Laura Anne Martin Defining the Ambiguous Academic Language

Running head: DEFINING ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 1

Laura Anne Martin

Defining the Ambiguous Academic Language:

A Literature Review

The Ohio State University

DEFINING ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 2

Abstract

Recently, the concept of academic language has received a great deal of attention in

educational environments. This increased awareness of academic language is due in large part to

the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 and the introduction of the Common Core

State Standards in 2010. Unfortunately, another reason it has achieved so much attention is

because English Language Leaners often suffer academically because of a lack of academic

language. However, despite the fact that the importance of acquiring academic language is

widely accepted, many students still struggle to acquire it.

One of the biggest reasons that academic language remains such an obstacle for English

Language Learners is the lack of consensus concerning the definition of this term. An analysis of

past and current literature in the field of linguistics demonstrates a wide variety in the proposed

definitions of academic language. While some researchers focus heavily on discourse features of

academic language in their definitions, others define it primarily in terms of its lexical and syntax

features.

Despite the differences in definitions that exist, certain traits of academic language do

emerge from the entire body of literature concerning academic language. For example, upon

analyzing both oral and written language that students receive and produce, many researchers

refer to two types of academic language: general academic language and domain-specific

academic language. Likewise, there seems to be a consensus on the fact that academic language,

when compared with everyday or social language, is typically more lexically dense and

grammatically complex. Furthermore, many researchers note the presence of frequent

nominalizations and clauses in academic texts.


If ELLs are to acquire the academic language necessary to succeed in the educational

context, they must have the opportunity to learn it within the classroom. In order for this to

happen, educators must first understand what exactly constitutes this type of language. This

requires further research and collaboration among linguists, educators, and policymakers.


Defining the Ambiguous “Academic Language”:

A Literature Review

Introduction

Academic language has become a hot-button issue in U.S. educational arenas today.

Frequently discussed and debated, it has recently received particularly strong attention in the K-

12 context and in the field of TESOL. It is referred to in a variety of ways, including “academic

language,” “academic English, and “the language of school.” In the following literature review,

these terms are used interchangeably.

One of the primary catalysts of the increased focus on academic language was the

passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), which requires all students, including English

Language Learners (ELLs), to show measureable Annual Yearly Progress (as cited in Bailey &

Butler, 2003). As part of state accountability measures, students—ELLs included—must

demonstrate growth and competency in content area subjects through standardized tests.

Unfortunately, test results repeatedly show poor performance on these academic assessments

among ELLs (Bailey & Butler, 2003).

It is widely thought that the difficulty ELLs face on content area assessments is due in

large part to their linguistic proficiency levels (or lack thereof), as the nature of tasks which they

are required to perform on content assessments exceeds their linguistic abilities (Bailey & Butler,

2003). In fact, some researchers believe that “the language demands of content-area assessments

may be so great for ELL students as to invalidate the assessment of their content knowledge”

(Bailey & Butler, 2003, p. 3).

Poor performance on these assessments can lead to a myriad of negative consequences

for ELLs. Because of the high-stakes nature of many of these assessments, ELLs who do not


perform well on them may find it more difficult to receive high school diplomas, gain admission

into colleges, or obtain jobs in the future (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000).

Academic language not only affects ELLs in terms of assessment measures, but also in

the classroom on a daily basis. Because academic language is often the language of instruction, if

a student is not able to understand or produce this type of language, it creates an obstacle to

his/her learning. Solomon & Rhodes (1995) noted that academic language, “often hinders the

academic achievement of some minority students, even though such students might be proficient

in varieties of English used in non-academic contexts” (p. 7). Chamot & O’Malley (1994)

explain that academic language is often considered and used as a means of learning content,

rather than an entity to be studied or taught independently. Additionally, the complexity of

academic English that students are exposed to in the classroom, and that which they are expected

to produce, increases dramatically as students advance in school grades (Bailey, Butler, Stevens,

& Lord, 2007).

The importance of academic language extends even beyond the school environment.

Scarcella (2003) described the acquisition of academic English as “one of the surest, most

reliable ways of attaining socio-economic success in the US today” (p. 3). Without it, students

are often marginalized in schools and society, left to spend their time in what Guadalupe Valdés

(2004) terms “ESL ghettos” (p. 118). There is little argument about the fact that in order to be

successful in the future, students must acquire academic English (Valdés, 2004).

Although the importance of academic language is almost universally accepted, there still

exists a lack of consensus regarding a definition of academic language. When Solomon &

Rhodes (1995) surveyed 150 ESL teachers about their definition of academic language, only 132

were able to describe specific examples of this type of language. Of those who did propose a


definition, their descriptions varied considerably, with various teachers focusing their definitions

around concepts such as discrete language features and language functions. Interestingly, none of

the teachers defined academic language in terms of popular research-based theories, such as the

work of Jim Cummins (Solomon & Rhodes, 1995). The diversity that existed in Solomon &

Rhodes’ (1995) survey provides a small glimpse into the variation that exists concerning the

definition of academic language. Even academics in the field of linguistics cannot agree upon a

common definition, as they each seem to propose differing definitions of this ambiguous term.

What constitutes academic language? What are the most significant components of academic

language? How does it differ from everyday language? Can it be taught? If so, how? How does

one know when an ELL has acquired academic language? Can it ever be fully acquired? These

questions and more are debated by linguistics, educators, and policymakers.

If educators wish to equip ELLs for success, they must provide ELLs with opportunities

to learn and use academic English. However, in order for this to occur, a consensus must be

reached concerning the definition of academic language. If educators and policymakers can

create a working definition of academic language and make it less ambiguous, then perhaps

ELLs will begin to receive the necessary instruction to equip them for future success and prevent

further marginalization. The following literature review seeks to shed light on some of the most

salient definitions of academic language, beginning with the work of Jim Cummins and

extending through the current educational policy of the Common Core State Standards.

Cummins:

Laying the Foundation of Academic Language with the BICS/CALP Distinction

The attention to academic language, which has become something of a phenomenon

today, began over thirty years ago with Jim Cummins’ (1979) crucial distinction between Basic


Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency

(CALP). This now famous differentiation was a response to Oller’s (1978) proposal of a “global

language proficiency” and to two research studies concerning the academic performance of

second language learners (as cited in Cummins, 1980).

In the first research study, Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa (1976) reported on Finnish

students who, despite appearing to be completely bilingual, were not performing at grade-level in

academic tasks (as cited in Cummins, 2000). Later, a second study found similar results. The

Toronto Board of Education reported that English Language Learners in Canada were also not

performing at grade-level in their academic classrooms in spite of appearing to have achieved

conversational fluency (Cummins 1981b, as cited in Cummins, 2008).

In response to this research, Cummins (1979) created the BICS/CALP distinction in order

to highlight the difference between social and academic language and to deter educators from

exiting ELLs from ESL services before they were ready to be immersed in a content area

classroom without additional support (Cummins, 2000, p. 58). According to Cummins, BICS is

the everyday language students use in context-embedded situations (in which there is an

opportunity to negotiate meaning), whereas CALP is the cognitively-demanding, context-

reduced classroom language that students use in school (Cummins, 1980; Cummins, 2000). He

explained:

there exists a reliable dimension of language proficiency which is strongly related

to literacy and to other decontextualized verbal-academic tasks. This dimension of

cognitive/academic language proficiency appears to be largely independent of

these language proficiencies which manifest themselves in everyday interpersonal

communicative contexts. (Cummins, 1980, p. 86)


Later, Cummins expanded on his original distinction and created a framework of “two

intersecting continua which highlighted the range of cognitive demands and contextual support

involved in particular language tasks or activities (context-embedded/context-reduced,

cognitively-undemanding/cognitive-demanding) (Cummins, 2000, p. 59). By creating this

framework, Cummins (2000) sought to help educators better understand the language demands

associated with the tasks students perform in school. To portray this distinction graphically,

Cummins’ borrowed Roger Shuy’s (1976) iceberg metaphor, creating a model in which BICS is

above the surface of the iceberg and CALP is below the surface (as cited in Cummins, 1980).

Gibbons:

The Key Role of Context in Defining Academic Language

Similar to Cummins' BICS/CALP distinction, Gibbons (1991) proposed her own

definition of academic language, describing it as “classroom language” and comparing it to its

antithesis, “playground language” (as cited in Cummins, 2000).

According to Gibbons’ point of view (2009), context is one of the most important factors

to consider when defining academic language. She states that the academic language students

need is directly linked to a specific discipline based on the context of each individual situation.

In fact, she claims that “language and content are inextricably entwined,” and expounds on this

philosophy by explaining that a student cannot understand a mathematical vocabulary term such

as “permutation” without first comprehending the correlating mathematical principle (Gibbons,

2009, p. 45). Because of the context-dependent nature of academic language, Gibbons asserts

that the academic language of one content area classroom will differ greatly from that of another.

Consequently, she supports the notion of “academic literacies” rather than “academic literacy”

(Gibbons, 2009, p. 7).


Although she emphasizes the importance of context in defining academic language and

believes that a definition of this term cannot be reduced merely to a set of vocabulary or

grammatical rules, she has cited in her research some overarching commonalities of academic

language that span various disciplines. She finds that in all disciplines, nominalization (creating a

noun from a verb) and nominal groups (using a long, related group of words to describe one

single entity) are common features of the language used (Gibbons, 2009). In addition, she has

observed that across disciplines, when compared with “playground language,” all academic

language tends to be more “written-like,” less personal, more abstract, more lexically dense, and

more structured (Gibbons, 2009, p. 7).

Chamot & O’Malley:

The CALLA Approach to Defining Academic Language

Chamot & O’Malley (1994) achieved extensive recognition in the field of TESOL for

their design of the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), an instructional

approach for teaching academic language to foreign and second language learners. This pair

used Jim Cummins’ research as a basis for their work and expanded his original definition to

redefine academic language as, “the language that is used by teachers and students for the

purpose of acquiring new knowledge and skills” (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994, p. 40). Like

Cummins, they assert that academic language differs from social language in that it is more

difficult, takes longer to learn, is less interactive, involves limited contextual clues to aid

comprehension, is more cognitively-demanding, and typically unidirectional (Chamot &

O’Malley, 1994, p. 40).

According to their definition, academic language encompasses a wide variety of features

such as vocabulary, grammar, discourse structures, and a set of skills or language functions


necessary to succeed in a school environment. In their work, they postulate that academic

language involves that which is used in both reception and production of higher and lower-order

thinking skills. To paint a clearer picture of their definition of academic language, they describe

common academic language functions utilized in the classroom such as the abilities to analyze,

evaluate, justify, persuade, identify, describe, explain, and synthesize (Chamot & O’Malley,

1994, pp. 40-41).

Solomon and Rhodes:

Highlighting the Importance of Discourse Features

Sociolinguists Solomon and Rhodes (1995) have also noted the importance of the context

of a situation in defining academic language. They conducted research and proposed a definition

of academic language that includes not only lexical and syntax features, but also discourse-level

features (Solomon & Rhodes, 1995). Their research, which focuses on language use in fifth

grade classrooms, supports the idea that academic language is not defined by a set of linguistic

features, but by the particular tasks associated with language (Solomon & Rhodes, 1995, p. 14).

Solomon and Rhodes (1995) refer to Halliday’s (1978) concept of various “registers”, or the idea

that “the language we speak or write varies according to the type of situation” and that the

differing situations require unique lexical and syntactic elements (p.32). Solomon and Rhodes

(1995) assert that academic language involves “stylistic registers” which occur at the discourse

level rather than at the sentence-level (p. 11). They propose that the type of language necessary

to perform the task of one stylistic register will differ from that required to perform the tasks of

another stylistic register. For example, they cite differences in language required to retell a story,

respond to a pen pal letter, and read between the lines to write a critical analysis (Solomon &

Rhodes, 1995). According to their assertions, although lexical and syntax features are certainly


involved in academic language, the primary focus in defining this term should be at the discourse

level.

Wong Fillmore & Snow:

A Focus on Discourse Features & Deep Knowledge of Vocabulary

Wong Fillmore & Snow (2000), who support Cummins’ description of academic

language as “cognitively demanding,” also note the importance of language at the discourse

level and define academic language in their work as the “language associated with the academic

discourse of the various school subjects” (p. 7).

Their research on academic vocabulary studied the linguistic demands of various state

graduation exams. Upon analyzing a specific state’s graduation exit exam, Wong Fillmore and

Snow (2000) discovered that in order to pass the exam, students would need to be able to

perform a wide range of language functions. A few of the functions they cite as examples include

summarizing texts, interpreting and inferring a writer’s intentions, analyzing texts, evaluating

evidence and critiquing the logic of an argument, and recognizing incorrect grammar in printed

text (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000, p. 21). In addition to acknowledging the importance of

discourse, Wong Fillmore & Snow (2000) also cite the importance of vocabulary knowledge,

claiming that academic language involves a having a deep knowledge of individual vocabulary

words, rather than just a knowledge of a broad range of different vocabulary words ( p. 18).

Schleppegrell:

Exposing Cross-Disciplinary Commonalities in Academic Language

Like some of her contemporaries, Schleppegrell’s (2001) definition of academic language

pays particular attention to the interconnected nature of language and content. Similar to Gibbons’

(1991; 2009) views, Schleppegrell proposes that linguistic features vary according to the purpose


of a particular text, and so the features present in one type of text may differ greatly from

academic text of another genre.

Although she focuses heavily on the role of context in defining academic language,

Schleppegrell’s (2001) research also discusses several characteristics of academic language that

are cross-disciplinary. For example, she has concluded that the language in academic texts is

typically characterized by more specific lexical choices and greater lexical density (p. 438).

Furthermore, Schleppegrell’s research cites the presence of a set of academic vocabulary words

that are used in various content areas (e.g. “is associated with”) (p. 439). In addition,

Schleppegrell also highlights several grammatical commonalities among academic texts, such as

an increased complexity due to features such as clause-combining strategies, nominalization,

embedding, and hierarchical organization (pp. 438, 450). Finally, Schleppegrell asserts that the

academic language students receive and are expected to produce in school environments is

typically more explicit, declarative, and authoritative than everyday language (Schleppegrell,

2001).

Scarcella:

Defining Academic Language in Terms of Linguistic, Cognitive, and

Sociocultural/Psychological Dimensions

Scarcella (2003) defines academic English as “the variety of language used by the

educated and valued in educational settings in the United States” (p.2) and “a variety or a register

of English used in professional books and characterized by the specific linguistic features

associated with academic disciplines (p 9).” In her work, Scarcella (2003) stresses the

importance of recognizing that academic English is a dynamic concept—one that is constantly

changing as the world evolves, and an ability that can never be fully acquired. Her view of


academic English encompasses many different facets. She contends that using academic English

involves exhibiting a mastery level in the four language domains (p. 28).

To expound upon the specific features that characterize academic English, Scarcella

created a framework in which she defines academic English as being comprised of three essential

dimensions: linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural/psychological (Scarcella, 2003, p. 10). Her

very detailed framework breaks each of the three dimensions into smaller, more definable sub-

components.

The linguistic dimension of academic language broken down into the following five sub-

components: “phonological, lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistic, and discourse” (Scarcella,

2003, p.11). Similarly, the cognitive dimension in divided into the sub-components of:

knowledge, higher order thinking, strategy use, metalinguistic awareness (Scarcella, 2003, pp.

22-25). Finally, the sociocultural/psychological dimension is divided into the sub-components of:

“social and cultural norms, values, beliefs, attitudes, motivations, interests, behaviors, practices,

and habits” (p. 29). Within each subcomponent, Scarcella highlights various language features

and functions particular to that division. In defining academic language this way, Scarcella

provides an exceptionally detailed picture of the type of language involved in the overarching

umbrella of “academic language.”

Bailey & Butler:

Building a More Detailed Framework for Academic Language

In recent years, Bailey and her colleagues at the National Center for Research on

Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) have been responsible for some of the

most extensive research in the field of academic language. Their research purposes to

operationalize the term ‘academic language’ sufficiently so that test specifications can be created


which will ultimately be used to design an assessment tool that measures the academic language

of English Language Learners (Bailey & Butler, 2003). Although the subjects in their research

are primarily students from upper elementary schools, they claim that the application of their

work will span across grade levels (Bailey, 2007).

On a broad level, Bailey (2007) defines academic language as “language that stands in

contrast to everyday informal speech that students use outside the classroom” (p. 9). Although

this description is very similar to the prior work of Cummins (1979) and Chamot & O’Malley

(1994), Bailey’s definition goes further to assert that academic language also involves: (a) the

ability to express one’s knowledge in both verbal and written form, and (b) the ability to monitor

one’s own performance and comprehension due to the decontextualized environment which

provides little opportunity for negotiation of meaning or feedback (Bailey & Butler, 2003, p. 9).

In her research, Bailey has analyzed the academic language demands placed on English

Language Learners by looking at sources of academic language input and output in a typical

academic setting. Her team has investigated and scrutinized the oral and written language used

by teachers and print materials in the school environment as well as the language ELLs are

expected to produce themselves (Bailey & Butler, 2003; Bailey, 2007). In an effort to define

academic language in the most accurate way possible, Bailey and her colleagues have analyzed

not only the typical teacher/school-wide expectations for ELLs, but also various national, state,

and ESL standards that describe behaviors required of ELLs (2003).

From Bailey & Butler’s extensive research, they have defined academic language by

categorizing it into four domains: “oral academic language exposure, oral academic language

production, written academic language exposure, and written academic language production”

(Bailey, Butler, Stevens, & Lord, 2007, p. 103).


Within these four domains, there also exist several sub-divisions. For example, Bailey &

Butler define academic language in terms of lexical features (e.g. types of vocabulary involved),

grammatical features (e.g. specific grammatical structures such as passive voice, clauses, noun

phrases, nominalizations), and discourse features (e.g. language required for various language

functions such as explaining, describing, and comparing) (Bailey & Butler, 2003).

Among these divisions and subdivisions, Bailey & Butler make it clear that there are

various categories of academic language: that which spans across disciplines (an “academic

common core”), and that which is content-specific (Bailey & Butler, 2003, p. 6). For example,

in terms of vocabulary, they refer to the research of Stevens, Butler, & Castellon-Wellington

(2000), who classify vocabulary words into one of three categories: (1) high frequency general

words; (2) non-specialized academic words; and (3) specialized content words (as cited in Bailey

& Butler, 2003, p. 9). Although categories 2 and 3 are both considered “academic language,”

category 2 would involve words that students use across various disciplines, whereas category 3

involves content-specific words. This distinction of the “academic common core” vs. general

academic words is one that pertains not only to the lexical domain of academic language, but

also to the grammatical and discourse domains.

Zwiers:

Focusing on Cognitive Processes

Zwiers (2012), a senior researcher at Stanford University and director of the Academic

Language Development Network, defines academic language as the language that is “used in

school and beyond to describe abstract and complex ideas” (para.1). From his research on

academic language, he has determined that “a significant feature of academic language is that it

describes and facilitates cognitive processes” (Zwiers, 2007, p. 109). Among these cognitive


processes include higher-order thinking skills, such as “identifying cause and effect, comparing,

interpreting, taking multiple perspectives, and persuading with evidence” (Zwiers, 2007, p. 113).

In addition to focusing on cognitive processes, Zwiers (2012), like other linguists, divides

academic language into three interconnected elements: vocabulary, syntax, and discourse. Zwiers

then subdivides each of these three elements into individualized salient features (e.g. the syntax

of academic language is marked by long sentences with multiple clauses).

Johnson:

Academic Language and the Common Core State Standards

Recently, with the development and implementation of the Common Core State

Standards (CCSS), the concept of academic language has received a lot of attention. These

national standards, developed by the Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the

Council of Chief State School Officers, describe benchmarks that all students are required to

meet. Unlike the standards of past years, the CCSS place a heavy emphasis on academic

language (Johnson, 2012). In Common Core Standards: Academic Language in the Classroom,

Johnson (2012) examines the requirements of the CCSS and proposes a definition of academic

language that is in alignment with these national standards. In this definition, he underscores the

importance of academic language, noting that it is the “the language of curriculum, explicit

instruction, formal assessments, Common Core Standards, school textbooks, higher order

thinking and writing, and college and higher education” (Johnson, 2012, p. 52).

Although Johnson (2012) acknowledges that academic language includes socio-linguistic,

grammatical, and vocabulary components, his definition of it, derived directly from the CCSS,

focuses largely on vocabulary. To define and operationalize academic language, he created the


Johnson Academic Language List—a list of 75 words for each grade level that students should

exhibit mastery of in all four language domains.

Johnson (2012) describes academic language by categorizing it into the two sub-

categories present in the CCSS: “general academic language” and “domain-specific language” (p.

16). The CCSS has created a metaphor for each sub-category, using “bricks” to represent

domain-specific language and “mortar” to represent general academic language (Johnson, 2012,

p. 34). In other words, the “bricks,” or building blocks, of learning are the vocabulary words

students must learn in their core content subjects, while the “mortar” of learning is the set of

general academic vocabulary words that “binds and connects learning together” (Johnson, 2012,

p. 34). Within these two subcategories (general academic v. domain-specific) lie other

subdivisions (e.g. “general academic language” is subdivided into the categories of “action

words, transition words, and concept words”) (Johnson, 2012).

Throughout his description of the CCSS and the academic language required in them,

Johnson repeatedly emphasizes the importance of the role of vocabulary in a student’s academic

language proficiency. According to this definition, when a student is able to exhibit full mastery

of all words on the Johnson Academic Language List, he/she is proficient in the academic

language required for his/her given grade level.

Conclusions & Implications for Further Research

Upon analyzing the many voices that contribute to various definitions of academic

language, it remains clear that a consensus has yet to be reached. It appears that almost every

educator, policymaker, or linguist has a definition of academic language that differs in some way

from one another. Some define academic language as a specific register of language and focus

primarily on discourse features. Others note the discourse features of academic language, but


focus more heavily on lexical and syntax features of language. Still others define this type of

language in terms of the cognitive process associated with it.

However, it would seem defining academic language is not an impossible task. Despite

the many differing opinions that abound concerning this ambiguous term, there exist many

commonalities. Many of the proposed definitions have common links, such as the ideas of the

effect of context (and content) on academic language, the existence of both “general academic

vocabulary” and “content-specific vocabulary,” the more complex grammatical and lexical

features that often characterize academic language, and the importance of being able to use

language to express higher-order thinking skills. Although it seems that many individuals choose

to emphasize various aspects of academic language, by highlighting different areas of

importance depending on their individual preferences and opinions, many of the experts in the

field seem to cite definitions that are at least somewhat related to each other.

Because of the importance of academic language, and the impact it often has on the lives

and success of ELLs, it is essential that educators, policymakers, and academics in the field of

TESOL collaborate to create a unified definition of academic language. Further research must be

done to analyze the detailed lexical, syntax, and discourse features of academic language. If

stakeholders can propose an agreed-upon definition, then perhaps teachers will begin to teach

this type of language to ELLs in schools today, rather than merely expecting them to understand

or produce it without direct instruction.


References

Bailey, A. L. (2007). Introduction: Teaching and assessing students learning English in school.

In A.L. Bailey (Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the

Test (pp. 1-26). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bailey, A.L., & Butler, F.A. (2003). An evidentiary framework for operationalizing academic

language for broad application to K-12 education: A design document: CSE report 611.

Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation National Center for Research on

Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Bailey, A.L., Butler, F.A., Stevens, R., & Lord, C. (2007). Further specifying the language

demands of school. In A.L. Bailey (Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting

academic English to the test (pp. 103-156). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Chamot, A.U., & O’Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive

Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing

Company.

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the

optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19, 121-

129.

Cummins, J. (1980). The construct of proficiency in bilingual education. In J. Alatis (Ed.),

Current issues in bilingual education (Georgetown University Round Table on

Languages and Linguistics). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.

Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.


Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In

Street, B. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd

edition, Volume 2: Literacy (pp. 71-83). New York: Springer.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge

zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language

and meaning. Great Britain: University Park Press.

Johnson, E.R. (2012). Common Core Standards: Academic Language in the Classroom.

Sacramento, CA: Achievement For All Publishers.

Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework. The University of California

Linguistic Minority Research Institute Technical Report 2003-1. Retrieved July 21, 2013

from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6pd082d4

Schleppegrell, M. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and

Education, 12(4), 431-459.

Solomon, J., & Rhodes, N.C. (1995). Research report 15: Conceptualizing academic language.

UC Berkeley: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language

Learning. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9802j9tg

Valdés, G. (2004). Between support and marginalization: The development of academic

language in linguistic minority children. International journal of bilingual education and

bilingualism, 7, 102-132. doi: 10.1080/13670050408667804

Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language.

Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.


Zwiers, J. (2007). Teacher practices and perspectives for developing academic language.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-116.

Zwiers, J. (2012). Dimensions & features of academic language. In Academic Language &

Literacy. Retrieved from http://www.jeffzwiers.com/jeffzwiers-com-new_003.htm

http://www.jeffzwiers.com/jeffzwiers-com-new_003.htm

Documents

Laura Anne Martin Defining the Ambiguous Academic Language