Review of Research

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

Iliana Reyes
University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
CONSULTING EDITORS:
Charmian Kenner, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
Luis C. Moll, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
Marjorie F. Orellana, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

ABSTR ACT

The dual purposes of this review are, first, to synthesize the extant research on biliteracy, focusing particularly on children
and youths and, second, to clarify key terms and phenomena in this developing field. The review is organized into three
areas of research: (1) individual biliteracy development, (2) biliteracy in family and community contexts, and (3) biliteracy
in the classroom context. Contributions from these various areas offer multiple possibilities for describing childrens
development and maintenance of biliteracy while taking into consideration the interdisciplinary and multifaceted nature
of research in this area.

he study of biliteracy has recently been gaining

more attention because of the increased visibility of diverse communities where children
are growing up bilingual and, in some cases, biliterate.
Research on biliteracy has also risen sharply in the last
two decades because of a desire to improve the learning
experiences of schoolchildren from diverse linguistic
backgrounds in the United States and around the world.
Further, globalization has brought increased interest
in understanding multinational communities that are
developing, and in maintaining linguistic communities where all childrenboth those who are part of the
dominant linguistic community and newcomersare
ready to compete in a globalized world by drawing from
the existing linguistic, multilingual, and multiliterate
societal resources.
The dual purposes of this review are (1) to synthesize
the extant research on biliteracy focusing on children and
youths and (2) to clarify some key terms and phenomena in this developing field, including how biliteracy and
bilingualism impact each other. Specifically, I describe
the current state of knowledge regarding childrens bilingual development, the concept of biliteracy, and how
bilingualism and biliteracy are related to childrens language and literacy development, deconstructing and
reconstructing the various definitions used in particular

studies according to the theoretical frames and methodological approaches used. In this review, I describe the
small body of studiessome case studies, others using
experimental designsthat directly address biliteracy,
as well as some studies connecting issues of bilingualism
or second-language acquisition to biliteracy.
Although most studies relate to the North American context, I integrate certain studies from other
international communities where relevant. The review
concludes with research-based suggestions regarding the future of biliteracy as a field and instructional
strategies that promote language and biliteracy development among emergent bilinguals. In addition, I argue
that educators and scholars in the field of literacy need
to become more knowledgeable about biliteracy, both
as a process and as part of developing competencies as
opposed to just outcomes, to understand what it means
to develop biliteracy and the advantages of doing so and
to support the natural process of becoming biliterate.

Toward a Common Definition

ofBiliteracy
Although a stream of studies since the late 1970s have
investigated bilingualism, bilingual education, and

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3) pp. 307327 doi: 10.1002/RRQ.022 2012 International Reading Association

307

home-language maintenance, few studies have specifically addressed biliteracy in young children. The connections among bilingualism, bilingual education, and
development of biliteracy are still poorly understood
(Grosjean, 2010), making it hard for teachers and educational policymakers to make informed decisions on
issues that directly impact childrens learning experiences. Scholars do not fully understand yet the various phases of acquiring a second language, far less the
processes through which emergent bilinguals simultaneously develop literacy in two languages. A monolingual perspective of language and literacy development
does not suffice for understanding and interpreting
bilingualism and biliteracy (Grosjean, 2010). An understanding andappreciation of what it means to be bilingual and biliterate is imperative to understand the lives
of these children and how to support their growth.

Bilingualism and Biliteracy

One aspect that needs to be elucidated is how researchers in the field understand the distinction between
bilingualism and biliteracy. To shed light on this debate,
I review next some of the more prominent definitions of
bilingualism, what they denote in relation to context and
participants, and most relevant to this review, whether
or not they address biliteracy.
Researchers and educators have sought to define
what being bilingual means and how a bilingual childs
oral competencies can support or serve as a foundation
to develop biliterate competencies. Among the several
views of bilingualism, two nearly opposite perspectives
have predominated: fractional and holistic. The
fractional view describes bilinguals as being like two
monolinguals in one person (Grosjean, 1982). This view
considers bilinguals as developing parallel linguistic
competence in both languages simultaneously, and
studies following this perspective often compare
bilinguals with monolinguals. In contrast, the holistic
view, proposed by Grosjean (1982), argues that each
bilingual is a unique individual who integrates knowledge
from both languages to create something more than two
separate languages.
Both perspectives describe as ideal the development
of balanced bilingual competence in speaking, thinking, reading, and writing, meaning equivalent fluency
in the two languages. (Note that being able to read and
write both languages is an important characteristic of
balanced bilingualism.) Research has shown that balanced bilingualism is not easily achievable (Grosjean,
1998); in addition, bilingualism is more fluid than the
concept of balanced bilingualism implies. Hornberger
(2003) argued that bilingual ability is better understood
as a set of continua in which an individuals language
ability changes constantly depending on the social,
educational, or linguistic context. In this view, bilingual

308

and biliterate competencies are parallel continua, and

developing the connection between oral language and
print is the key to successfully developing reading
and writing competencies and eventually maintaining
biliteracy.
Extending the continua concept, bilinguals may be
described as falling on a range from simultaneous to
sequential. Simultaneous bilinguals grow up learning
two languages in their environment from infancy. In
contrast, sequential bilinguals develop mastery, or
at least some proficiency, in one language (referred
to as their native language) before acquiring another
language (referred to as a second language). To date,
the sequential versus simultaneous distinction has
been applied primarily to oral language not literacy.
As Iemphasize throughout this review, simultaneously
acquiring the ability to read, write, and speak two
languages as a child (whether it begins at birth or in the
preschool years, as is the case for many U.S. children)
is a very different process than learning one language
(oral and written) then acquiring a second one.
Within the arena of educational and political policymaking, a different set of definitions and terminology
developed that typically highlight only the development
of oral English. In recent decades, bilingual students
received labels such as limited English proficient, or
were described as learning English as a second language; more recently, English language learner, English learner, and English language development have
gained popularity. The common thread in these various
termsand a frequent critique of themis the implication that bilingualism entails a deficit: The child lacks
or has limited knowledge of English, and the emphasis
is on the need to develop English skills only, with no
consideration for the bilingual and biliterate skills that
child might be developing and using at home and in the
community. None of these terms acknowledge bilingualism/biliteracy as part of the cultural capital that
children bring to school and as an asset that could and
should be used as a resource for learning.
Although biliteracy has not received much attention in the policymaking arena, research has begun to
explore this area. Ken Goodman, Goodman, and Flores
(1979) were among the first to advocate that rather than
just referring to reading (in the first or second language),
researchers should use the term biliteracy to emphasize
that reading and writing are interrelated. More recent
researchers explicitly address the fact that oral and written language are embedded in a cultural system. Prez
and Torres-Guzmn (1996) defined biliteracy as the
acquisition and learning of the decoding and encoding
of and around print using two linguistic and cultural
systems [italics added] in order to convey messages in a
variety of contexts (p. 54).
Whereas researchers from a psycholinguistic perspective focused specifically on linguistic competency

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

and development, researchers from the sociocultural

tradition go further, examining both linguistic and cultural factors that influence a childs development. Similarly, Kabuto (2011) distinguished between biliteracy
with a lowercase b to refer to the written form and structures of two languages that a child must manage, versus
Biliteracy with a capital B, which includes the complex
social and cultural forces that give language meaning
and give a person an identity as a speaker of one or more
languages. A key aspect differentiating psycholinguistic
versus sociocultural theoretical approaches is that the
latter analyzes how students and families cultural and
linguistic backgrounds influence the way they relate
their life experiences to their in-school and out-ofschool learning experiences with biliteracy (M. Reyes,
2001; M. Reyes & Constanzo, 1999).
Biculturalism has been little studied in connection
to biliteracy, but this is an important factor to consider
in explaining childrens motivation to learn to write and
read in two languages. In particular, children relate the
content of what they have read, in either language and
culture, to their writing, helping them forge and develop
hybrid biliteracy practices (Gregory, Long, & Volk,
2004; Gutirrez, Baquedano-Lpez, & Tejeda, 1999;
Martnez-Roldn & Sayer, 2006). Therefore, a broad
and integrated definition of biliteracy encompasses all
uses of language to think, speak, read, and write in multiple linguistic systems while taking into account the
various cultural factors and experiences of the bilingual
learner (I. Reyes, 2006).
Reflecting these studies and reconceptualizations
of childrens biliterate competence, some scholars
have adopted the term emergent bilinguals (Garca &
Kleifgen, 2010; Gregory, 1996; I. Reyes, 2006). The
concept of emergent bilingualism recognizes the
ongoing nature of childrens bilingual development
and its potential to develop to include various degrees
of biliteracy. Rather than emphasizing the lack of English competence as the earlier coined terms do, emergent bilingualism emphasizes the abilities in both
languages that a child can leverage to gain bilingual
and bilinguistic fluency. Gregory described the typical
emergent bilinguals as
children who are the first generation in their families to
receive formal schooling in the new country, who do not
speak the language of the host country at home and who are
consequently at the early stages of second language learning. (p. 8)

This term also highlights that children develop their

biling ual and biliterate competencies through a
dynamic process, with the support of people in their
community (e.g., parents, school personnel, neighbors). For similar reasons, Gutirrez, Zepeda, and
Castro (2010) referred to children who are learning two
languages simultaneously as dual-language learners.1

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

What is not yet clear is how these young childrens

dual-language competencies actually translate into
biliteracy. For example, in the National Early Literacy
Panel report, Gutirrez et al. (2010) advocated for a
robust research agenda focusing on young simultaneous bilinguals; they wrote that as researchers, we must
explore and extend our base knowledge of the cognitive and sociocultural complexities of becoming literate
and biliterate sowe can extend rather than constrain
childrens repertoires of practices (p. 338). Moreover,
for sequential bilinguals, those who develop their home
language first and then generally acquire their second
language as they begin formal schooling (either preschool or kindergarten) are able to achieve biliteracy
only if educators use their repertoires to leverage these
childrens participation in meaningful learning and literacy experiences (Gutirrez & Rogoff, 2003).

Understanding Biliteracy as a Continuum

A model that reappears throughout the literature
on biliteracy is the continua of biliteracy proposed
by Hornberger (1989) and later revised based on
international studies and applications of it (Hornberger
& Skilton-Sylvester, 2000). Interrelating findings from
research, practice, and educational policy, Hornberger
proposed a highly comprehensive, ecological model
that views biliteracy as a set of continua of abilities.
She argued that biliteracy and bilingualism should
be considered together as multidimensional continua
of biliteracy, which change dynamically throughout
a persons life span according to context, medium,
and content (Hornberger, 2003; Hornberger &
Skilton-Sylvester, 2000). Specif ically, this model
proposes an array of continua representing a series of
complex, interrelated social dimensions that account
for the individual speaker and the context, medium,
and content of language use. At the individual level,
biliteracy development is represented as occurring on a
dynamic continuum that is infinite rather than having
polar opposite endpoints. Important to this model is that
literacy is viewed as a social practice, thus highlighting
the social context in which biliteracy is nested.
The contributions from this prominent model have
been several because it has led to the recognition of
configurations of multiliteracy and to analyses of continua of biliteracy in indigenous languages and internationally (e.g., Basu, 2003; Bloch & Alexander, 2003).
Hornberger (1989) suggested that the more their learning contexts allow learners to draw on all points of the
continua, the greater are the chances for their full biliterate development (p. 289). An additional contribution of this model is the examination of how the various
points in the continua can and do change according to
the dynamic nature of day-to-day experiences, as well
as academic biliteracy when available.

309

Psycholinguistic research tends to focus on the individual child and the cognitive and linguistic competencies
and processes necessary to achieve fluency. Methods
tend to be experimental, which might focus on lexical or
reading analyses and use such tools as activation tasks
or reaction time tasks to assess individuals linguistic
competencies (e.g., Bialystok et al., 2005; Hernndez,

310

Cummins, J. (2001). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and
explanatory hypotheses. In C. Baker & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins
(pp. 2655). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

How does bilingualism influence cognitive

development, and what impact does it have
on childrens biliteracy?

Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Studies

Bialystok, E. (2001). Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 169181.

Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of bilingual children. Language Teaching, 44(1), 3654.

Psycholinguistic perspective:
Individual biliteracy
development

Individual Biliteracy Development

Table. Overview of Bilingual Research by Focus of Study

In what follows, I review prominent research studies on

biliteracy, organized according to their focus: (a) individual biliteracy development, (b) biliteracy in family
and community contexts, and (c) biliteracy in the classroom context. The table lists the key research questions
at each level and includes citations of significant studies.
Interwoven through the studies in these three sections are the most important frameworks that conceptually guide and divide the discussions in the field of
biliteracy. Two important ones are the psycholinguistic
and sociocultural perspectives. Researchers from a psycholinguistic perspective tend to focus on the acquisition of specific second-language competencies (e.g.,
syntax, vocabulary access) in second-language learners, and often, childrens linguistic competencies in the
second language are measured and compared against
those of monolingual children. For example, both
cognitive and grammatical competencies are tested in
children using and recording reaction time measures,
creative ability tasks, or visual eye-track responses (e.g.,
Bialystok, Luk, & Kwan, 2005; Carlson & Meltzoff,
2008; Ricciardelli, 1992).
From the sociocultural perspective, researchers
emphasize the nature of the relationships between
participants and the social context in which children
develop biliteracy. For example, short-term and longitudinal sociocultural studies have contributed rich qualitative descriptions of childrens linguistic environments
and interactions with family members (e.g., Gregory
etal., 2004; Valds, 1996; Zentella, 2005).

Example studies

Biliteracy Research

How do a bilingual childs oral

competencies support or serve as
a foundation to develop biliterate
competencies?

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National
Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics; Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Typical research question

Focus

Moreover, Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester (2000)

have applied this model to predict the patterns of situations where bilingualism and biliteracy often occur in
those sociopolitical contexts where one language has
higher status than the other. They urged us to frame
theories of biliteracy development within a critical
framework that accounts for the language ideologies,
asymmetrical power relations, and sociopolitical factors that either enable or hinder the development of
biliteracy and that affect how children internalize and
position themselves in different social contexts.

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

311

Biliteracy in the
classroom context

Biliteracy in family
and community
contexts

Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2003). Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and the multilingual classroom:
Constraining and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in the United States. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 6(34), 168184.

Reyes, I. (2006). Exploring connections between emergent biliteracy and bilingualism. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 6(3), 267292.

Orellana, M.F. (2009). Translating childhoods: Immigrant youth, language, and culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.

Martnez, R.A. (2010). Spanglish as a literacy tool: Toward an understanding of the potential role of Spanish-English
code-switching in the development of academic literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 124149.

Kenner, C. (2004). Becoming biliterate: Young children learning different writing systems. Stoke-on-Trent, UK:
Trentham.

Hornberger, N.H. (Ed.). (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and
practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Gutirrez, K.D., Baquedano-Lpez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language
practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286303.

Gregory, E., Ruby, M., & Kenner, C. (2010). Modeling and close observations: Ways of teaching and learning between
third generation Bangladeshi British children and their grandparents in London. Early Years, 30(2), 161173.

How do teachers support biliteracy in duallanguage programs?

Gort, M. (2006). Strategic code-switching, interliteracy, and other phenomena of emergent bilingual writing: Lessons
from first-grade dual language classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(3), 323354.

Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 63(5), 655687.

Farr, M., & Domnguez Barajas, E. (2005). Mexicanos in Chicago: Language ideology and identity. In A.C. Zentella
(Ed.), Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 4659). New York: Teachers
College Press.

What are some of the home and

community factors impacting the
development and maintenance of biliteracy?

What different factors support biliteracy

development in the classroom?

Bauer, E.B., & Gort, M. (Eds.). (2012). Early biliteracy development: Exploring young learners use of their linguistic
resources. New York: Routledge.

Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., & Flores, B. (1979). Reading in the bilingual classroom: Literacy and biliteracy. Rosslyn,
VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

How do emergent bilinguals interact

with text and print? What hypotheses do
children make about biliteracy?

How do children develop biliteracy within

the home and in the community?

Flores, B.M. (2010). The sociopsychogenesis of literacy and biliteracy: How Goodmans transactional theory of
reading proficiency impacts biliteracy development and pedagogy. In P.L. Anders (Ed.), Defying convention, inventing
the future in literacy research and practice: Essays in tribute to Ken and Yetta Goodman (pp. 160172). New York:
Routledge.

Psychogenesis perspective:

Bates, & Avila, 1994; Proctor, August, Snow, & Barr,

2010).
Psycholinguistic research in the 1960s and 1970s
cited IQ and verbal data as supporting the premise that
monolinguals outperformed bilinguals on cognitive
tasks (Hakuta, 1986). Barac and Bialystok (2011) recently
argued that these early studies were designed and
interpreted with implicit negative biases that expected
bilinguals to perform below their monolingual peers;
therefore, the findings were interpreted from a deficit
perspective that always compared bilinguals against
monolinguals and never sought any possible reasons or
factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, assessment issues)
other than bilingualism that could explain any differences. Grosjean (1998) strongly cautioned against
making direct comparisons between bilinguals and
monolinguals because the behaviors and experiences of
the two groups are fundamentally different, which in
itself has consequences for development.
Therefore, whereas scholars previously began with
the question of whether bilingualism had an effect on
cognitive development, that is now a given. The current
debate centers on how bilingualism influences cognitive development and what kind of impact it has on childrens biliteracy. (The latter has received little attention
to date). French immersion programs in Canada have
been key in debunking early assumptions that bilingualism negatively impacts young childrens development (Laurie, 1890). One of the first such contributions
was Peal and Lamberts (1962) comparison of 10-yearold FrenchEnglish bilinguals and French monolingual
peers on verbal and nonverbal tests. Peal and Lambert
were the first to pay attention to and control for the
variables of age, socioeconomic status, and gender and
to restrict their study to balanced bilinguals (i.e., with
fairly equal ability in both languages); before then no
one had paid much attention to controlling for degree
of fluency. Contrary to earlier studies, the researchers
found that the bilingual FrenchEnglish immersion
cohort outperformed the monolinguals on both verbal
and nonverbal measures. The findings supported the
design of the now-famous FrenchEnglish immersion
programs in Canada (see Genesee, 2007). The work
was also important as the first to detail the positive outcomes of bilingualism on childrens cognitive abilities
and school achievement.
Cumminss seminal work in the 1970s explored and
examined the interdependence of childrens bilingual
and cognitive development, leading to the threshold
hypothesis of the relationship between bilingualism
and cognition (Cummins, 2001a, 2001b; Cummins
& Swain, 1986). This hypothesis assumes that the
child must attain a minimum level of proficiency (i.e.,
threshold) in both languages before the benefits of
bilingualism can be observed and leveraged for academic outcomes. Moreover, a high level of proficiency

312

in the first language is likely to facilitate the acquisition

of oral and functional literacy competencies in the second language. Once the child has achieved the threshold level of competence in both languages, there are
aspects of the childs bilingual learning experiences
which can positively influence his cognitive functioning (Cummins, 2001b, p. 45). The challenge is to identify this critical level of proficiency, particularly in the
first language, that leads to positive, rather than negative, cognitive consequences and outcomes. However,
some have criticized the threshold level theory on the
basis that children can gain metalinguistic awareness
and other positive cognitive benefitsnot to mention
intercultural understandingfrom bilingual experiences, even if they do not have a high level of proficiency in one or both languages (August & Shanahan,
2006).
This line of research raises the question of whether
there might be similar threshold effects in literacy. If so,
how do young children develop adequate versus additive levels of competence in writing their two languages?
This is a particularly difficult issue because young children are simultaneously developing oral and written
proficiency in both their languages, undoubtedly with
various levels of competence in the two modalities as
well as the two languages. Additionally, there are few
assessments that accurately measure linguistic and literacy abilities in languages other than English (Hakuta,
2008); consequently, most assessments conducted with
young dual-language children measure their English
ability only.
Another contribution of psycholinguistic research
is that it has provided some insight on how children
may transfer knowledge, such as phonological awareness and syntactic information, between their two
linguistic systems (Fu, 2003; Kabuto, 2011; Kuo &
Anderson, 2008). Research has shown that phonological awareness and print knowledge in one language
generally supports development in the other. An
important recent finding is that transfer can operate in
both directions, not just from the first to the second
language, which Dworin (2003) called the bidirectionality principle. What transfers and how the transfer can
support biliteracy development are among the questions that still need to be explored (Bauer & Gort, 2012;
Dworin, 2003).
Other psycholingusitically and cognitively oriented
studies of biliteracy, particularly on emergent writing,
have shown that transfer of literacy knowledge varies
depending on the degree of similarity between the two
spoken languages and between their writing systems
(Bialystok et al., 2005; Fu, 2003; Kabuto, 2011). For
example, English and Spanish are both orthographically and typologically similar, which assists the young
child to recognize print and eventually develop reading competencies that in turn are predictive of reading

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

comprehension (Pollard-Durodola, Mathes, CrdenasHagan, Linan-Thompson, & Vaughn, 2006). Moreover,

acquiring print knowledge in both languages allows a
dual-language learner to become aware that the same
meaning can be conveyed in different written forms
and to begin making hypotheses about the relationship
between the two writing systems (Bialystok, 2001).
In a study comparing 132 children, some English
monolinguals and others bilinguals, from various
language backgrounds (Cantonese English, Hebrew
English, SpanishEnglish), Bialystok et al. (2005) found
that when two languages share the same writing
system (e.g., Spanish, English), literacy knowledge
in one language transferred to the other. In addition,
the f indings showed that ch ildren whose two
languages both use alphabetic writing systems had
higher reading ability than those children learning
two different writing systems simultaneously (e.g.,
Cantonese English, HebrewEnglish). An important,
unambiguous finding is that children can become
biliterate and that their biliteracy does not hinder their
literacy learning in English.
Tabors, Pez, and Lpez (2003) documented that
young Spanish-dominant bilinguals develop a variety of abilities in their two languages across different
tasks (e.g., producing a narrative, looking at a book) in
cooperation with their primary caregivers. The findings highlight a great need for systematic research on
preschoolers transition from emergent biliteracy into
conventional literacy (i.e., understanding print, letter
identification, early writing) in two languages.
More recent cognitive research has indicated that
exposure to and use of two languages in early childhood supports and in some cases accelerates the
development of both nonverbal and verbal abilities
(Yoshida, 2008). This research perhaps has implications for psycholinguistic studies that seem to show
delays in vocabulary development among bilinguals.
It has been well documented that bilingual adults
have longer average reaction times than monolinguals
when responding to vocabulary tests and sentence
interpretation tasks (Hernndez et al., 1994). Perhaps
young bilingual children are not so much delayed in
quantity of vocabulary knowledge as slower in retrieving that knowledge and reacting to it. If bilingual children do have longer reaction times than monolinguals
for vocabulary retrieval, this would and should have
implications for how classroom activities and tests,
particularly timed tests, are conducted. This research
raises politicized questions such as, Which is more valued: retrieving linguistic information very rapidly and
efficiently (monolingual), or having access to twice the
amount of linguistic information but retrieving it more
slowly (bilingual)?
Another important concept in bilingualism is that
of additive experiences, those where the addition of a

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

second language and culture does not entail a cost of

replacing or displacing the first language and culture
(Baker, 2011; Fillmore, 1991; Lambert, as cited in Baker,
2011). Balanced bilingualism, where children achieve
age-appropriate development in both languages (which
supports later biliteracy), appears to facilitate such a
winwin situation of additive bilingualism. In reality,
however, many bilingual children are dominant in,
and have a preference for, one language or the other
in specific domains and social contexts (Fantini, 1985;
Genesee, 1989).
To summarize, the psycholinguistic literature on
the relationship between cognition and bilingualism
indicates that bilinguals develop (a) greater cognitive
flexibility, including better creative and divergent thinking; (b) a better ability to reorganize patterns and more
flexibility in solving mental problems; and (c) greater
metasemiotic and metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok,
2010; Hakuta, 2008). These abilities in turn connect and
support young childrens foundations for literacy in
their two languages. Metalinguistic knowledge is a particularly important foundation that supports children in
recognizing the relationship between sound and print
in each language, and the knowledge of when and how
to use their two languages and cultures.

Psychogenesis Studies
Biliteracy is socially defined by the values and meanings that adults in the community associate with and
assign to written language (Ferreiro, 1990, 2007; Moll,
Sez, & Dworin, 2001; Whitmore, Martens, Goodman,
& Owocki, 2004). Yetta Goodman (1986) emphasized
that the process of learning to read and write begins
when children first become aware that written language
carries meaning. Long before they attend school, all
young children (whether monolingual or bilingual)
begin hypothesizing about what reading and writing
are, and developing strategies for making meaning
of print (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982). Through these
hypotheses, they construct meaning during interactions
with print from a very early age.
Yet, how do children become aware that they are
developing literacy in two separate languages? Young
emergent bilinguals actively participate in the process
of learning to read and write by making hypotheses,
constructing knowledge, and attaching meaning to the
writing systems they interact with in their communities
(Flores, 2010). They construct, organize, and analyze
the meaning of print and connect it with their personal
experiences within specific contexts and social experiences (Y. Goodman, 1986). Studies of young childrens
discoveries about print and writing have shown that
they interpret written language and symbols by drawing on meaningful interactions, including multimodal
experiences, various physical modes, and interactions

313

with other bilinguals according to context, speakers,

and topics (Kress, 2000).
Flores (2010) has explored this issue by documenting and analyzing childrens biliteracy while participating in their interactive journal writing at school. Her
approach, which crosses over both psycholinguistics
and psychogenesis, explains how children who are
moving beyond the emergent stage into formal schooling come to know written language and how they go
from understanding written text to engaging in the
act of proficient reading. Flores described how Jess,
a bilingual kindergartner, participated with his teacher
in a pedagogical opportunity where a social context for
writing creates a space to teach to the potential (p.
162). He first displayed a basic knowledge of concepts
of print (e.g., directionality, letter formation), and as
the year progressed, he engaged in more sophisticated
emergent writing while his teacher supported him by
mediating his learning.

(the italicized text indicates English, and the plain text

indicates Pahari):
Samia to young brother Sadaqat:
Sadaqat, stand up,
were not having group time now

you can play,

Sadaqat
shall we play something?

you want to do
painting?

[noise from Sadaqat]

OK get your
water
lets get a water
lets get a water
lets get a paper
baby didnt cry
hurry up
[whispering]

Biliteracy in Community and Family

Contexts
In this section, I review studies that take a sociocultural
approach in describing how families and communities
affect biliteracy by emphasizing different aspects or
factors that impact the process. Although the studies
vary in terms of methodology, many of them involve
single case studies with natural observations and
descriptions of an individual childs biliteracy development (e.g., Bauer & Mkhize, 2012; Buckwalter & Lo,
2002) or observations of a smaller set of children who
were part of a larger research project (Drury, 2004;
Gregory et al., 2004; I. Reyes & Azuara, 2008; Yaden
& Tsai, 2012). These studies approached the understanding and study of biliteracy from a bilingual and
biliterate perspective, rather than imposing an English
literacy perspective on bilingual data. These studies
also described various levels of engagements of family
members and literacy practices while supporting childrens biliteracy.

group time

you want paper

and put in the
painting
do that and what
are you
choose colour
black
Sadaqat:

back

Samia:

no, theres a
black
did you finish it?
painting
you make it
Sadaqat, do it with this finger
Do it like this, do it like that

wash

which

colour

are you going to choose?

next thing

dont do it Sadaqat

Biliteracy Through Play and Family Practices

orange

satsuma

In a case study with three young Pahari- and Englishspeaking girls, Drury (2004) focused on how the play literacy practices impacted and supported the young girls
biliteracy development. One of the girls, Samia, who is
from a Pakistani background, took control of her own
bilingual and biliteracy learning through various play
situations that she engage in with her younger brother.
She took on the role of a more expert bilingual speaker
and supported her brothers second-language learning
by introducing vocabulary in English while switching to
Pahari to scaffold the activity. This expert role and the
scaffolding strategies that Samia used with her 2-yearold brother are illustrated in the transcription below

Im doing it

satsuma

314

colour
[clapping, knocking]
you are having you
[crying]

like it?

Sadaqat: mummy [calling to his mummy]

Samia: lets do some painting
do it like this, Sadaqat
Samia: lets do some painting
do it like this, Sadaqat

red

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

dont do it
now you can do it
now weve done it

finish
I have

Sadaqat, put it over there

and lets do some painting

wash up

Sadaqat, give it to big sister

give paper and

Ill do
wash up
put paper over
there

now its story time

(pp. 4648)

Through play and reenacting school activities, the

two children reinforced the language used at preschool
(English) as well as the culture of school contexts.
Samia shared this expertise with her younger brother
and scaffolded from English to Pahari some of the literacy practices she learned at school by saying to her
brother, were not having group time now, and, now
its story time, instructions that are part of school
routines. Samia also related the color they were using,
orange, to a fruit they are familiar with, satsumas, which
are Japanese mandarins commonly available in Britain.
During their conversation and as they continued playing together, Samia switched to Pahari to scaffold for
her younger brother and supported him in beginning
to develop two languages. Young children engage in
school game activities that, in turn, enhance their own
biliteracy development by integrating and experimenting with routines and practices in both school and home
languages.
Other case studies following the literacy lives and
documenting the biliteracy ecologies of emergent
bi linguals and their families are often conducted as
action research that includes parents and teachers of linguistically diverse preschoolers (Kenner, 2000; Zentella,
2005). Kenner described a project in which educators,
parents, and researchers collaborated to create and
document a multilingual literacy environment in a
nursery class in London. Parents and family members
were invited to bring to school the literacy materials in
their home languages that they were using and sharing
in their own homes, such as newspapers, movie posters, calendars, and letters. These were used as emergent
writing resources to encourage the children to engage in
literacy events at school that had a connection to their
home literacy experiences. These literacy events not
only offered children opportunities to engage in emergent writing and demonstrate their writing progress
but also offered a context that was supportive of their
biliteracy.

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

As parents brought various texts into the classroom,

it became clear that many of the children had experiences with nonalphabetic writing systems and had sufficient metalinguistic awareness to talk about them.
Meera, a 46-month-old girl, clearly was aware that the
Gujarati language (from Western India) has a separate
written language system than English does. Through
engaging in literacy events, she was soon motivated to
engage in emergent writing; at first, her productions
looked like wavy lines, but after a few months, it became
more like emergent Gujarati, becoming more complex
in form and resembling written Gujarati more (see Figures 17 and 18 in Kenner, 2000).
In Becoming Biliterate: Young Children Learning
Different Writing Systems, Kenner (2004) presented case
studies examining the literacy lives of six young children (5 and 6 years old) who were growing up bilingual
or multilingual (speaking Arabic, Chinese, or Spanish in addition to English) in various neighborhoods
in London. This study described how young children
become biliterate as they experience various opportunities to read and write both languages at home and in
the community. Kenner described the young childrens
linguistic, sociolinguistic, and learning competencies
and suggested ways to apply this knowledge in various
multilingual contexts and in the classroom. The childrens early writing in their home languages illustrates
the complex realities of becoming biliterate. In their
drawings and emergent writing, children focused their
attention on the design of symbols and the larger space
where text and symbols function as a whole to convey
meaning (Kenner, 2004).
As children experience and process symbols, they
become able to distinguish them, make hypotheses
about writing, learn the directionality principle, and
begin to readall emergent competencies necessary
for developing concepts of print and reading knowledge (Kabuto, 2011; Kenner, Kress, Hayat, Kam, & Tsai
2004). Beyond analyzing how children interpret symbols in two different scripts, these studies described
how young emergent bilingual children find ways to
experience their dual languages and make them coexist
in their lives (Kenner & Gregory, 2003; M. Reyes, 2001).

Biliteracy as Cultural Home Practices

Another area of research has provided evidence that
when emergent bilinguals have emotional and intellectual support, they use their languages to build interpersonal connections. For example, recently, de la Piedra
(2011) described a case in which a bilingual mother and
daughter strengthened their relationship, Spanish language, and Mexican ways of life through reading. They
not only read and shared information about schoolrelated activities but also shared common interests by
reading magazines and information on the Internet.

315

Their various shared literacy experiences supported

both generations in both languages and across cultural
practices.
In my own work (I. Reyes, 2006), I have described
other instances of bidirectional learning across generations in which older peers, parents, and grandparents might learn from young emergent bilinguals who
have more knowledge of English than their elders;
Kenner and Gregory (2003) have documented similar
cross-generational biliteracy learning. These studies
supported the contention of the additive bilingualism
approach that a childs home language is embedded
in his or her learning experiences, especially but not
exclusively, in the early years of education. The home
language continues to develop even as any other language (or languages) is added. These studies shed light
on the various levels of additive bilingual experiences
that could lead to biliteracy.
In their review of this topic, Kenner and Gregory
(2003) paid particular attention to the various processes that occur when children transfer cultural and
linguistic knowledge between their literacy systems.
The authors described how childrens emergent writing was supported when parents and family members
brought into the classroom various cultural texts in
the home language embedded in a variety of media,
such as videos, calendars, newspapers, and advertisements. The most important contributing factor to biliteracy development was the interaction that occurred
between parents and children in the presence of
literary artifacts in their native languages (Spanish,
Arabic, Taiwanese).
Similarly, for lang uage-minority children in
France, Young and Hlot (2007) showed that use of
the home language and relevant cultural themes from
their native communities helped stimulate childrens
interest in and development of literacy. Moreover,
Martin-Jones and Bhatt (as cited in Kenner & Gregory,
2003) reported that families used texts in Gujarati for
various social purposes as part of their daily lives:
keeping in touch with relatives living abroad, maintaining links with the wider Gujarati community in
Britain, practicing their religion, and supporting cultural interests.
In my own work, I have studied the emergent
biliteracy development of SpanishEnglish speakers (46 years old) growing up in the U.S. Southwest
using a multiple-approach perspective (I. Reyes, 2006;
I. Reyes & Azuara, 2008). As part of this longitudinal
study focusing on the kinds of biliteracy learning that
young emergent bilinguals develop in their everyday
contexts (e.g., home, school, communities), children
participated individually in assessments of concepts of
print and emergent literacy skills in their two languages.
Then, the children and their families were followed as
case studies and videotaped at home to learn about the

316

families literacy practices and how they support emergent biliteracy. In addition, children and teachers were
videotaped in the classroom to document their literacy
practices.
Examples of childrens emergent writing produced
at school and home were collected from preschool to
first grade to analyze their biliteracy development in
detail. The focus of the home and classroom observations was on language and biliteracy practices
observed during natural interactions in these contexts and how these interactions supported biliteracy.
Dariana, a 5-year-old girl, has been bilingual from
birth because both her parents are f luent bilinguals
and her grandparents supported her learning of Spanish at their home. During home visits, I learned that
she is continuously engaged in and stimulated by reading with her parents or to her younger sister, writing
notes for her grandparents, and making signs containing her name (I. Reyes & Azuara, 2008). Following the
death of a relative, Darianas nana (grandmother) was
sad, and consequently, Dariana also felt sad. Seeking
to comfort her nana, Dariana spontaneously engaged
in writing a bilingual religious text in a prayer book
(see Figure).
As Dariana expressed her feelings in writing, she
demonstrated her knowledge of written language and
some of the functions that written language is used for.
She engaged in a syncretic biliteracy practice that integrated her two linguistic resources and let her emotionally connect to her grandmother (Gregory et al., 2004).
As part of this study, we (I. Reyes & Azuara, 2008)
advocated for an ecological model that sees the biliteracy process as part of the natural development of
young emergent bilinguals (for further discussion on
ecological literacy in various contexts, see Barton, 1994).
According to this model, both theory and research
studies should document the interplay of factors at
multiple levels, and their outcomes and impact on the
development of biliteracy. As in Hornbergers (2003)
model, described earlier, the ecological model of emergent biliteracy acknowledges childrens development as
dynamic, malleable, and influenced by environmental experiences that tap into their potential to become
biliterate.

Biliteracy Through Community

and Out-of-School Engagements
Several studies revealed that an important element in
the successful maintenance of a childrens heritage
language is the persistent effort that parents make to
support their childrens bilingualism and biliteracy
through community engagements (e.g., Farr & Domnguez Barajas, 2005; Gregory et al., 2004; Owodally, 2011;
Roca, 2005; Schecter & Bayley, 2002; Zentella, 2005).
Sometimes these efforts are conscious and explicit, as

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

Figure. Darianas Religious Text and Drawing for Her Bilingual Prayer Book

(a)

(b)
a. Darianas cover for her bilingual prayer book
b. Darianas religious text and drawing
Note. At the time of the study, Dariana, a SpanishEnglish bilingual, was 5 years old. Reprinted from Emergent Biliteracy in Young Mexican Immigrant
Children by I. Reyes and P. Azuara, 2008, Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), p. 391. Copyright 2008 by the International Reading Association.

when parents take their children to settings where heritage language will be spoken or develop strategies to
promote their childrens biliteracy in the schools, such
as supporting extracurricular activities (e.g., religious
activities). At other times, these efforts are simply part
of routine biliteracy interactions and habitual family
activities, such as going to the store; reading the mail;
visiting relatives; writing invitations; attending parties;

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

and participating in community dances, quinceaeras,

and festivals (Potowski & Gorman, 2011; I. Reyes, Alexandra, & Azuara, 2007).
Bilingualism and biliteracy can also be promoted
by particular living arrangements, as when a grandparent who does not speak the dominant language lives
with the nuclear family (Zentella, 2005), or when older
siblings and peers engage in linguistic and literary

317

activities during play with younger emergent bilingual

children (Farr & Domnguez Barajas, 2005; M. Reyes &
Halcn, 2001). It is the constellation of literacy practices
at home, at school, and in the community that together
strengthens the likelihood that emergent bilinguals will
eventually become biliterate.
Often children contribute to new family literacy
practices in which they mediate their own learning of
the second language while at the same time contributing to their parents learning and communication
in the second language. In Translating Childhoods:
Immigrant Youth, Language, and Culture, Orellana
(2009) described the experiences of a group of youths
(618 years old) as they translated and served as language brokers of information and conversations for
their parents and other peers. Language brokering is
defined as out-of-school practices of translating and
interpreting across languages, particularly the oral
translation of texts written in English (Orellana &
Reynolds, 2008).
According to Orellana (2009), translating and interpreting are chores that children do to contribute to the
familys well-being, analogous to the chores and homework that any child does. Drawing data from several
case studies in three different research sites and using
various methods (surveys, observations, field notes),
she concluded that childrens work of paraphrasing is
instrumental and functional in connecting the child
and parents to the school and community (e.g., teachers, doctors, bank tellers).
These literacy events in turn support childrens biliteracy development because of the exposure to print in
two languages and, more important, to the exposure to
and participation in various interactions in which they
have opportunities to practice their biliterate competencies. Moreover, these emergent bilingual children use
their linguistic tool kits (Gutirrez et al., 1999) to assist
and support their families in navigating, and sometimes
in surviving, the systems (e.g., educational, medical,
financial) in their daily lives. Therefore, the bilingual
child must use his or her ability in the dominant language to communicate important information, both
oral and written, to and on behalf of the parents, often
leading to important decisions that have consequences
for the whole family.
In contrast, Li (2006) has documented the struggles that immigrant families (in this case, Chinese
families in Canada) may face when family members
and educators have conf licting beliefs and practices
about maintaining the home language and learning
the second language. For example, Chinese parents
disagreed with the student-centered and meaning-centered methods and practices that teachers were using
to teach their children to write in English. Although
Lis conclusions are controversial, particularly in laying most of the blame on teachers lack of cultural

318

sensitivity, this study revealed the complex issues that

may arise when schools and families have divergent
cultural and educational beliefs and practices around
first- and second-language learning. In this instance,
both the parents and the teachers meant the best for the
students, although their perspectives and practices led
to a form of subtractive schooling that did not provide
opportunities for the youngsters to develop biliteracy
(Valenzuela, 1999).
A new area of research that contributes to our knowledge of biliteracy, and specifically helps us understand
how youths become aware of their biliteracy, comes
from an analysis inspired by the new literacy studies
approach (cf. Street, 2005). Lam (2009) offered a case
study of a Chinese recent immigrant teenager whose
experiences in several languages, including the Shanghai dialect, created new literacy spaces for her to communicate with friends back in China. This experience,
in turn, simultaneously supported her development
of bilingual and biliterate competencies, as she found
the new technologies of texting and instant messaging
rewarding means of communicating across writing systems, time, and space with friends. The examples Lam
analyzed illustrate the complex process and multiple
levels of social and semiotic design through which
the youth developed simultaneous affiliations with
her local Chinese immigrant community, a translocal
network of Asian American youth, and transnational
relationships with her peers in China (p. 377). Additional studies within this new tradition have offered
the promise of contributing further knowledge about
the semiotic understandings of bilingual children trying to make sense of various written forms, texts, and
designs that support meaning making from their new
linguistic and cultural worlds and hybrid experiences
(Pink, 2011).
From the studies reviewed here, one can conclude
that in certain contexts, children can not only transfer
linguistic knowledge between their literacies but also
often transform their linguistic and cultural knowledge
between their literacies and cultural identities, thereby
developing biliteracy and creating hybrid practices
that allow them to expand their repertoire of practices to help them succeed in school (Gutirrez et al.,
1999; Reese, Garnier, Gallimore, & Goldenberg, 2000).
Some of these hybrid practices go beyond bilingualism and biliteracy to support children and families in
developing and maintaining bicultural identities (e.g.,
MexicanAmerican, norteo, ranchero) and connections across geographical and psychological borders
(Farr & Domnguez Barajas, 2005; Gonzlez, 2001;
Guerra, 1998).
The studies described in this section support the
following findings about emergent biliteracy among
young children and the family practices that enable
emergent biliteracy:

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

 Children use all their linguistic resources in both

languages to make sense of and develop knowledge
about print and literacy in their environments.
Children construct different hypotheses about
written language and develop metalinguistic
awareness about their two languages (e.g., Flores,
2010; Gillanders & Jimnez, 2004; Gort, 2006; I.
Reyes & Azuara, 2008).
Both home and school contexts are central sites of
biliteracy learning for these young children; however, experiences at home are critical in facilitating
the development and maintenance of the home
language, which often is not officially supported
in the classroom context (e.g., Farr & Domnguez
Barajas, 2005; Kenner, 2000; M. Reyes, 2001; Roca,
2005).
Bidirectional learning occurs across generations,
whereby both children and adults benefit from one
anothers knowledge of English and the home language (Gregory, Ruby, & Kenner, 2010; I. Reyes,
2006).
New opportunities and new technologies offer
spaces for children to learn literacies and engage
with peers, thereby mediating their own learning
and development of biliteracy (e.g., Lam, 2009;
Martnez, 2010; Orellana, 2009; Orellana & Reynolds, 2008).
The studies reviewed in this section offer evidence
that young emergent biling ua ls development
of bi l iter acy is dy na m ic a nd is med iated by
their immediate sociocultural contexts. Through
extended and detailed observations of children
participating in different literacy events at home
and in their communities, studies have confirmed
that the development of bilingual print concepts,
metalinguistic awareness, and bilingual retellings of
narratives is mediated through social interactions and
does not necessarily come about through exposure
alone (Kassow, 2006). Specifically, childrens biliteracy
development is highly situated and is inf luenced,
mediated, and transformed in particular ways during
peer and family interactions.

Biliteracy in the Classroom Context

Studies reviewed in this section have provided various examples and analyses of how students, peers,
and adults influence one another during interactions
embedded in classroom activities (e.g., Edelsky, 1982;
Gort, 2006; Gutirrez et al., 1999; Rubinstein-vila,
2003). First, I review biliteracy that occurs spontaneously in the classroom regardless of the official school
language policies. Second, I review examples of studies in some bilingual dual-language programs that officially support the development of students biliteracy.

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

Finally, I describe some international efforts to support

biliteracy through particular classroom and curricular
efforts in Europe and South Africa.

Biliteracy Processes in the Classroom

Certain biliteracy-related processes support dual-language reading and writing competencies in young children. One such process is code-switching, now widely
studied in the literature across ages and groups (e.g.,
Zentella, 1997). Children who have several languages
to draw from to accomplish their conversational and
communicative needs are fundamentally different from
monolingual children (Ervin-Tripp & Reyes, 2005).
Code-switching has been identified as a particular ability that bilinguals use strategically to process information across and between languages (Zentella, 1997). It is
a linguistic practice that bilingual children often hear
modeled at home and in the community (Schecter &
Bayley, 2002; Zentella, 1997). These studies showed
that code-switching can take several forms, evidently
depending on three factors: how well a speaker knows
both languages, whether the languages are grammatically similar, and relative language prestige. Moreover,
research has shown that children use their native language and strategic code-switching as communicative
tactics to help forge their linguistic and social identities,
as well as biliterate academic writing abilities (Gort,
2006; Heller, 2007; Martnez, 2010; Martinez-Roldn &
Sayer, 2006; Potowski & Rothman, 2011).
In a study of emergent bilingual kindergartners,
Olmedo (2003) identified several discourse strategies,
including translation, paraphrasing, use of paralinguistic cues, and gestures, that children used for language
mediation during peer interactions and teacherstudent
classroom interactions. Her findings corresponded to
previous findings in the literature, in that those children with the greatest degree of bilingual communicative competence were also the ones who most frequently
used code-switching as a strategy to meet their conversational goals and communicate with their peers during
classroom activities (Gort, 2006; I. Reyes & Ervin-Tripp,
2010; Zentella, 1997). The ability to use two languages
makes children aware of other interlocutors linguistic
proficiency and how contextual and paralinguistic cues
can help to facilitate communication (Olmedo, 2003,
p. 146). Language switching allows children to develop
cognitive abilities, such as metalinguistic awareness;
this cognitive ability in turn supports transfer to biliteracy writing competencies as children learn to switch
languages in texts according to their audience (Medina,
2010).
Similar to how oral code-switching supports biliteracy, a more recently analyzed phenomenon is the use of
both languages in writing, which has been called interliteracy (Gort, 2006; see also Larsen-Freeman & Long,
1991). Interliteracy is defined as the application of rules

319

for writing one language when writing the other (Gort,

2006). Gort (2012) reported on the use of interliteracy
as part of the writing process for both Spanish- and
English-dominant second graders in a two-way bilingual education program. An important difference,
however, is that for bilinguals, code-switching during
conversation, although grammatical and rule driven,
seems largely unconscious, whereas bilingual students
actively use interliteracy to correct and revise their writing at different levels as they process their ideas. Interliteracy can serve several functions: (a) making sense of
and conveying a clear message, (b) expanding students
ideas, (c) considering their audience, or (d) entertaining by adding humor and predicting the audiences
reaction. Interliteracy also allows students to engage in
metalinguistic reflection and discussion about the written forms and patterns of each language (Gort, 2012);
therefore, metalinguistic awareness supports biliteracy
as children write, analyze what they have written, and
make revisions as needed.

Biliteracy in Bilingual Programs

Orellanas work (Orellana, 2009; Orellana, Reynolds,
Dorner, & Meza, 2003) and, more recently, Martnezs
(2010) work have also shown that among older bilingual
children, translation, code-switching, and paraphrasing
skills offer other interesting possibilities for promoting
biliteracy and academic writing. An interesting finding
that could be explicitly connected to biliteracy is that
while doing this paraphrasing , children frequently need
to make immediate linguistic decisions: code-switching
within conversations, switching between languages
and between frames, switching, and adapting to what
Orellana called translocationliving in between geographical, psychological, and cultural locations and
spaces. In addition, children also adapt and experience
transculturationthe process of redefining ones own
position and identity in and through movement across
cultural spaces (Guerra, as cited in Orellana, 2009, p.
131). All of these experiences may facilitate development
of executive cognitive functions, an area in need of further exploration (for discussion on young childrens executive functions related to linguistic and perceptual cues,
see Yoshida & Smith, 2005). These processes might also
support biliteracy as children find themselves translating
from written text to oral language, or literally translating
their writing (or typing) from one language to the other.
Martnez (2010) worked with a bilingual teacher and
middle school students (sixth and seventh graders) who
were able to use Spanglish (i.e., code-switching between
English and Spanish) during their English and social
studies classes as part of what he called metalinguistic
instructional conversations. Through such conversations, the teacher scaffolded students audience awareness in their writing, as this was an emphasis when
preparing and writing persuasive essays in English

320

class. Students received support in connecting a highly

audience-sensitive discourse strategy, Spanglish, to the
development of their academic writing. This biliteracy
practice not only made the classroom curriculum more
effective for this group of students and their teacher
but also made the classroom a comfortable place where
students home linguistic practices were valued and
honored in biliterate practices.
A study by Medina (2010) in a classroom of students
learning English as a second language reported on the
children participating in and responding to discussions
of literature using some of the same interliteracy, translocal, and code-switching strategies reported in the previous studies. Specifically, children used these strategies
to develop and connect their cultural and real-life experiences in crossing the bordernot only geographically
but also psychologicallyto their biliteracy development. Specifically, the teacher scaffolded and mediated
students learning to make direct connections to their
life histories that enabled them to participate in reading
across communities while supporting their biliteracy
development (Medina, 2010).
Rubinstein-vila (2003) reported on two secondgrade students in a dual-language PortugueseEnglish
program. The study showed how a particular classroom
event, buddy reading, in which pairs of children read
first to themselves and then out loud to their assigned
reading buddies, supported the development of biliteracy, particularly reading. After reading their books, the
two students studied also had to retell the story to an
adult in the classroom and then to each other. The two
girlsRegina, dominant in Portuguese, and Tiffany,
who self-identified as English-dominantsupported
each others biliteracy with decoding, scaffolding,
and meaning-making strategies. During reading time,
Tiffany, the English-dominant and more fluent reader,
took the role of tutoring Regina; during the retelling,
Regina became the tutor, helping Tiffany in her comprehension. Specifically, Regina used scaffolding strategies by asking chronologically ordered questions about
the text and using synonyms for unfamiliar words that
would help Tiffany understand the Portuguese text
better (Portuguese discourse is in italics, the original
translations are in brackets, and explanations are in
parentheses):
REG: Como o nome do cachorro?
TIFF: O co? (a word more commonly used for dog in
Iberian Portuguese)
REG: , o nome do cachorro. [Yes; the name of the dog]
(Regina continues to use her word for dog.)
(p. 93)

Although Tiffany read more fluently in both English

and Portuguese, Reginas comprehension in Portuguese was much richer. Rubinstein-Avilas analyses

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

and interpretation indicated that Reginas exposure

to and continuous participation in Brazilian life and
events at home bolstered her biliteracy competencies,
even though she was considered a weaker reader than
Tiffany according to reported reading test scores and
their teachers assessment.
The work by Valds (2003) also showed that childrens ability to interpret, comprehend, and switch
between languages should be recognized as a special
talent, not a deficit, and that these competencies could
and should be incorporated into formal curricular
activities to support biliteracy development. Through
such opportunities, young bilinguals could continue
to strengthen and expand their academic biliterate
competencies as interpreters and writers during their
academic lessons and possibly in gifted educational
programs.
An important point from the studies reviewed here
is that when children have access to written texts and
various literacy activities in both their languages, they
are more likely to become biliterate rather than literate only in the language of school instruction. During
everyday speaking, listening, and reading, children
constantly code-switch between their languages, and
some of them also use interliteracy throughout their
writing. Such experiences of code-switching and interliteracy probably contribute to their high metalinguistic
and pragmatic awareness (Frnquiz, 2012; Gort, 2012;
Martnez, 2010). If children continue to have access to
and opportunities to use both languages in oral and
written forms, they will be more likely to maintain their
bilingualism and biliteracy, giving them skills and tools
to draw on for various learning activities and social
purposes at home, in their communities, at school, and
perhaps in their future careers.

Biliteracy Across International Communities

In many countries, the norm is to learn more than one
language, and sometimes more than two, so multilingualism and multiliteracy are unmarked, or the typical way to be in those societies (Baker, 2011). In other
countries, such as the United States, there is one dominant public language, and the dominant community
generally views anything other than monoliteracy as
nonstandard and marks the child as belonging to the
other, not to the majority of native English speakers
(Nieto, 2001). Specifically, bilingualism is seen as a sign
of low status among children of low socioeconomic status but is highly valued among bilinguals who are formally educated and share status and power in society
(Fairclough, 1989; Nieto, 2001). Where official bilingual
programs exist, they vary greatly in their efficacy at
promoting the development of English (or other official
national language) while also supporting the development and maintenance of the home language (Freeman, 1998). Yet, whether or not the educational system

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

supports them, bilingualism and biliteracy are the reality of life for many children living in the United States
and are important parts of their cultural identities and
family connections (M. Reyes, 2001).
When a particular language is identified with
nationalism, the widespread use of other languages may
be labeled as a problem (Fishman, 1972). In the United
States, this ideology has led to so-called English-only
laws that restrict the use of languages other than English in public schools (e.g., Proposition 203 in Arizona,
Proposition 227 in California) and limit how educators
can support bilingualism and biliteracy in official settings (Garca & Kleifgen, 2010). Such laws are motivated
by political and ideological considerations rather than
sound pedagogical theory or societal benefit (Gndara
& Orfield, 2010). They have little if anything to do with
what constitutes a good education or an adequate linguistic preparation for the future. Moreover, the educational literature indicates that in the United States, a
disproportionate number of recent immigrant children
who are classified as English learners do not succeed
at school because their biliteracy is not recognized
or validated in mainstream classrooms (Garca &
Kleifgen, 2010).
For example, Arizonas English-only law eliminated most bilingual programs, replacing them with
structured English-immersion (SEI) programs that
allow students only one year to become proficient in
English before being mainstreamed into regular classes
taught in English. Yet, Combs, Evans, Fletcher, Parra,
and Jimnez (2005) have documented that immigrant
children not only learn English more slowly in SEI programs because they lack the support of their home language, but also, more critically, this policy is making
schooling a deeply traumatic event for some ELLs, and
for SEI teachers a stressful and frustrating experience
(p. 721).
Even students in states without English-only policies typically encounter discourses and practices that
privilege English over their native languages. For example, Skilton-Sylvester (2003) documented how a teachers personal attitudes and ideologies about the relative
value of English versus Khmer created microlevel classroom language policies that restricted Vietnamese students opportunities to develop literacy in Khmer. Even
though these students were living in a multicultural
community in Philadelphia where they used Khmer
during their daily interactions, they had limited opportunities in the classroom to develop their proficiency in
that language. Thus, federal and state policies and discourses that identify English as the language of power
strongly inf luence teachers ideologies and consequently their implementation of literacy activities in the
school context in ways that either negatively (Englishonly programs) or positively (English-plus programs)
affect young language-minority childrens learning

321

experiences (English Plus Information Clearinghouse,

1992; Padilla et al., 1991).
Exploring any countrys official policies about language and literacy helps uncover hidden asymmetries
of power, equity, and social justice (Hornberger, 2003).
Some communities and countries have policies of official acceptance of bilingualism or multilingualism, and
consequently, institutional procedures are in place that
aim to elevate the status of nonhegemonic languages
and teach them in school, either regionally or nationwide (Baker, 2011). Two countries that support bilingualism, biliteracy, and multilingualism are Belgium
and Canada. In the case of Belgium, the countrys three
official languages (Dutch, French, German) receive de
jure and de facto support from the central and regional
governments. Thus, in school and community settings,
people receive training and motivation to become multilingual and use these languages in the public sphere as
part of their biliteracy practices (Nelde, 1991).
In the case of Quebec, Canada, where French and
English have more or less equal status, FrenchEnglish
immersion programs support schoolchildren in acquiring oral bilingualism as well as biliteracy (Cenoz &
Genesee, 1998; Lambert & Tucker, 1972). A particularly
innovative feature when these programs began was the
use of the second language to teach various academic
subjects. Second-language learning is thus integrated
with academic instruction in a content-based model of
second-language teaching that seeks to support development of both languages and make the students experiences additive rather than subtractive.
The linguistic situation in South Africa presents
a more complex picture in terms of finding a balance
among theory, policy, and practice in the multilingual
continua. Although 11 languages are officially recognized by the government, the prevailing belief remains
that English equates to a better education, despite efforts
to change this attitude through redesigned programs
(Bloch & Alexander, 2003). This belief is inherited
and deeply carved in people who have bitter memories of an inferior early education being forced on them
through the medium of the mother tongue under apartheid (p. 96). Bloch and Alexander reported that this
belief is slowly changing despite myths perpetuated in
the media that speakers of the various native languages,
including those that share a little higher status (e.g.,
Xhosa, Tswana, Pedi, Sotho, Tsonga, Swati, Ndebele,
Venda), do not wish to maintain and utilize their native
languages beyond community and family functions.
A survey showed that 90% of South Africans felt
that native languages should have a significant role in
the formal educational system (PanSALB, 2000). The
Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South
Africa, grounded in Hornbergers continua of biliteracy
model, has led the way in finding meaningful strategies
to develop childrens native languages in the academic

322

setting. In the case of Xhosa (the most dominant African

language in South Africa), children have opportunities
to use interactive writing that supports their biliteracy
development: Students write journals and are motivated
to communicate by exchanging letters with teachers
and students; as part of this writing, they use invented
spellings and other modalities to convey meaning and
messages in their local languages (Kress, 2000).
In addition, Daz (2003) reported that Australia has
taken an additive approach to bilingualism and biliteracy, providing whole-school K6 LOTE (languages
other than English) and community language programs. The goal of this approach is for
children to become fluent speakers of both the dominant
and the non-dominant language. For children to become
fully bilingual, an extended and articulated language and
literacy program in both languages is the ideal. (Makin,
Campbell, & Jones Daz, 1995, p. 80).

These multilingual contexts certainly illustrate various

efforts to develop biliteracy, taking into consideration
the unique characteristics of the local speakers in their
communities while still considering the globalization
pressures.
Although a thorough literature review of types of
bilingual programs existing in the United States and
other countries is beyond the scope of this article,
I provide here a brief description of what such programs entail and how those that support biliteracy
create effective spaces for children to develop it. The
term bilingual education has been applied to a range of
educational programs; in the United States, English is
the majority language, and because of the number of
immigrants from Latin America, Spanish is the most
commonly supported second language in bilingual
programs. There are, however, communities where
bilingual programs support and provide instruction in Cantonese, Navajo, and Korean, among other
languages.
The debate over how bilingual education should
be structured hinges on peoples different perspectives
on the teaching and learning of languages. Subtractive
bilingual programs devalue the native language, viewing it only as a way to help students reach competence
in and transition to English. The goal of such a program
is to transfer students to mainstream English instruction and eliminate use of the native language as soon as
possible. In contrast, additive bilingual programs, such
as two-way and dual-language programs, have as their
goal the promotion of both bilingualism and biliteracy
as part of the general curriculum and as an individual
goal for participating students. This type of program
acknowledges and draws on the families linguistic and
multicultural knowledge to make childrens educational
experiences more meaningful (Baker, 2011).

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

The following are some impor tant premises

and characteristics of additive programs supporting
bilingualism/biliteracy:
1. Continued development of both lang uages
enhances childrens educational and cognitive
development (Lindholm & Zierlein, 1991).
2. Literacy-related abilities are interdependent
across languages, such that knowledge and skills
acquired in one language are potentially available
in the other (Cummins, 2001b; Verhoeven, 1991).
3. Although children may acquire conversational
abilities in a second language fairly rapidly, they
usually require upward of five years to attain
grade-level skills in academic use of the second
language (Collier, 1987).
Cummins (2001b) has argued that biliteracy must
become an essential component of educational reform
(p. 259) and that this is particularly important if we
want to see transformation in underachieving minority students. The research reviewed here has supported
and spoken to the need for educators to design settingspecific programs that take into account the student
population, teachers knowledge and preparation, and
community linguistic capital to design optimal strategies for developing multilingual and multiliterate children and citizens.

The Future of Biliteracy Research:

Final Comments and Implications
As previous and current research has shown, the possible
pathways to reach and maintain biliteracy are several
(Gregory et al., 2004), and consequently, biliteracy
development is nonlinear. Because childrens language
experiences are a by-product of their language choices,
patterns, and individual differences, biliteracy development is a dynamic, fluid, and at times seemingly messy
process. It will be important for researchers and practitioners to continue exploring the effects of various pedagogical practices on childrens biliteracy development.
This review has offered an examination of how the
notion and study of biliteracy have developed in the
last few decades. Although few studies have addressed
biliteracy exclusively, they have helped move the field
toward a perspective that biliteracy is one of the wide
variety of sociocultural and linguistic practices that
are part of the natural development of young emergent
bilinguals.
Studies have also clearly differentiated between biliteracy as a process and as an outcome. Examining biliteracy as a process allows us to hypothesize and answer
questions about how children practice, develop, and live
biliteracy within their families and communities, and

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

(if they are lucky) in their schools. Looking at biliteracy

as an outcome guides us in documenting how emergent
bilinguals achieve biliteracy, what biliteracy means in
terms of competencies, and how specific programs or
practices can support and maintain biliteracy.
Immigrant children who arrive in their host countries speaking a different language bring a wealth
of linguistic resources with them (Moll et al., 2001;
Surez-Orozco & Surez-Orozco, 2001); however, in
many countries, the pressure to teach academic content
in the national hegemonic language prevents educators from taking advantage of those resources. Despite
abundant evidence of the advantages of bilingualism
and biliteracy (e.g., Aug ust & Shanahan, 2006;
Dworin & Moll, 2006; Orellana & Reynolds, 2008;
Prez & Torres-Guzmn, 1996; M. Reyes, 2001), about
87% of dual-language learners in the United States are
enrolled in English-only classrooms (August & Shanahan, 2006) that neglect or ignore their native linguistic
competencies to the detriment of their academic development. Educational and pedagogical policies should
treat childrens bilingualism and biliteracy as part of
the solution rather than part of the problem (Garca &
Kleifgen, 2010), and this perspective should become a
key component of educational reforms that address and
fit diverse students home linguistic capital with classroom discourses.
Further, research is needed to expand knowledge
of the processes that contribute to childrens early biliteracy development. Following a socioconstructivist
approach, school and family contexts could be studied
as zones of potential and proximal biliteracy development (cf. Vygotsky, 1978). The potential is likely always
present, but it is through enactment of and participation
in various biliteracy practices that emergent bilingual
children and those around them actually transform and
expand this potential into biliteracy.
Additional longitudinal studies are needed to
understand what is constant and what changes in relation to biliteracy throughout the course of a childs
development and in different kinds of supporting contexts. Moreover, how different types of writing systems
interact with the childs developing notion of biliteracy
should be studied. The field also needs accurate information about and representations of childrens and
families everyday linguistic practices and learning
experiences to develop sound educational policies and
practices that optimally support early language, literacy,
and biliteracy learning.
Employing a variety of methodological approaches
and analyses will add to our understanding of how
researchers and educators can identify and help children utilize their bilingual tools and resources to support their long-term success in the social and academic
contexts at home and school. Specifically, assessment
of emergent bilinguals academic performance and

323

processing of school knowledge should not be based on

one set of evaluations but instead on the study and analysis of the language ecology environments and opportunities that exist in the childrens biliteracy practices at
home, in their communities, and in the classroom.
The sparse extant research on biliteracy invites a
reexamination of the contexts where biliteracy occurs
and an ongoing consideration of ways to design biliteracy studies that draw on several theoretical perspectives. One set of contexts that needs to be explored is
communities in which adults and children value and
make use of various languages and multiple literacies.
Relatedly, contexts need to be studied where spontaneous biliteracy makes its way into childrens and families
interactions and exchanges of knowledge (Franquz,
2012). As such, research on biliteracy has supported
what might be called a normalization of bilingualism
and multilingualism for everyone (not just immigrants)
as part of national educational language agendas and
initiatives.
Almost three decades ago, Trueba (1985) encouraged interdisciplinary theoretical efforts to study the
relationships among language, culture, and cognition
to better understand the home and school experiences
of emergent bilinguals. It is the study of these relationships and the contexts in which biliteracy emerges for
children that is most likely to advance our scientific
knowledge in this area of research.
Note
1

In this review, I use the terms dual-language learners and emergent

bilinguals interchangeably.

References
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in
second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on
language-minority children and youth. Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics; Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism
(5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of bilingual children. Language Teaching, 44(1), 3654. doi:10.1017/
S0261444810000339
Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written
language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Basu, V. (2003). Be quick of eye and slow of tongue: An analysis
of two bilingual schools in New Delhi. In N. Hornberger (Ed.),
Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational
policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 291314).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bauer, E.B., & Gort, M. (Eds.). (2012). Early biliteracy development:
Exploring young learners use of their linguistic resources. New
York: Routledge.
Bauer, E.B., & Mkhize, D. (2012). Supporting the early development
of biliteracy: The role of parents and caregivers. In E.B. Bauer & M.
Gort (Eds.), Early biliteracy development: Exploring young learners
use of their linguistic resources (pp. 1433). New York: Routledge.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 169181. doi:10.1017/
S0267190501000101

324

Bialystok, E. (2010). Globallocal and trail-making tasks by monolingual and bilingual children: Beyond inhibition. Developmental
Psychology, 46(1), 93105. doi:10.1037/a0015466
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy,
and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing
systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(1), 4361. doi:10.1207/
s1532799xssr0901_4
Bloch, C., & Alexander, N. (2003). A luta continua!: The relevance
of the continua of biliteracy to South African multilingual
schools. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in
multilingual settings (pp. 91121). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Buckwalter, J.K., & Lo, Y.G. (2002). Emergent biliteracy in Chinese
and English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4), 269293.
doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00088-7
Carlson, S.M., & Meltzoff, A.N. (2008). Bilingual experience and
executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science,
11(2), 282298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00675.x
Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond bilingualism:
Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Collier, V.P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617641.
doi:10.2307/3586986
Combs, M.C., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jimnez,
A. (2005). Biling ualism for the children: Implementing a
dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational
Policy, 19(5), 701728. doi:10.1177/0895904805278063
Cummins, J. (2001a). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: California
Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2001b). The inf luence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory
hypotheses. In C. Baker & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins (pp. 2655). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects
of theory, research, and practice. London: Longman.
de la Piedra, M.T. (2011). Tanto necesitamos de aqu como necesitamos de all: Leer juntas among Mexican transnational mothers
and daughters. Language and Education, 25(1), 6578. doi:10.1080/
09500782.2010.535905
Daz, C.J. (2003). Bilingualism, biliteracy and beyond. In C.J. Daz
(Ed.), Bilingualism: Building blocks for biliteracy. Conference
proceedings of the Bilingual Childrens Interest Group and
the Language Acquisition Research Centre (pp. 119). Penrith,
NSW, Australia: School of Education and Early Childhood
Studies, University of Western Sydney.
Drury, R. (2004). Samia and Sadaqat play school: Early bilingual
literacy at home. In E. Gregory, S. Long, & D. Volk (Eds.),
Many pathways to literacy: Young children learning with siblings,
grandparents, peers and communities (pp. 4051). New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Dworin, J.E. (2003). Insights into biliteracy development: Toward
a bidirectional theory of bilingual pedagogy. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 2(2), 171186. doi:10.1177/1538192702250621
Dworin, J.E., & Moll, L.C. (2006). Guest editors introduction. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(3), 234240.
doi:10.1177/1468798406069795
Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 211228.
doi:10.2307/3586793
English Plus Information Clearinghouse. (1992). The English plus
alternative. In J. Crawford (Ed.), Language loyalties: A source
book on the official English controversy (pp. 151153). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

Ervin-Tripp, S., & Reyes, I. (2005). From child code-switching to adult content knowledge. The International Journal of
Bilingualism, 9(1), 85102. doi:10.1177/13670069050090010601
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.
Fantini, A.E. (1985). Language acquisition of a bilingual child: A
sociolinguistic perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Farr, M., & Domnguez Barajas, E. (2005). Mexicanos in Chicago:
Language ideology and identity. In A.C. Zentella (Ed.), Building
on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 4659). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ferreiro, E. (1990). Literacy development: Psychogenesis. In
Y.Goodman (Ed.), How children construct literacy: Piagetian
perspectives (pp. 1225). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Ferreiro, E. (2007). Letters and numbers in early literacy. In
Y.Goodman & P. Martens (Eds.), Critical issues in early literacy:
Research and pedagogy (pp. 5977). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter,
NH: Heinemann.
Fillmore, L.W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(3), 323346.
doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80059-6
Fishman, J.A. (1972). Language and nationalism: Two integrative
essays. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Flores, B.M. (2010). The sociopsychogenesis of literacy and biliteracy: How Goodmans transactional theory of reading proficiency
impacts biliteracy development and pedagogy. In P.L. Anders
(Ed.), Defying convention, inventing the future in literacy research
and practice: Essays in tribute to Ken and Yetta Goodman (pp.
160172). New York: Routledge.
Franquz, M. (2012). Traveling on the biliteracy highway: Framing
biliteracy from students writings. In E.B. Bauer & M. Gort
(Eds.), Early biliteracy development: Exploring young learners use
of their linguistic resources (pp. 132156). New York: Routledge.
Freeman, R.D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Fu, D. (2003). An island of English: Teaching ESL in Chinatown.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gndara, P., & Orfield, G. (2010). A return to the Mexican room:
The segregation of Arizonas English learners. Los Angeles:
TheCivil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved
April 13, 2012, from civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/
k-12-education/language-minority-students/a-return-to-themexican-room-the-segregation-of-arizonas-english-learners-1
Garca, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals:
Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual development, one language
or two? Journal of Child Language, 16(1), 161179. doi:10.1017/
S0305000900013490
Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review
of research evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5),
655687. doi:10.3138/cmlr.63.5.655
Gillanders, C., & Jimnez, R.T. (2004). Reaching for success:
Aclose-up of Mexican immigrant parents in the USA who foster
literacy success for their kindergarten children. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 4(3), 243269. doi:10.1177/1468798404044513
Gonzlez, N. (2001). I am my language: Discourses of women and
children in the borderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., & Flores, B. (1979). Reading in the
bilingual classroom: Literacy and biliteracy. Rosslyn, VA: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Goodman, Y. (1986). Children coming to know literacy. In W.H.
Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading
(pp. 114). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Gort, M. (2006). Strategic code-switching, interliteracy, and
other phenomena of emergent bilingual writing: Lessons from

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

first-grade dual language classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood

Literacy, 6(3), 323354. doi:10.1177/1468798406069796
Gort, M. (2012). Evaluation and revision processes of young bilinguals in a dual language program. In E.B. Bauer & M. Gort
(Eds.), Early biliteracy development: Exploring young learners use of their linguistic resources (pp. 90110). New York:
Routledge.
Gregory, E. (1996). Making sense of a new world: Learning to read in
a second language. London: Paul Chapman.
Gregory, E., Long, S., & Volk, D. (Eds.). (2004). Many pathways to
literacy: Young children learning with siblings, grandparents, peers
and communities. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gregory, E., Ruby, M., & Kenner, C. (2010). Modeling and close
observations: Ways of teaching and learning between third generation Bangladeshi British children and their grandparents in
London. Early Years, 30(2), 161173. doi:10.1080/09575146.2010
.484799
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and
conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2),
131149. doi:10.1017/S136672899800025X
Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Guerra, J.C. (1998). Close to home: Oral and literate practices in a
transnational Mexicano community. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Gutirrez, K.D., Baquedano-Lpez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999).
Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices
in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286303.
doi:10.1080/10749039909524733
Gutirrez, K.D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational
Researcher, 32(5), 1925. doi:10.3102/0013189X032005019
Gutirrez, K.D., Zepeda, M., & Castro, D.C. (2010). Advancing
early literacy learning for all children: Implications of the NELP
report for dual-language learners. Educational Researcher, 39(4),
334339. doi:10.3102/0013189X10369831
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism.
New York: Basic.
Hakuta, K. (2008). Bilingualism. In L.R. Squire (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of neuroscience (pp. 173178). London: Academic.
Heller, M. (Ed.). (2007). Bilingualism: A social approach. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230596047
Hernndez, A.E., Bates, E., & Avila, L.X. (1994). On-line sentence
interpretation in SpanishEnglish bilinguals: What does it mean
to be in-between? Applied Psycholinguistics, 15(4), 417466.
doi:10.1017/S014271640000686X
Hornberger, N.H. (1989). Continua of biliteracy. Review of
Educational Research, 59(3), 271296.
Hornberger, N.H. (Ed.). (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological
framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N.H., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2000). Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International and critical perspectives. Language
and Education, 14(2), 96122. doi:10.1080/09500780008666781
Kabuto, B. (2011). Becoming biliterate: Identity, ideology, and learning to read and write in two languages. New York: Routledge.
Kassow, D.Z. (2006). Environmental print awareness in young children. Seattle, WA: Talaris Research Institute.
Kenner, C. (2000). Home pages: Literacy links for bilingual children.
Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
Kenner, C. (2004). Becoming biliterate: Young children learning different writing systems. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
Kenner, C., & Gregory, E. (2003). Becoming biliterate. In N. Hall,
J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy
(pp. 178188). London: Sage.

325

Kenner, C., Kress, G., Hayat, A., Kam, R., & Tsai, K. (2004).
Finding the keys to biliteracy: How young children interpret different writing systems. Language and Education, 18(2), 124144.
doi:10.1080/09500780408666871
Kress, G. (2000). Early spelling: Between convention and creativity.
New York: Routledge.
Kuo, L., & Anderson, R.C. (2008). Conceptual and methodological
issues in comparing metalinguistic awareness across languages.
In K. Koda & A.M. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first- and second-language
literacy development (pp. 3976). New York: Routledge.
Lam, W.S.E. (2009). Multiliteracies on instant messaging in negotiating local, translocal, and transnational affiliations: A case
of an adolescent immigrant. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4),
377397. doi:10.1598/RRQ.44.4.5
Lambert, W.E., & Tucker, G.R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second
language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Laurie, S.S. (1890). Lectures on language and linguistic method in
school. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Li, G. (2006). Biliteracy and trilingual practices in the home contexts:
Case studies of Chinese-Canadian children. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 6(3), 355381. doi:10.1177/1468798406069797
Lindholm, K.J., & Zierlein, A. (1991). Bilingual proficiency as a
bridge to academic achievement: Results from bilingual/immersion programs. Journal of Education, 173(2), 99113.
Makin, L., Campbell, J., & Jones Daz, C. (1995). One childhood,
many languages: Guidelines for early childhood education in
Australia. Pymble, NSW, Australia: Harpers Educational.
Martnez, R.A. (2010). Spanglish as a literacy tool: Toward an
understanding of the potential role of Spanish-English codeswitching in the development of academic literacy. Research in
the Teaching of English, 45(2), 124149.
Martnez-Roldn, C.M., & Sayer, P. (2006). Reading through linguistic borderlands: Latino students transactions with narrative texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(3), 293322.
doi:10.1177/1468798406069799
Medina, C. (2010). Reading across communities in biliteracy practices: Examining translocal discourses and cultural f lows in
literature discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 4060.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.1.3
Moll, L., Sez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as a social practice. The Elementary
School Journal, 101(4), 435449. doi:10.1086/499680
Nelde, P.H. (1991). A case of multilingualism in Eastern Belgium.
In V. Ivir & D. Kalogjera (Eds.), Languages in contact and contrast: Essays in contact linguistics (pp. 335344). Berlin, Germany:
Walter de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110869118.335
Nieto, S. (2001). We speak in many tongues: Language diversity and
multicultural education. In C.F. Daz (Ed.), Multicultural education in the twenty-first century (pp. 152170). New York: Allyn &
Bacon.
Olmedo, I.M. (2003). Language mediation among emergent
bilingual children. Linguistics and Education, 14(2), 143162.
doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(03)00033-0
Orellana, M.F. (2009). Translating childhoods: Immigrant youth, language, and culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Orellana, M.F., & Reynolds, J. (2008). Cultural modeling:
Leveraging bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading
Research Quarterly, 43(1), 4865. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.1.4
Orellana, M.F., Reynolds, J., Dorner, L., & Meza, M. (2003). In
other words: Translating or para-phrasing as a family literacy
practice in immigrant households. Reading Research Quarterly,
38(1), 1234. doi:10.1598/RRQ.38.1.2
Owodally, A.M.A. (2011). Multilingual language and literacy practices and social identities in Sunni madrassahs in Mauritius:

326

A case study. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2), 134155.

doi:10.1598/RRQ.46.2.3
Padilla, A.M., Lindholm, K.J., Chen, A., Durn, R., Hakuta, K.,
Lambert, W., et al. (1991). The English-only movement: Myths,
reality, and implications for psychology. American Psychologist,
46(2), 120130. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.120
PanSALB (Pan South African Language Board). (2000, September
7). Language use and language interaction in South Africa:
Anational sociolinguistic survey. Pretoria, South Africa: Author.
Peal, E., & Lambert, W.E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to
intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76(27), 123. doi:10.1037/
h0093840
Prez, B., & Torres-Guzmn, M.E. (1996). Learning in two worlds:
An integrated Spanish/English biliteracy approach (2nd ed.). New
York: Longman.
Pink, S. (2011). Multimodality, multisensoriality and ethnographic
knowing: Social semiotics and the phenomenology of perception.
Qualitative Research, 11(3), 261276. doi:10.1177/14687941113
99835
Pollard-Durodola, S.D., Mathes, P., Crdenas-Hagan, E., LinanThompson, S., & Vaughn, S. (2006). The role of oracy in developing comprehension in Spanish-speaking English language
learners. Topics in Learning Disorders, 26(4), 362381.
Potowski, K., & Gorman, L. (2011). Hybridized tradition, language use, and identity in the U.S. Latina quinceaera ritual.
In K. Potowski & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingual youth: Spanish
in English-speaking societies (pp. 5787). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Potowski, K., & Rothman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Bilingual youth: Spanish
in English-speaking societies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Proctor, C.P., August, D., Snow, C., & Barr, C.D. (2010). The interdependence continuum: A perspective on the nature of Spanish
English bilingual reading comprehension. Bilingual Research
Journal, 33(1), 520. doi:10.1080/15235881003733209
Reese, L., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2000).
Longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of emergent Spanish
literacy and middle-school English reading achievement of
Spanish-speaking students. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(3), 633662.
Reyes, I. (2006). Exploring connections between emergent biliteracy
and bilingualism. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(3), 267
292. doi:10.1177/1468798406069801
Reyes, I., Alexandra, D., & Azuara, P. (2007). Home literacy practices in Mexican households. Cultura y Educacin, 19(4), 395407.
doi:10.1174/113564007783237760
Reyes, I., & Azuara, P. (2008). Emergent biliteracy in young Mexican
immigrant children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 374398.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.4.4
Reyes, I., & Ervin-Tripp, S. (2010). Language choice and competence: Code switching and issues of social identity in young
bilingual children. In M. Shatz & L.C. Wilkinson (Eds.), The
education of English language learners: Research to practice
(pp.6784). New York: Guilford.
Reyes, M. de la L. (2001). Unleashing possibilities: Biliteracy in the
primary grades. In M. de la L. Reyes & J.J. Halcn (Eds.), The best
for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students
(pp. 96121). New York: Teachers College Press.
Reyes, M. de la L., & Constanzo, L. (1999, April). On the threshold
of biliteracy: A first graders personal journey. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Reyes, M. de la L., & Halcn, J.J. (Eds.). (2001). The best for our
children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Ricciardelli, L.A. (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development in
relation to threshold theory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
21(4), 301316. doi:10.1007/BF01067515

Reading Research Quarterly 47(3)

Roca, A. (2005). Raising a bilingual child in Miami: Reflections on

language and culture. In A.C. Zentella (Ed.), Building on strength:
Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp.
110118). New York: Teachers College Press.
Rubinstein-vila, E. (2003). Negotiating power and redef ining literacy expertise: Buddy reading in a dual-immersion
programme. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(1), 8397.
doi:10.1111/1467-9817.261007
Schecter, S.R., & Bayley, R. (2002). Language as cultural practice:
Mexicanos en el norte. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2003). Legal discourse and decisions, teacher
policymaking and the multilingual classroom: Constraining
and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in the United States.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
6(3/4), 168184. doi:10.1080/13670050308667779
Street, B.V. (2005). At last: Recent applications of new literacy studies in educational contexts. Research in the Teaching of English,
39(4), 417423.
Surez-Orozco, C., & Surez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tabors, P.O., Pez, M.M., & Lpez, L.M. (2003). Dual language
abilities of Spanish English bilingual four-year-olds: Initial findings from the early childhood study of language and literacy
development of Spanish-speaking children. NABE Journal of
Research and Practice, 1, 7091.
Trueba, H.T. (1985). Bilingualism and bilingual education (1984
1985). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 6, 4764. doi:10.1017/
S0267190500003056
Valds, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools: An ethnographic portrait. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Valds, G. (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness: The case of
young interpreters from immigrant communities. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and
the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Biliteracy Among Children and Youths

Verhoeven, L. (1991). Predicting minority childrens bilingual

proficiency: Child, family and institutional factors. Language
Learning, 41(2), 205233. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00684.x
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner,
& E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Whitmore, K.F., Martens, P., Goodman, Y.M. & Owocki, G. (2004).
Critical lessons from the transactional perspective on early literacy research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(3), 291325.
doi:10.1177/1468798404047291
Yaden, D.B., Jr., & Tsai, T. (2012). Learning how to write in English
and Chinese: Young bilingual kindergarten and first grade children explore the similarities and differences between writing
systems. In E.B. Bauer & M. Gort (Eds.), Early biliteracy development: Exploring young learners use of their linguistic resources (pp.
5584). New York: Routledge.
Yoshida, H. (2008). The cognitive consequences of early bilingualism. Zero to Three Journal, 29(2), 2630.
Yoshida, H., & Smith, L.B. (2005). Linguistic cues enhance the
learning of perceptual cues. Psychological Science, 16(2), 9095.
doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00787.x
Young, A., & Hlot, C. (2007). Parent power: Parents as a linguistic
and cultural resource at school. In A. Camilleri Grima (Ed.),
Promoting linguistic diversity and whole-school development
(pp. 1732). Strasbourg, Graz, Austria: Council of Europe
Publishing.
Zentella, A.C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Zentella, A.C. (2005). Building on strength: Language and literacy
in Latino families and communities. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Iliana Reyes is an associate professor of language, reading

and culture, and early childhood education at the University
of Arizona, Tucson, USA; e-mail ireyes@email.arizona.edu.

327

Copyright of Reading Research Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.