Thread by @nelsonlflores

Conceptualizations of academic language in educational linguistics are raciolinguistic ideologies that serves to frame the home language practices of racialized communities as inherently non-academic and in need of remediation.

Cognitive framings of academic language as reflected in the (in)famous BICS/CALP dichotomy have their origins in discourses of semilingualism that suggested that minoritized bi/multilingual people were uniquely at risk of failing to develop full proficiency in any language.

After strong critique of the negative connotation of the term semilingualism proponents shifted the discourse toward BICS and CALP, the idea being that minoritized bi/multilinguals had mastered CALP in any language (as determined by standardized assessments of course).

Proponents of semilingualism and BICS/CALP were/are liberals who seem themselves as advocating for minoritized communities. But suggesting that the reason they aren't doing well in school is because of their supposed linguistic deficits seems misguided at best.

Recently the cognitive framing of academic language has fallen out of favor a bit and replaced by a functional framing of academic language. This can be seen in the Common Core State Standards and among test developers. But the underlying raciolinguistic ideologies remain intact.

While cognitive framings have their origin in the BICS/CALP dichotomy, functional framings have their origin in Basil Bernstein's elaborated and restricted codes. Bernstein is making a sociological rather than a cognitive argument but the conclusion is very similar.

Similar to BICS, Bernstein characterized restricted codes as relying on the immediate context and simple linguistic structures. Similar to CALP, he characterized elaborated codes as relying on abstraction from the immediate context and more complex linguistic structures.

Bernstein concluded that lower-class people relied on restricted codes in communicating while middle and upper class people relied more on elaborated codes. He emphasized that one wasn't better than the other but one was literally called restricted and the other elaborated so..

This code theory was taken up by Michael Halliday who argued that the "language of science" that emerged within the context of the "scientific-industrial" societies as an elaborated code that serves the purposes of modern society. He is only overlooking one thing...COLONIALISM

The emergence of the language of science was an integral component in the production of the supposed objective scholar who possessed the only knowledge that was relevant to the understanding of the lived experiences of the lower classes and colonized people.

Yet, rather than frame mastery of these discursive practices as part of social reproduction, scholars who adopt a functional framing of academic language often describe the mastery of academic registers as empowering and as essential for social transformation.

So while making nods to broader social processes that these questions point to, functional framings of academic language are still primarily concerned with the development of linguistic solutions that focus on modifying the language practices of minoritized communities.

In short, in both conceptualizations of academic language the burden of responsibility for gaining legitimacy in an academic setting is on minoritized people. No examination is made of the role of the perceiver in shaping how their language practices are taken up.

This is an important oversight when one considers the ways that dominant groups often dismiss marginalized groups seeking to assert their experiences of marginalization as too ideological and not sufficiently "academic."

How might their racial, gender and/or class position in society impact whether a speaker/writer is perceived to be academic? How might their social position lead them to want to resist the supposedly detached speaking/writing style typically associated with academic writing?

Me: Foundational concepts in educational linguistics are racist

Them: Well actually...

Me: