Theorizing flows of community practices implicates three interrelated themes: (1) theorizing practices rather than practicing theories, (2) theorizing our stories, and (3) research as responsibility to the communities in which we work. One way to claim literacy research as a principled epistemological stance is to confront the real-life effects of literacy theorizing and the practicing of our theories. We must challenge analyses that disadvantage youth from nondominant populations by deconstructing the categories that devalue communities and educational possibilities. To keep our insights, only within the domain of theory and not the practice of theory can allow the reproduction of symbolic violence. Theories like the “culture of poverty” and the language gap promise a facile explanatory power for complex multilayered issues. By engaging with multilingualism, transnational literacies, and community communicative flows, we can theorize communicative practices as part of an array of the multiple and multimodal semiotic systems and resources that flow in and through communities. It is argued that we all translanguage across the ecologies of our everyday practices through the full and ample use of our linguistic repertoires. In that sense, we are all translingual. If we think of moving across language and literacy borders as a space for pedagogical potential, we can underscore that learning is about engagement with diverse voices and conceptualizations. Students can develop a translingual awareness that perceives languages as plural and fluid, and this awareness can help students succeed outside of monolingual norms.
Abu-LughodL. (1991). Writing against culture. In FoxR. G. (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present (pp. 137–162). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.
2.
AlimH. S. (2005). Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting issues and revising pedagogies in a resegregated society. Educational Researcher, 34, 24–31.
3.
AlimH. S. (2007a). Critical Hip-Hop language pedagogies: Combat, consciousness, and the cultural politics of communication. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6, 161–176.
4.
AlimH. S. (2007b). “The Whig Party don’t exist in my hood”: Knowledge, reality, and education in the Hip Hop nation. In AlimH. S.BaughJ. (Eds.), Talkin Black talk: Language, education, and social change (pp. 15–29). New York, NY: Teachers College.
5.
AlimH. S.SmithermanG. (2012). Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, language, and race in the U.S. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
AvineriN.JohnsonE. J.HeathS. B.McCartyT.OchsE.Kremer-SadlikT.…ParisD. (2015). Invited forum: Bridging the “language gap.”Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25, 66–86.
8.
BlackledgeA.CreeseA.TahkiJ. K. (2014). Beyond multilingualism: Heteroglossia in practice. In MayS. (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 191–215). New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
BlommaertJ. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
10.
BlommaertJ.RamptonB. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13, 1–21.
11.
BloomeD.AverillJ.HillH.RyuS. H. (2014). Ideologies and their consequences in defining literacies: An essay. In DunstonP. J.FullertonS. K.ColeM. WHerroD.MalloyJ. A.WilderP. M.HeadleyK. N. (Eds.), 63rd yearbook of the Literacy Research Association. Alamonte Springs, FL: Literacy Research Association.
CanagarajahA. S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 401–417.
16.
CanagarajahA. S. (Ed.). (2013a). Introduction. In CanagarajahA. S. (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
CanagarajahA. S. (2013b). Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
CliffordJ. (1986a). Introduction. In CliffordJ. U.MarcusG. (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1–26). Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
CliffordJ. (1986b). On ethnographic allegory. In CliffordJ. U.MarcusG. (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 98–121). Berkeley: University of California Press.
20.
Correa-ChávezM.Mejía-ArauzR.RogoffB. (2015). Advances in child development and behavior 49. Children learn by observing and contributing to family and community endeavors: A cultural paradigm. London, England: Elsevier.
21.
CreeseA.BlackledgeA. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1196–1208.
22.
CrenshawK. (1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101, 1331–1387.
23.
EncisoP. (2011). Storytelling in critical literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and non-immigrant youth. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10, 21–40.
24.
FaircloughN. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, England: Longman.
25.
FloresN. (2013). Silencing the subaltern: Nation-state/colonial governmentality and bilingual education in the United States. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10, 263–287.
26.
FoxG. (1995). Editorial: The breakdown of culture. Current Anthropology, 36, i–ii.
27.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
28.
GarcíaO. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
29.
GarcíaO.Torres GuevaraR. (2009). Monoglossic ideologies and language policies in the education of U.S. Latina/os. In MurilloE. G.VillenasS.GalvanR. T.MuñozJ. S.MartínezC.Machado-CasasM. (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 182–193). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
GayG. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
GeeJ. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
32.
GeeJ. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
GeeJ. P. (2014). Decontextualized language: A problem, not a solution. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8, 9–23.
34.
GilmoreP. (2015). Kisisi (our language): The story of Colin and Sadiki. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
35.
GonzálezN. (1999). What will we do when culture does not exist anymore?Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 30, 431–435.
36.
GonzálezN. (2001a). Finding the theory in practice: Comment on Hammond-Spindler and Watkins exchange. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 32, 388–392.
37.
GonzálezN. (2001b). I am my language: Discourses of women and children in the borderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
38.
GonzálezN. (2005). The hybridity of funds of knowledge. In GonzálezN.MollL.AmantiC. (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms (pp. 29–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
GonzálezN.Martínez BriseñoY. (2014). The affordances of transnational literacies for ‘retornos’: Mobilizing communicative practices of English speakers in Mexican schools. Paper presented at Literacy Research Association Annual Meetings, San Marco Island, FL.
40.
GonzálezN.MollL.AmantiC. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
GonzálezN.WymanL.O’ConnorB. (2011). The past, present and future of “Funds of Knowledge.” In PollockM.LevinsonB. (Eds.), A Companion to the anthropology of education (pp. 481–494). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
42.
GoodmanY. (2014, 12). Miscue analysis: A transformative tool for researchers, teachers, and readers. Oscar Causey Address presented at Literacy Research Association Annual Meetings, San Marco Island, FL.
43.
GouldS. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: Norton.
44.
GuerraJ. C. (2012). From code-segregation to code-switching to code-meshing: Finding deliverance from deficit thinking through language awareness and performance. In DunstonP. J.FullertonS. K. (Eds.), 61st yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 29–39). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.
45.
GuptaA.FergusonJ. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity and the politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7, 6–23.
46.
GutiérrezK. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148–164.
47.
GutiérrezK. D.RogoffB. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits and repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32, 19–25.
48.
HamannE. T.ZuñigaV. (2011). Schooling and the everyday ruptures transnational children encounter in the United States and Mexico. In CoeC.ReynoldsR. R.BoehmD. A.HessJ. M.Rae-EspinozaH. (Eds.), Children, youth, and migration in global perspective (pp. 141–160). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
49.
HamannE. T.ZúñigaV.Sánchez GarcíaJ. (2010). Transnational students’ perspectives on schooling in the United States and Mexico: The salience of school experience and country of birth. In EnsorM.GozdziakE. (Eds.), Children and migration: At the crossroads of resiliency and vulnerability (pp. 230–252). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
50.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes.
51.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27, 4–9.
52.
HeathS. B. (2015). How the brain complicates the “language gap.” Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings, Denver, CO.
53.
HenzeR.HauserM. (1999). Personalizing culture through anthropological and educational perspectives. A publication of the Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
54.
Hernández-ZamoraG. (2010). Decolonizing literacy: Mexican lives in the era of global capitalism. In RamanathanV.NortonB.PennycookA. (Eds.), Critical language and literacy studies. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
55.
JacquemetM. (2005). Transidiomatic practices: Language and power in the age of globalization. Language & Communication, 25, 257–277.
56.
JohnsonE. J. (2015). Debunking the “language gap.”Journal for Multicultural Education, 9, 42–50.
KeesingR. M. (1994). Theories of culture revisited. In BorofskyR. (Ed.), Assessing cultural anthropology (pp. 301–310). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
59.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
60.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.
61.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). It’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty of culture: The problem with teacher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37, 104–109.
62.
LamW. S. E. (2009). Literacy and learning across transnational online spaces. E-Learning and Digital Media, 6, 303–324.
63.
LamW. S. E.WarrinerD. S. (2012). Transnationalism and literacy: Investigating the mobility of people, languages, texts, and practices in contexts of migration. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 191–215.
64.
LamW. S. E.Rosario-RamosE. (2009). Multilingual literacies in transnational digitally mediated contexts: An exploratory study of immigrant teens in the United States. Language and Education, 23, 171–190.
65.
LeanderK. M.PhillipsN. C.TaylorK. H.NesporJ.LewisC. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34, 329–394.
66.
LeeC. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 97–141.
67.
LeeC. D. (2007). Culture, literacy, & learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
68.
LukeA. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital. In HassanR.WilliamsG. (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 308–338). London, England: Longman.
69.
LukeA. (2004). On the material consequences of literacy. Language and Education, 18, 331–335.
70.
MacedoD.FreireP. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
71.
MakoniS.PennycookA. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In MakoniS.PennycookA. (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 1–41). Clevendon, England: Multilingual Matters.
72.
MarcusG.FischerM. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73.
MartínezD.MontañoE. (2015, December). Expanding what counts as language in an Urban middle school setting. Paper presented at Literacy Research Association Annual Conference, Carlsbad, CA.
74.
MartínezR. A.OrellanaM. F.PachecoM.CarboneP. (2008). Found in translation: Connecting translating experiences to academic writing. Language Arts, 85, 421–431.
75.
MayS. (2014a). Introducing the “multilingual turn.” In MayS. (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
76.
MayS. (2014b). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In MayS. (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 7–31). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
77.
MayS. (Ed.). (2014c). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
78.
MillerP. J.SperryD. E. (2012). “Déjà Vu: the continuing misrecognition of low-income children’s verbal abilities.” In FiskeS. T.MarkusH. R. (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 109–130). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
79.
MurilloL. (2015). Tacos, Corridos and Pulgas: “Familiar” literacies for making a living on the U.S. Mexico border. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings, Denver, CO.
80.
Noguerón-LiuS. (2013). Access to technology in transnational social fields: Simultaneity and digital literacy socialization of adult immigrants. International Multilingual Research Journal, 7, 33–48.
81.
OrellanaM. F. (2009). Translating childhoods: Immigrant youth, language, and culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
82.
OrellanaM. F.MartínezD. C.LeeC. H.MontañoE. (2012). Language as a tool in diverse forms of learning. Linguistics and Education, 23, 373–387.
83.
OrellanaM. F.ReynoldsJ. (2008). Cultural modeling: Leveraging bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 48–65.
84.
OrtegaL. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In MayS. (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York, NY: Routledge.
85.
OchsE.SchieffelinB. (1986). Language socialization across cultures. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
86.
ParisD. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93–97.
87.
ParisD.AlimH. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 85–100.
88.
PayneR. (2013). A framework for understanding poverty: A cognitive approach. Highlands, TX: aha! Process.
89.
PennycookA. (2010). Language as a local practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
90.
RamanathanV.PennycookA.NortonB. (2010). Preface. In Hernández-ZamoraG. (Ed.), Decolonizing literacy: Mexican lives in the era of global capitalism. Critical language and literacy studies (pp. ix–xii). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
91.
RamptonB. (2011). From “multi-ethnic adolescent heteroglossia” to “contemporary urban vernaculars.”Language & Communication, 31, 276–294.
92.
Romero-LittleM.McCartyT.WarholL.ZepedaO. (2007). Language policies in practice: Preliminary findings from a large-scale study of Native American language shift. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 607–618.
93.
RosaldoR. (1989). Culture & truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon.
94.
RogoffB. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching in to family and community endeavors: An orientation. Human Development, 57, 69–81.
SchieffelinB. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli children. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
97.
SchieffelinB. B.OchsE. (1986). Language socialization across cultures. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163–191.
98.
SmithD. M. (1992). Anthropology of Education and educational research: CAE presidential address. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 23, 185–198.
99.
SperryD. E. (2014). Listening to all of the words: Reassessing the verbal environments of young working-class and poor children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
100.
SpindlerG. (1996). Comments from exploring culture institute(Educational Practice Report No. 4). Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, University of California.
101.
SchwartzL.Noguerón-LuiS.GonzálezN. (2014). The compression of time and space in transnational social fields: Mobilizing the affordances of digital media with Latina students. In Compton-LillyC.HalversonE. (Eds.), Time and space in literacy research (pp. 181–195). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
102.
Vélez-IbáñezC. G. (1990, July 28). Los Chavalones of E-company: Extraordinary men in extraordinary events. Address given to the 40th Reunion of E Company, Tucson, AZ. Retrieved fromhttp://parentseyes.arizona.edu/ecompany/chaval.html
103.
VertovecS. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30, 1024–1054.
104.
WilliamsB. (2009). Multilingual literacy strategies in online worlds. Journal of Advanced Composition, 29, 255–258.
105.
YengoyanA. A. (1986). Theory in anthropology: On the demise of the concept of culture. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 24, 368–374.
106.
ZentellaA. C. (2005). Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
