example 3. Example 4, by proclaiming Spanish as the students’ (singular) mother tongue, and by locating Spanish in the family and the community, firmly links Spanish to Latino identity and forefronts the local. Thus, in these examples, we see students’ life experience and knowledge brought from the margins to the center of the SHL curriculum. The centering of local knowledge in the SHL textbooks also has implications for the view of language presented to students. Spanish is discursively connected to inheritance, linking it not only to local community knowledge but specifically to the family. We see this tendency in several textbook titles such as La lengua que heredamos and Nuestro Español, which highlight an ancestral link to the Spanish language. In Example 5, from Español para el From Identity to Commodity 45 bilingüe, we see the family connection to Spanish explicitly identified: 5. ‘‘La gran comunidad hispana de nuestro país goza del don de ser bilingüe y de llevar la valiosa herencia de la raza y de la lengua que nos ligan fraternalmente a la América Latina’’ [‘‘The great Hispanic community of our nation has the gift of being bilingual and of carrying the rich inheritance/heritage of ethnicity and language that fraternally binds us to Latin America’’] (Español para el bilingüe, 1972, p. iii). The metaphorical use of the verb ‘‘llevar’’ (‘to carry’) represents culture and (Spanish) language as natural to, and inseparable from, ‘‘la gran comunidad hispana’’ (the greater Hispanic community), while the use of the word ‘‘herencia’’ (‘heritage/ inheritance’), anchors this relationship in the past. Within the student civil rights movement, the connection to historical claims substantiated the demands for social justice. The adverb ‘‘fraternalmente’’ (‘fraternally’), furthermore, imagines familial bonds that unite US Latinos to Latin America. Importantly, this family connection between US Latino community and Latin America is not hierarchical, in that it does not subordinate the former to the latter, but instead positions the two as equal ‘siblings’ who share a common inheritance. Identity and belonging, signaled in part via reference to community and family, are recurrent themes in the textbooks of the 1970s and 1980s. The use of the first-person plural, such as in the textbook titles Nuestro Español and La lengua que heredamos, and the phrase ‘‘nuestro país’’ (‘our country’) (Example 5), serve as a discursive strategy that includes the student within an imagined Spanish-speaking community. Example 6 also highlights this progressive sense of belonging meant to emerge throughout the instructional program. 6. ‘‘El estudiante bilingüe llega a la clase con el bagaje linguístico contemporáneo que, al presentárselo de una manera formal, le hace entrar progresivamente en su rica tradición literaria y adentrarse en su tradición linguística’’ [‘‘The student comes to the classroom with a contemporary linguistic 46 J. Leeman and G. Martínez baggage which, when presented formally, allows her to progressively enter her rich literary tradition and go deeper in her linguistic tradition’’] (Jauja, 1987, p. xvi). It is possible to interpret these first person plurals as reflections of burgeoning Chicano and Latino nationalisms or as a reaction to the common portrayal of peninsular varieties of Spanish as superior to the varieties spoken in the Americas. We did not find explicit references to the privileging of Spain in the Spanish curriculum, and thus cannot make strong claims in this regard. Nonetheless, we do know that Spanish departments of the period did tend to emphasize Spanish cultural production, and linguistic varieties spoken in Spain (García, 1993). Thus ‘‘nuestro español’’ may also be alluding to the variety of Spanish being taught: an American, rather than a peninsular one. The inclusion of students via the use of first person plurals shows interesting parallels to what Dávila (2001) has documented in Spanish language advertisements directed to US Latinos. Specifically, she interprets the use of these forms as a way of both indexing cultural pride and signaling membership in an imagined Latino community. However, Dávila also points out that phrases such as ‘‘nuestra cocina’’ (‘our cooking’) and ‘‘nuestros valores’’ (‘our values’) tend to represent Latino identity as ‘‘a finished identity and an inclusive whole,’’ one often based on nostalgic linkages to Latin America (Dávila 2001, p. 101). So too, the use of first person plurals in SHL textbooks indexes community knowledge, Latino identity, and cultural belonging while simultaneously imagining a unitary sociocultural context and highlighting the historical and the traditional. Because Spanish is ideologically linked to Latino identity, the explicit definition of the target student audience as Latino (or Chicano), contributes to the ratification of students as legitimate speakers of Spanish. We see this recognition of students as Spanish-speakers in the numerous references to student ‘ownership’ of language, for example, in 6 above, where the ownership of literary and linguistic traditions precedes instructional content and in SHL textbook titles such as Nuestro Español and La lengua que heredamos, where ownership is linked to community membership and inheritance. The metaphor of language ownership can also be seen in Examples 7–9. From Identity to Commodity 47 7. ‘‘: : : interesar a tales estudiantes en un adentramiento más profundo en su idioma’’ [‘‘: : : to interest such students in a deeper penetration of their own language’’] (Jauja, 1987, p. xv). 8. ‘‘[: : : ] how to write and use correctly their own language’’ (Español para el hispanohablante en los Estados Unidos, 1987, p. xiii). 9. ‘‘: : : una de las lenguas más bellas y musicales del mundo, que pronto será aún más suya’’ [‘‘: : : one of the most beautiful and musical languages of the world, which will soon be even more yours’’] (Español: Lo esencial para el bilingüe, 1977, p. IV). 10. ‘‘[: : : ] su personalidad se enriquecerá con una nueva dimensión: la de dominar, totalmente, el propio idioma’’ [‘‘: : : your personality will be enriched by a new dimension: that of totally knowing your own language’’] (Español: Lo esencial para el bilingüe, 1977, p. IV). Although all of these examples construct Spanish as ‘belonging’ to the students, several of them also reflect a belief in a single ‘correct’ form of expression. Indeed, the fact that SHL textbooks of this period echo the discourses of inclusion of the civil rights and student movements does not mean that all students’ language varieties are embraced. The recognition of students as legitimate native speakers of Spanish is not accompanied by a rejection of the linguistic hierarchies of standard language ideologies, nor of the sociopolitical hierarchies they mirror (cf. Milroy & Milroy, 1999). On the contrary, ownership only becomes valued and validated when students adhere to monolingual Spanish norms. Many of these texts explicitly seek to eradicate the ‘substandard’ Spanish spoken by students and to replace it with a ‘superior’ ‘standard’ variety, and thus direct students not to use specific linguistic forms that they may have learned at home or in their communities (Valdés, 1981). The presumed inferiority of the Spanish spoken by students is abundantly clear in the title Mejora tu español. With the uneasy cooccurrence of the devaluation of ‘nonstandard’ language and the recognition of students’ ownership of Spanish, SHL students are portrayed as speaking an impoverished version of their own language. In the ‘deficit model’ of linguistic 48 J. Leeman and G. Martínez variation that this portrayal reflects, the goal is not to improve attitudes regarding the Spanish that students speak, and certainly not to critically examine its subordination, but rather, to take students’ particular circumstances into account in order to better teach them an ideologically elevated variety of Spanish. We see this conception of students’ Spanish as deficient, for example, in Example 11: 11. The native speaker of Spanish has heretofore been denied the opportunity [of standardizing his language], or it has been much diminished. The most important years of his education—the first six years of his life—have been ignored, and he has been forced to begin again. Rather than standardizing, expanding, and refining his native language, his teachers seem bent on destroying it (Español para el bilingüe, 1972, p. v). Here, there is a condemnation of the failure of educational policy-makers to afford Spanish-speaking students’ the opportunity to learn a ‘standard’ or ‘refined’ variety of Spanish. Nonetheless, despite the perceived underdeveloped nature of their linguistic ability, SHL students, and by extension, US Latinos more generally, are constructed as owners of Spanish, and they are thus afforded certain legitimacy and authority. As we have shown, the intertextual discourse emerging from SHL textbooks published in the 1970s and 1980s emphasizes localized knowledge, inheritance, and student ownership of language. These emphases converge on an ideology of heritage language teaching informed by the fundamental notions of access, inclusion, and social justice that were central parameters of the student and civil rights movements. Because all discourses are multifaceted, however, it is important to point out the subtle nuances and ideological implications of these foci. Even while these early textbooks foreground the local through a revalorization of community and family knowledge, inheritance, and ownership, they also may contribute to what Aparicio (2000) calls ‘‘linguistic dispossession,’’ or the ideological and material conditions that lead to the subordination of Spanish to English and that promote language shift among speakers of Spanish. Citing Bourdieu’s (1991, p. 12) definition of linguistic habitus as ‘‘ ‘a From Identity to Commodity 49 set of dispositions’ that ‘generate practices, perceptions, and attitudes’ and that are inculcated, structured, durable, generative, and transposable,’ ’’ Aparicio maintains that school systems ‘‘domesticate Spanish and displace it onto the boundaries of family life’’ (Aparicio, 2000, p. 254), thus denying its validity as a public language. We argue, then, that even as early SHL texts attempt to create a more inclusive educational space where the voices of minority language students can be heard, and where their experiences can be brought in from the margins, the emphasis on family, inheritance, and identity bound Spanish within the confines of the home. Rather than challenging the hegemonic status of English as the only legitimate public language, these textbooks construct Spanish as a private language associated with ethnic identity and reaffirm its erasure from the public sphere. As Schmidt (2000, 2002) has shown, the negation of a public role for minority languages serves to discursively depoliticize language struggles at the same time that it racializes speakers. Thus, these texts seem to embody conflicting ideologies and contradictory political positions: on one hand they echo political demands for greater inclusion and representation of Latinos within and outside academia, while on the other hand they are complicit in the denial of the public and political nature of Latino language. Economic Competitiveness, Globalization, and Commodified Diversity In the 1980s and 1990s, globalization, seismic shifts in the international geopolitical arena, and the changing sociopolitical landscape of the US had important consequences for academia. Whether or not globalization should be considered a new phenomenon is still hotly debated, but a consensus does exist that recent decades have seen an increase in, and an intensification of, international exchange and management of goods, information, finance, communication, and culture, as well as in the international migration of people (Block & Cameron, 2002). Globalization is often portrayed as permitting unrestricted relationships and movement among autonomous communities (Canagarajah, 2005). However, as Canagarajah points out, with globalization, 50 J. Leeman and G. Martínez information does not flow equally in all directions. Instead, a few communities are dominant in the spread and imposition of knowledges. Moreover, the local is frequently ‘‘short-changed’’ in favor of the global (Canagarajah, 2005, p. xiv). Regardless of whether globalization is seen in a positive or a negative light, there is a growing sense that individuals, and students in particular, need to ‘be prepared’ for life, and particularly for professional life, in what is often referred to as ‘‘the global era.’’ University administrators and students alike increasingly see undergraduate education as a type of job-training, or at minimum, a means to improve job prospects. Part of this preparation is linguistic, as the post-industrial economy, as well as the routinization and regulation of workplace interaction and service encounters, place a premium on ‘‘communication skills’’ and favor more uniform language, language practices, and interactional styles (Block & Cameron, 2002; Cameron, 2000a, 2000b). Thus, in the linguistic ideologies of globalization and the ‘‘new capitalism,’’ the spread and imposition of ‘‘world languages’’ such as English and Spanish is accompanied by an increased emphasis on uniformity within languages. At the same time, the upsurge in global commerce may increase the ‘value’ of second language knowledge (at least of some languages, in some contexts), which in turn can lead to the reconfiguration of languages from identity markers to job skills or economic commodities (Heller, 1999, 2003). In the case of Spanish, the Instituto Cervantes has attempted to capitalize on this commodification of Spanish in its promotion of Spanish language study (Mar-Molinero, in press). Along with globalization, the end of the Cold War led to a rearticulation of US national interest as primarily consisting of the promotion of economic competitiveness in an increasingly interdependent world economy. This concern for the ability of the US, or more precisely, of US corporations, to compete internationally is reflected in the development of federal programs designed specifically to foster international business education. Thus, in 1980, the US Department of Education added the Business and International Education Program, which was designed ‘‘to improve the academic teaching of the business curriculum and to conduct outreach activities that expand the capacity of the business community to engage in international economic activities’’ (US Department of Education, b). In 1988, shortly after From Identity to Commodity 51 the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new Title VI program was launched, providing funding for Centers for International Business Education.3 In the same period, universities formed new research and economic partnerships with US corporations, thus strengthening academia’s link to business interests, a trend which continued in the 1990s (Yúdice, 2003b). Despite the popularly accepted construction of the US as a multicultural and multiracial nation (Wolfe, 1998), the 1990s saw a growing hostility towards affirmative action (Yúdice, 2003b). As a result, the legitimating discourses of diversity in the university began to shed the earlier emphases on access and inclusion, which conceived of diversity as an issue of social and political justice, and moved towards a commodified portrayal of cultural and linguistic diversity within academia, one in which diversity is constructed as beneficial for the majority as well as the minority. On the one hand, the presence of minority students, and of minority knowledge, was seen as providing majority students valuable preparation for life in an increasingly diverse nation and an increasingly globalized economy. On the other hand, diversity was seen as offering a culturally vibrant university environment for all. Indeed, as Urciuoli (2003) has shown in her analysis of university mission statements and public relations materials, diversity has become a key commodity in the marketing of universities to potential students, faculty, and administrators. In this context, academic administrators can point to the existence of Latino studies programs as evidence of their universities’ commitment to diversity (Aparicio, 2003). Further, universities increasingly see their role as producers of qualified employees for US business, and academic discourses of diversity often echo corporate rhetoric. The forces of globalization—including interdependent economies, transnational production and service networks, the large scale movement of peoples, particularly from the Third World to the First— have led to the construction of diversity as a potentially lucrative 3 To some extent, the Federal Government continued to view language as important for defense needs, as evidenced by the creation of the National Security Education Program in 1991 (National Foreign Language Center). The federal interest in languages for security, rather than business, concerns, was primarily in languages spoken in the former Soviet Union. More recently, and especially since September 11, 2001, the US government has prioritized the study of Arabic and other languages spoken in the Middle East. 52 J. Leeman and G. Martínez resource useful for niche marketing within the US, for creating links between US business and international markets, and for the management of diverse workers both domestically and abroad (Yúdice, 2003b). As the back cover of a recent book on multicultural marketing counsels US businesses: ‘‘Embrace workforce diversity and maintain it through effective retention strategies. To become successful in the new, diverse America, your company must become the new America’’ (Schreiber, 2000). With corporations seeking a diverse trained workforce, and universities seeking to meet that demand, the justification for academic diversity changed. It is for this reason that Yúdice argues that efforts to increase the enrollment and graduation rates of Spanishspeaking students at a particular Miami university should be interpreted not so much as ‘‘an expression of concern for Latinos as an underprivileged minority but [as] a strategy for reinforcing the business and high tech sectors of the city’’ (2003b, p. 204). The linking of US minorities and international markets— in this case Latinos and Latin America—for US corporations is nowhere more apparent than in the programming and marketing campaigns of US Spanish-language media outlets (Dávila, 2001). As the number of Spanish-speaking people in the US increased and diversified with the arrival of ‘‘new Latinos,’’ and with Spanish-speaking populations living in what a few decades earlier were monolingual English-speaking areas, US business began to recognize the economic potential of a new national market. Spurred by the desire to constitute new consumers and capture their purchasing power, Spanish-language advertising quickly became one of the fastest growing segments of the US market. Although Spanish language media offer institutional support for a more public role for Spanish, the role of market factors in shaping this support inevitably contributes to the commodification of Spanish and speakers of Spanish (Cervantes-Rodriguez & Lutz, 2003, p. 539). United States universities were also eager to capitalize on what they perceived as an ‘exciting’ market and marketing tool. Spanish departments saw the new attention paid to Spanish, and to Latino-oriented topics, as a chance to enhance visibility among administrators and students. In particular, by promoting the construction of Spanish as a world language and a valuable job skill, Spanish departments have significantly increased enrollments. From Identity to Commodity 53 This trend has its roots in the early twentieth century, when proponents of the study of Spanish argued that US commercial interests in Latin America made Spanish particularly ‘‘practical’’ for students in the US, despite the historical lack of prestige accorded to Spanish language cultural production (Leeman, in press). With the reconceptualization of a university education in recent years as career preparation, any non-Latino undergraduates have come to see Spanish as an important type of economic and social capital which can enhance their professional opportunities in a broad range of fields (Pomerantz, 2002). Since the late 1980s, Spanish departments have also expanded their curricula to include heritage language classes and tracks, and in many cases these new offerings are both ideologically and bureaucratically separated from Chicano, Puerto Rican, or Latino studies programs. The growth of the Spanish-speaking population across the US, together with the trend towards media consolidation, brought a shift in Spanish-language advertising dollars from local radio and television stations to consolidated national and transnational networks (Dávila, 2001). Dávila shows that whereas local media outlets had tended to target a specific Latino subgroup (such as Mexicans and Chicanos in the Southwest, and Puerto Ricans and Nuyoricans in New York), national networks and advertising executives now sought to reach the entire US Latino market with unitary programming and advertising campaigns, thus contributing to the ideological construction of a homogenized pan-Latino identity. Further, because many programs and advertisements were produced for consumption in both Latin America and the US, and because advertising executives felt the need to justify Latino-oriented marketing campaigns by highlighting the cultural and linguistic Otherness of US Latinos, Spanish language media in the US located the essence of pan-Latino identity outside of US borders. As Dávila shows, this transnational construction and displacement of latinidad has the effect of privileging Latin Americans, and delegitimizing US Latinos, as the most ‘authentic’ bearers of Latino identity. In addition to negatively affecting the employment possibilities of US Latinos within the media and broadcasting industries, this hierarchy also has important linguistic consequences in Spanish language media: varieties perceived as geographically neutral (such as ‘‘Walter Cronkite 54 J. Leeman and G. Martínez Spanish’’) have been preferred (Dávila, 2001; Perissinotto, 2003). When regional varieties are allowed, they tend to be monolingual Latin American varieties, rather than US varieties influenced by English. Mirroring what happens in the media, US varieties of Spanish, as well as varieties spoken by less powerful social, ethnic and economic groups, are also disfavored in academia (García, 1993; Villa, 2002). In particular, US-born Latinos are often marginalized in (or excluded from) Spanish departments because they are considered to speak ‘bad’ Spanish or to come from the ‘wrong’ social class (Train, 2002; Valdés, 1998). The implicit or explicit goal generally is for students—both non-native speakers and heritage speakers alike—to become like monolingual speakers of an imagined standard variety of Spanish (Train, 2003). Whereas the formulation of Spanish as a ‘world language’ may have reduced the emphasis on specific national varieties, and Peninsular Spanish in particular, in US universities ‘standardness’ is still held up as the pedagogical objective. Although ‘standard’ Spanish is not (and cannot be) explicitly defined, standard language ideologies reify monolingual varieties and language practices. In this ‘‘ideologized monolingualism,’’ the promise of ‘standard’ Spanish is ‘‘to bestow membership in a global community organized around communicative efficiency’’ (Train, 2002, p. 9). In the next section, we discuss how these new tropes of diversity and globalization resonate in SHL textbooks of the 1990s. Spanish as a Commodity for Global Commerce: SHL 1990–2000 In the SHL textbooks of the 1990s, Spanish is represented as a language of the future, one that is valuable for professional success. Moreover, the ideological relationship of Spanish to the heritage language community has undergone significant modification: Spanish is no longer portrayed as grounded in the local community, but is instead represented as a world language. In this way, these texts participate in the ideological ‘‘disembedding’’ and ‘‘re-embedding’’ of linguistic and cultural forms which Coupland (2003) describes as typical of globalization. In the late twentieth century, we no longer find texts oriented towards a From Identity to Commodity 55 specific Latino subgroup or region of the US. Instead, the target audience is ‘‘hispanohablantes’’ (‘Spanish speakers’) (Ahora sí, 1995, p. xxi), ‘‘home speakers of Spanish’’ (Entre mundos, 1996, p. xi), and ‘‘Hispanic bilingual students who home language is Spanish but whose dominant and school language is English’’ (Nuevos mundos, 1999, p. v). This attempt to appeal to a broad swath of the US Latino population echoes the trend Dávila has documented in other Spanish language media in the US, which is not surprising, given the desire of textbook publishers (like other media companies) to market their products to the widest possible demographic. While these textbooks do acknowledge the existence of Latino subgroups, the commonalities of a pan-Latino identity overshadow the cultural particulars with the assumption that one SHL textbook fits all. The global emphasis of more recent SHL texts is immediately apparent in many of the titles, such as Entre mundos (‘between worlds’), Nuevos mundos (‘new worlds’), and Mundo 21 (‘twenty first world’). The theme of international travel also arises frequently. For example, in Example 12, travel serves as a metaphor for the acquisition of new knowledge and Spanish language literacy. 12. ‘‘Welcome to Nuevos Mundos where to read is to enter new worlds and where Spanish is your visa’’ (Nuevos mundos, 1999, p. ix). In Example 13, there is an implicit acknowledgement of Spanish as a global language, as well as of the compression of time and space associated with globalization (Coupland, 2003), which increases the likelihood of interaction with people from a variety of places. 13. ‘‘The purpose of expanding your bilingual repertoire and cultural horizons is to help you communicate more effectively, and with more confidence with others—be they from Spain, Latin America, or the United States’’ (Nuevos mundos, 1999, p. x). Example 13 also illustrates that the pedagogical goal of these textbooks is to facilitate participation in a global society and, 56 J. Leeman and G. Martínez among other things, help students to ‘‘develop the broadest possible world view’’ (Entre mundos, 1996, p. xi). Although there are occasional mentions of Spanish being used in students’ communities, these references are overshadowed by talk of Spanish as a language of ‘‘importancia mundial’’ (‘world importance’) (Ahora sí, 1995, p. xxiv). With this foregrounding, the global becomes a ‘‘stand in’’ (García Canclini, 2001, pp. 3–5) for the local, and the locus of enunciation of linguistic and cultural authority is placed outside US borders. As a result, students’ own local and family-centered experiences run the risk of again being pushed from the center to the margin. Among other possible foci, the international emphasis and the construction of globalization in these texts center almost exclusively on business concerns. The privileging of economic and professional domains can be seen in Examples 14 through 16. 14. ‘‘The presentation of real-world tasks similar to those required in various professions encourages students to imagine themselves in professional roles and provides realistic stimulating contexts for using their Spanish skills’’ (Entre mundos, 1996, p. xi). 15. ‘‘This exposure to and practice with more formal registers of Spanish will give you new abilities and confidence with the language, honing a very marketable skill which may come in handy in your chosen career or profession’’ (Nuevos mundos, 1999, p. x). 16. ‘‘[The] linguistic and communication skills they are developing through their study of Spanish will enhance their professional opportunities in the increasingly interdependent world community’’ (Entre Mundos, 1996, p. xi). Here, heritage speakers are encouraged to improve their Spanish and to expand their repertoires to include language ‘appropriate’ for professional domains in order to improve their job prospects. Such approaches tend to delegitimize local language practices by favoring monolingual non-US varieties as the most ‘appropriate,’ and by naturalizing this hierarchy and constructing it as a universal commonsense norm (Leeman, 2005). Further, the emphasis on ‘‘communicat[ing] more effectively’’ From Identity to Commodity 57 (Example 13) and developing communication and job ‘‘skills’’ (Examples 15 and 16), reinforces the ideology of language as commodity (cf. Cameron, 2000a), and stresses economic rewards as the primary motivation for language study. This commodification of Spanish as a marketable skill is consonant with Heller’s research on ideological constructions of French in Canada. Like the shift from the notion of French as a symbolic marker of Francophone ethnic identity to its construction as a skill that offers a competitive edge (Heller, 1999, 2003), these textbooks move away from representing Spanish as a community-based index of latinidad, portraying it instead as commodity. Crucially, Heller shows that once French is decoupled from Francophone identity, the benefits of French ability need not accrue exclusively to Francophones, but can be acquired by other ethnic groups. Pomerantz (2002) observed an analogous trend regarding Spanish among the undergraduates she interviewed at a prestigious US university: non-Latino students sought to gain a ‘competitive edge’ by learning Spanish and by constructing themselves as legitimate members of a Spanish-speaking community. Pomerantz highlights the contrast between this commodified view of Spanish knowledge for non-Latinos, and the broader societal construction of Spanish as a personal and educational liability for Latinos (cf. Leeman, 2004; May, 2001). In the SHL textbooks of the 1990s, we find a radical departure from the earlier constructions of students’ language ownership, a representation that afforded them linguistic legitimacy and authority. While SHL textbooks from the 1990s do not portray Spanish as an obstacle to Latino success, nor do they represent Spanish as ‘belonging’ to heritage students. With the deemphasizing of Spanish as a marker of ethnic identity linked to students’ ancestral past, Spanish is portrayed as a market skill up for grabs to all ethnic groups, rather than a cultural and linguistic birthright of Latinos per se. A noteworthy aspect of the ‘Spanish as commodity’ discourse in these textbooks is related to who the beneficiaries are of students’ commodified language skills. Together with the argument that knowledge of Spanish can contribute to students’ professional success, there also seems to be a desire to meet the needs of employers, as can be seen in Example 17: 58 J. Leeman and G. Martínez 17. ‘‘Cada vez hay mas trabajos que necesitan a personas bilingües que sepan hablar, leer y escribir correctamente el inglés y el español formal’’ [‘‘Everyday, there are more jobs that need bilingual personnel who can correctly speak, read, and write in English and in formal Spanish’’] (Entre mundos, 1996, p. xvi). This emphasis on the needs of employers resonates with the reconfiguration of the university mission to become a producer of employees for US businesses discussed in the previous section. The Spanish skills of the populace are portrayed not only as benefiting the individual, but also business interests, and even the nation as a whole, as is seen in Example 18: 18. ‘‘Clases y materiales especiales para hispanohablantes son necesari[os] no sólo para que los hispanohablantes se sientan suficientemente motivados para continuar sus estudios de la lengua, sino también para apoyar y desarollar uno de los recursos lingüísticos más importantes de los E.E.U.U.’’ [‘‘[SHL classes and materials are] necessary not only for Spanish speakers to feel sufficiently motivated to continue their studies of the language, but also to support and develop one of the most important linguistic resources of the US’’] (Ahora sí, 1995, p. xxi). This representation of Spanish as a national resource stands in stark contrast with the earlier student ownership metaphors. In an era in which US national interest is portrayed as depending on global economic competitiveness, and in which language is commodified as a tool for achieving this end, the language skills of the populace can be seen as a resource of the nation, one which the nation can deploy for economic advantage. As we have shown, the discourses emerging across SHL textbooks from the 1990s disembed Spanish and shortchange the local in favor of the global (cf. Canagarajah, 2005). The emphasis on Spanish as a world language, rather than a communitybased language, has the potential to contribute to the discursive foreignness of Spanish. This is particularly striking, given that it coincides with a period in which the number of US residents who report speaking Spanish at home grew dramatically. This discur- From Identity to Commodity 59 sive construction, combined with the loss of ownership discussed earlier, are implicated in the subordination of US varieties of Spanish to monolingual varieties spoken abroad. Because nonUS varieties are portrayed as more ‘‘appropriate’’ in professional contexts, the fact that SHL textbooks of the 1990s foreground business domains while constructing Spanish as a world language and stressing international communication further contributes to the privileging of a perceived ‘universal’ variety of Spanish at the expense of US varieties. Like the language ideologies of SHL textbooks of the 1970s and 1980s, those of the textbooks of the 1990s are also multifaceted. At the same time that the ties between Spanish and students’ families and communities are loosened, Spanish is reenvisioned as a public language. This is significant in a nation in which dominant ideologies have linked national identity to monolingualism in English and where concrete language policies have sometimes legally banished other languages from the public sphere (Pavlenko, 2002; Ricento, 2000; Schmidt, 2000). This imagining of a public role for Spanish may eventually contribute to its prestige and longevity in the US, although it is not clear that greater visibility correlates with, or leads to, greater acceptance (Dávila, 2001). Nonetheless, the positioning of Spanish in the public sphere can be seen as a positive development by those of us committed to greater recognition of multilingualism. Some might see the new value assigned to Spanish as another positive development, even if it goes hand in hand with commodification. Indeed, if commodification leads to greater status being assigned to Spanish, one might ask what the objection could be. Our concern is that this language ideology equates the value of learning or speaking any given language or language variety to its economic potential. As we have seen, this has potentially detrimental effects for US varieties of Spanish. Further, while Spanish currently might be in vogue, this may not always be the case. Indeed, the current government and academic emphasis on languages deemed crucial for national security has led to increased financial and institutional support for the study of Arabic and other ‘critical’ languages. Moreover, the presumed economic advantages of knowledge of Spanish may prove to be illusory; at least one study has found that English-Spanish bilingualism did not correlate positively with professional employment, compen- 60 J. Leeman and G. Martínez sation, or advancement (García, 1995). If knowledge of Spanish is tied to the monetary advantages that such knowledge might entail, and these advantages turn out to be minimal, students (and others) are left with little reason to learn or speak Spanish. But equally important among our reasons for rejecting a unitary focus on either the dollar or military value of languages are the consequences for other languages and their speakers. If one were to accept these models for assessing language worth, it would mean that there was no reason to study or speak languages not favored by economic or ‘security’ factors. For us, even if these models continue to define Spanish as important for national interests, it is unconscionable to attempt to elevate the status and prestige of Spanish by positioning it at a high point on a language hierarchy that subordinates other languages. Instead, we resist hierarchical models of language worth, and we believe that educators should strive to help students’ question linguistic hierarchies and the ideologies that support them, regardless of whether these ideologies place them on the top or the bottom of the hierarchy (cf. Leeman, 2005; Martínez, 2003). Conclusion In this paper we have shown how the intertextual discourse of SHL textbooks evolved over a roughly thirty-year period, and we have analyzed the relationship between this discourse and a more overarching politics of knowledge that shapes perceptions of Spanish and speakers of Spanish both at the university and in society-at-large. Specifically, we substantiated the change in university and corporate discourses of diversity from an emphasis on inclusion and access to a concern for US global competition, underscoring the ideological shift from the conception of diversity as a question of social justice to its construction as a resource for marketing and management. Although the repackaging of diversity as a commodity has yielded wider acceptance for SHL programs in Spanish departments, this wider acceptance and mainstreaming of SHL has been accompanied by a depoliticization and a decoupling of Spanish from Latino identity. Whereas the discourses of early SHL textbooks were in many ways linked to the Student Civil Rights movement and a move to bring Chicano ex- From Identity to Commodity 61 perience in from the margin, the more recent emphasis on globalization portrayed Spanish as a world language and commodity available to all, rather than an entitlement of Latinos. Despite the apparent recognition and valuing of diversity, the discourses of the 1990s have the potential to contribute to a re-marginalization of heritage speakers, which may also have negative consequences for the maintenance of Spanish. The same period also witnessed an evolution in standard language ideologies; although the privileging of ‘standard’ Spanish remained constant, the specifics changed somewhat. Early textbooks emphasized the importance of overcoming linguistic ‘deficits’ via the acquisition of literary language tied to a cultural past, whereas later textbooks emphasized the communicative efficiency afforded by knowledge of ‘world’ Spanish. Our goal in this article is not to suggest that it is wrong to prepare students for the future or to be successful on the job market. Indeed, an important objective of a more inclusive university is to allow all segments of society access to the social and economic benefits that a university education can provide, including future employment opportunities. However, given the importance of education as a site where linguistic and other ideologies are produced and transmitted, we believe that it is crucial for educators and students to critically examine the implicit messages embodied in textbooks, teaching practices, university administration, and government policy. We are particularly concerned with how students and educators can reinforce or challenge particular ideologies of knowledge, particular reasons for learning Spanish, and particular ways of assessing the ‘value’ of languages, cultures, and peoples. We believe, furthermore, that critical awareness and questioning of these ideologies can enhance both teaching practices among SHL educators and learning outcomes for SHL students. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable comments and observations provided by Robert Train, Lisa Rabin, Galey Modan, and Michelle Ramos-Pellicia, as well as the anonymous reviewers for Critical Inquiry in Language Studies. 62 J. Leeman and G. Martínez References Alonso-Lyrintzis, D., Zaslow, B., & Villarreal, H. (1996). Entre mundos: An Integrated Approach for the Native Speaker, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Aparicio, F. (2000). Of Spanish dispossessed. In R. Dueñas González & I. Melis (Eds.), Language Ideologies: Critical perspectives on the Official English Movement (Vol. 1, pp. 248–275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Aparicio, F. (2003). Latino cultural studies. In J. Poblete (Ed.), Critical Latin American and Latino studies (pp. 3–31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Apple, M. W. (1985). The culture and commerce of the textbook. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 147–162. Apple, M. W., & Christian-Smith, L. K. (1991). The politics of the textbook. In M. W. Apple & L. K. Christian-Smith (Eds.), The politics of the textbook (pp. 1– 21). New York: Routledge. Barker, M. E. (1972). Español para el bilingüe. Skokie, Illinois: National Textbook Company. Bernal-Enríquez, Y., & Hernández Chávez, E. (2003). La enseñanza del español en Nuevo México?‘Revitalización o erradicación de la variedad chicana? In A. Roca & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi Lengua: Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States (pp. 96–119). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Blanco, G., Contreras, V. M., & Marquez, J. M. (1994). !Ahora sí! Expresión comunicativa para hispanohablantes. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2002). Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge. Bonfiglio, P. T. (2002). Race and the rise of standard American. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1982, J. B. Thompson [Ed.]). Cameron, D. (2000a). Good to talk? London: Sage. Cameron, D. (2000b). Styling the worker: Gender and the commodification of language in the globalized service economy. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 323– 347. Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Introduction. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. xiii–xxx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Canagarajah, S. (2002). The geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Carreira, M. (2000). Validating and promoting Spanish in the United States: Lessons from Linguistic Science. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4); Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://brj.asu.edu/v244/articles/art7.html Cervantes-Rodríguez, A. M., & Lutz, A. (2003). Coloniality of power, immigration, and the English-Spanish asymmetry in the United States. Neplanta, 4(3), 523–560. From Identity to Commodity 63 Coupland, N. (2003). Sociolinguistics and globalization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 465–473. Dávila, A. (2001). Latinos, Inc. Berkeley: University of California Press. De Castell, S., Luke, A., & Luke, C. (1989). Language, authority, and criticism: Readings on the school textbook. New York: Falmer Press. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman. García, O. (1993). From Goya portraits to Goya beans: Elite traditions and popular streams in US Spanish language policy. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 12(1–2), pp. 69–86. García, O. (1995). Spanish language loss as a determinant of income among Latinos in the United States. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. García Canclini, N. (2001). Consumers and citizens: Globalization and multicultural conflicts. G. Yúdice (Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gonzalez, A., & Gonzalez, M. A. (1987). Español para el hispanohablante en los Estados Unidos. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity. London: Longman. Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 473–493. Herman, D. M. (2002). ‘‘Our patriotic duty’’: Insights from professional history, 1890–1920. In T. A. Osborn (Ed.), The future of foreign language education in the United States. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Joseph, J. E. (2004). Language and identity. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave. Leeman, J. (2004). Racializing language: A history of linguistic ideologies in the US Census. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(3), 507–534. Leeman, J. (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 35–45. Leeman, J. (in press, 2007). The value of Spanish: Shifting ideologies in US language teaching. ADFL Bulletin, 38(1–2). Limón, J. (1982). El meeting: History, folk Spanish, and ethnic nationalism in a Chicano student community. In J. Amastae and L. Elías-Olivares (Eds.), Spanish in the United States: Socio-linguistic aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. Mar-Molinero, C. (2006). Globalization and language in the Spanish speaking world: Macro and micro perspectives. In C. Mar-Molinero & M. Stewart (Eds.), Language & globalisation in the Spanish-speaking world. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillian. Marques, S. (1986). La lengua que heredamos. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Martínez, G. (2003). Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1). Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/ May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. Harlow, UK: Longman. Mejias, H., & Garza Swan, G. (1981). Nuestro Espanol. New York: MacMillan. 64 J. Leeman and G. Martínez Miguelez, A., & Sandoval, M. (1987). Jauja: Método Integral de español para bilingües. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Mignolo, W. (2000). Local histories/global designs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mignolo, W. (2003). Capitalism and geopolitics of knowledge: Latin American social thought and Latino/a American studies. In J. Poblete (Ed.), Critical Latin American and Latino studies (pp. 23–75). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Pavlenko, A. (2002). ‘We have room but for one language here’: Language and national identity at the turn of the 20th century. Multilingua, 21, 163–196. Perissinotto, G. (2003). Linguistic constraints, programmatic fit, and political correctness: The case of Spanish in the United States. In J. Poblete (Ed.), Critical Latin American and Latino studies (pp. 171–187). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Poblete, J. (2003). Critical Latin American and Latino studies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pomerantz, A. (2002). Language ideologies and the production of identities: Spanish as a resource for participation in a multilingual marketplace. Multilingua, 21, 275–302. Portilla, M., & Varela, B. (1979). Mejora tu español: Lectura y redacción para bilingües. New York: Regents Publishing Company. Quintanilla, G. C., & Silman, J. (1977). Español: Lo esencial para el bilingüe. Washington, DC: University Press of America. Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (1997). Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supply-side higher education. Social Text, 51, 9–38. Ricento, T. (2000). Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Roca, A. (1999). Nuevos Mundos: Curso de español para estudiantes bilingües. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Rosales, F. A. (1996). Chicano! The history of the Mexican American civil rights movement. Houston, TX: Arte Público Press. Samaniego, F. A., Alarcón, F. X., & Rojas, N. (1995). Mundo 21. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co. Schmidt, R., Sr. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Schmidt, R., Sr. (2002). Racialization and language policy: The case of the USA. Multilingua, 21, 141–161. Schreiber, A. L. (2000). Multicultural marketing. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books. Train, R. (2002). Foreign language standards, standard language and the culture of standardization: some implications for foreign language and heritage language education. Paper presented at the UC Language Consortium Conference on Language Learning and Teaching: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives, University of California, Irvine. Available on-line at http://uccllt.ucdavis.edu/hli/papers/Culture%20of%20standard.htm From Identity to Commodity 65 Train, R. (2003). The (non)native standard in foreign language education. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language classrooms (pp. 3–39). Boston: Heinle. Urciuoli, B. (2003). Excellence, leadership skills, diversity: Marketing liberal arts education. Language and Communication, 23, 385–408. US Department of Education. (n.d.–a). Purpose. Business and international education program website. Retrieved on April 5, 2007 from http://www. ed.gov/programs/iegpsbie/index.html. US Department of Education. (n.d.–b). The history of Title VI and FulbrightHays: An impressive international timeline. Office of Postsecondary Education website: Retrieved on April 5, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ope/iegps/history.html. Valdés, G. (1981). Pedagogical implications of teaching Spanish to the Spanishspeaking in the United States. In G. Valdés, A. G. Lozano, & R. GarcíaMoya (Eds.), Teaching Spanish to the Hispanic Bilingual (pp. 3–20). New York: Teacher’s College. Valdés, G. (1998). The construct of the near-native speaker in the foreign language profession: Perspectives on ideologies about language. ADFL Bulletin, 29(3), 4–8. Valdes-Fallis, G., & Teschner, R. (1978). Español escrito: Curso para hispanohablantes bilingües. New York: Scribner. Villa, D. (1996). Choosing a ‘standard’ variety of Spanish for the instruction of native Spanish speakers in the US. Foreign Language Annals, 29(2), 191–200. Villa, D. (2002). The sanitizing of US Spanish in academia. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 221–230. Wolfe, A. (1998). One nation, after all. New York: Viking. Yúdice, G. (2003a). The expediency of culture: Uses of culture in the global era. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Yúdice, G. (2003b). Rethinking area and ethnic studies in the context of economic and political restructuring. In J. Poblete (Ed.), Critical Latin American and Latino studies (pp. 76–102). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.