Development of Biliteracy

The development of biliteracy occurs in at least three continua which are: reception- production, oral language-written language, and L1 – L2 transfer (Hornberger, 1989; 2003). The three continua define the communicative repertoire of the individual which indicates the knowledge and ability of a person to use language in social interactions in a particular context of speech. Individuals use their already existing communicative repertoire to socialise and talk in any given context or event.

2.9.1 The reception – production continuum

Recent studies suggest that receptive (reading and listening) and productive (speaking and writing) occur along a continuum and not separately, with oral language development and skills preceding written language ones (Hornberger, 2003). In

addition, speaking in second language learning as well as listening, contribute to the acquisition of meaning when communicating and lead to language learning (Hornberger, 2003; 1989). Attention is given to a single standardised schooled literacy in the L2 (SMG). However, according to the continua of biliterate development, an autonomous skill-based view of literacy development in L2 will not help students’ language learning progress (Hornberger and Skilton- Silvester, 2000). Hornberger & Silvester (2000) argued for the implementation of an ideological and cultural practice view of literacy. One of the characteristics of this view is that students demand their right to speak through L1(CD) spoken and receptive language, as well as L2 written productive ones (Hornberger and Skilton- Silvester, 2000). Based on biliteracy continuum L1 in Cyprus’ sociocultural context is CD since it is student’s everyday linguistic variety and SMG is L2 as it is the language they are trying to learn and become proficient readers and writers. According to prevailing opinions in the wider social context of Cyprus, L1 is SMG as it is the official language of the island and the language demanded within educational contexts and official gatherings while CD is L2 as it a linguistic variety that is used only for unofficial purposes.

In terms of the receptive use of the standard language by dialectal speakers, such as Cypriots, it is stated that non- standard users do not encounter many difficulties because of the continuous receptive exposure to the standard variety (SMG) through everyday contacts with the mass media, that is reading and listening frequently to the standard variety (Yiakoumetti, 2007). However, Yiakoumetti (2007) argued that the productive use of language, that is speaking and writing is mostly affected by the bidialectal environment of Cyprus. Other factors such as, teachers’ behaviours regarding dialect

use, the linguistic differences between CD and SMG and students’ attitudes at school, may create difficulties for speaking the dialect as well as difficulties for educational progress.

2.9.2 The oral language – written language continuum

Children acquire oral language naturally based on their communicative interactions in their family environment and local speech community (Willey, 2008). Studies showed that Quechua students who were taught through their first language as medium of instruction have progressed in oral participation and developed their reading and writing performance at school (Hornberger, 2006). In Cyprus, children learn to read and write in SMG (which is their L2 since it is not their developmental discourse) before they have mastered well its oral systems. Heath (1982) and Hornberger, (1989) suggested that many literacy events occur around language use and children learn to read and write by relying on spoken language. Literacy skills development is based on grammatical and discourse abilities. Interrelations between oral and written language affect literacy progress (Verhoeven, 2002). It is well established that reading demands a combination of skills such as, visual perception, auditory perception, linguistic knowledge, cultural knowledge and knowledge about print and communication (Frederickson & Cline, 2002). Learning to read and write may be more complex for students with specific learning difficulties/dyslexia who live in a biliterate society. The basis of the complexity is the fact that these children who appear to have problems in the above domains, may have difficulties in comprehending and applying the

differences of the language they hear at home and the language used in school in writing.

This study does not examine students’ writing skills but focuses in oral uses of language (SMG- CD) and examines the way students with and without learning difficulties respond and contribute to the pedagogic task achieving meaning- making.

2.9.3 The L1 - L2 Transfer Continuum

First language (L1) and second language (L2) continuity also affects biliteracy development; development in one language is connected with the progress in the other language (Hornberger, 1989). Studies tried to investigate “to what extent knowledge of one language transfers to the other (and aids learning) and to what extent knowledge of the one interferes with the other (and impedes learning)” (Hornberger, 1989 p.282; 2003 p.15). Findings suggest that interference from L1 to L2 is interpreted as evidence for learning by applying knowledge of L1 to L2; secondly, L2 learning can be improved if L1 is developing continuously creating strong learning foundations (Hornberger, 1989). It has to be noted that “interference” is considered as a positive transfer of language knowledge and not negative.

Dworin (2003), viewed biliteracy development as a bidirectional process and not just as a linear course which involves transfer from the first language to the second and vice versa. Particularly, it was argued that biliteracy development is a dynamic, flexible process since children may use two forms of written literacies mediating their language

learning for both languages. Yiakoumetti’s learning programme used CD as a linguistic tool which assisted learning of SMG that is using L1 (CD) to create conscious knowledge of the differences between L1 and L2 and promote language learning (Yiakoumetti, 2007). Dialect interferences were not considered negatively since CD was the language variety which assisted the transfer from L1 to L2. To address this gap in the literature I ask whether CD scaffolds the acquisition of SMG and promotes academic achievement for students with and without dyslexia-type needs.