刊讯｜SSCI 期刊《语言与教育》2021年第6期

LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION

Volume 35, Issue 6, December 2021

LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION（SSCI一区，2020 IF：2.032）2021年第6期共发文6篇，其中研究性论文4篇，"commentary"和"introduction"各1篇。内容涉及社会文化理论、功能语言学、学术语言、语言意识、语言本体论、少数族裔语言等。

目录

SPECIAL ISSUE COMMENTARY

■Threading systemic change for language equity in schools, by Bryant Jensen &Guadalupe Valdés, Pages 501-504.

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLES

■Academic language: is this really (functionally) necessary?, by Gregory A. Thompson & Kathryn Watkins, Pages 505-521

■From “academic language” to the “language of ideas”: a disciplinary perspective on using language in K-12 settings, by George C. Bunch &Daisy Martin, Pages 522-538.

■Making language ‘academic’: language ideologies, enregisterment, and ontogenesis, by Catherine R. RhodesORCID ,Katherine Clonan-RoyORCID &Stanton E. F. WorthamORCID, Pages 539-556.

■Academic language and the minoritization of U.S. bilingual Latinx students, by Ofelia GarcíaORCID &Cristian R. Solorza, Pages 557-573.

SPECIAL ISSUE INTRODUCTION

■Equitable education and the language ideological work of academic language (Introduction to special issue on academic language), by Gregory A. Thompson, Pages 574-581.

摘要

Threading systemic change for language equity in schools

Bryant Jensen, Brigham Young University, USA 

Guadalupe Valdés, Stanford University, USA

Abstract We identify contributions in this special issue in terms of two essential ways of threading systemic change for language equity in schools: theories/concepts from school governance down to classroom practice, and values/morals from practical realities in classrooms up. We characterize ‘language equity’ as a sense of belonging and meaningful participation in academic activity for linguistically-minoritized students, and show how threading concepts and values for systemic change requires concerted collaborations with educators as well as interdisciplinary frameworks and research methods. Further collaborations are needed to explicate moral commitments for language equity, to align concepts and values, and to examine coherence in school policies and classroom practices.

Key words Language equitysystemic change, school improvement, moral commitment

Threading systemic change for language equity in schools

Bryant Jensen, Brigham Young University, USA 

Guadalupe Valdés, Stanford University, USA

Abstract We identify contributions in this special issue in terms of two essential ways of threading systemic change for language equity in schools: theories/concepts from school governance down to classroom practice, and values/morals from practical realities in classrooms up. We characterize ‘language equity’ as a sense of belonging and meaningful participation in academic activity for linguistically-minoritized students, and show how threading concepts and values for systemic change requires concerted collaborations with educators as well as interdisciplinary frameworks and research methods. Further collaborations are needed to explicate moral commitments for language equity, to align concepts and values, and to examine coherence in school policies and classroom practices.

Key words Language equitysystemic change, school improvement, moral commitment

Academic language: is this really (functionally) necessary?

Academic language: is this really (functionally) necessary?

Gregory A. Thompson, Brigham Young University, USA 

Kathryn Watkins, Brigham Young University, USA

Abstract In this article we critically evaluate the case made by proponents of academic language (AL) that AL is functionally necessary for schooling due to specific functional advantages of AL. We consider three examples of AL introduced by AL proponents in order to show (1) that AL proponents have been too quick to accept the ALH, (2) that functional advantages of AL can be accomplished with non-AL varieties and 3) that AL may, in fact, be dysfunctional within the domain of schooling. We briefly describe the language ideological processes by which AL has been naturalized as appropriate to the domain of education while the functional potential of non-AL forms in schooling is obviated (noted by Halliday 2004). We then consider the work of M. A. K. Halliday, the researcher most commonly cited as providing justification for the ALH (esp. Halliday 2004), elaborating his critique of AL while also showing how this critique has been ignored by AL proponents citing his work. In closing we point to some implications of these findings for creating more equitable educational practices regarding academic language.

Keywords Academic discourse, academic language, language ideology, minority language, functional linguistics, sociocultural theory

From “academic language” to the “language of ideas”: a disciplinary perspective on using language in K-12 settings

George C. Bunch &Daisy Martin

George C. Bunch, University of California, USA 

Daisy Martin, University of California, USA

Abstract A still-widespread perspective on “academic language” is that the most important dimension of language used for academic purposes is the extent to which its linguistic features contrast with “everyday language” used outside of school. But focusing on the unique linguistic features of written academic texts ignores the important role that other, more “everyday” forms of language plays in doing academic work and overlooks the intellectual work that students—especially those from linguistically marginalized backgrounds—are capable of doing using their existing linguistic resources. In this article, we (a language and literacy specialist collaborating with a history education expert) suggest that an alternative is to shift the focus away from what makes academic texts different from everyday language toward the nature of the “language of ideas” used to engage in disciplinary work, including (a) how the content, ideas, and practices at the heart of a discipline can be expressed in a variety of ways, (b) the participant structures and communicative tasks students are called upon to navigate to do academic work, and (c) the linguistic resources students bring to the table to engage in disciplinary learning opportunities—no matter how far from “academic” that language may initially sound.

Keywords Academic discourse, academic literacy, ELL, language across content, literacy practices, academic language

Making language ‘academic’: language ideologies, enregisterment, and ontogenesis

Catherine R. Rhodes, University of New Mexico, USA

Katherine Clonan-Roy, Cleveland State University, USA 

Stanton E. F. Wortham, Boston College, USA

Abstract We argue that ‘academic language’ should not be understood as technical components associated with a ‘register’, and that instead we must attend to its enregisterment. Enregisterment relies upon language ideologies and models of personhood, requiring attention to social components of ‘academic language’ beyond lexico-grammar. We draw on ethnographic data from Latina girls in a US middle school to show how adolescence presents a unique ontogenetic stage that influences how language use becomes enregistered. We show how language is enregistered in middle school differently than in elementary and high schools. Focusing on how language use becomes recognizable and indexically linked to social types, we show how ‘academic language’ is one way through which race, gender, and other socially identifiable positionalities are achieved. Adolescence may present a unique opportunity for intervention as students’ experiences with language and racialization become increasingly generalized.

Keywords Enregisterment, language ideologies, ontogenetic, US Latinu, academic language, schooling

Academic language and the minoritization of U.S. bilingual Latinx students

Ofelia García, City University of New York, USA

Cristian R. Solorza, Bank Street College of Education, USA

Abstract Most U.S. educational reforms have narrowly focused on how to improve the ways in which students use language, and most specifically English. But in the last two decades, it is something called “academic language” that has permeated all education discourse. Here we discuss the development of the construct of academic language and the pernicious effects it has had on Latinx minoritized bilingual students. We focus on how academic language is being used to enregister Latinx students as “non-academic,” ignoring bilingual Latinx epistemologies and ways of languaging. We interrogate the rigidity of the linguistic borders that have been drawn around the concept of academic language, linking it to the epistemological and ideological orientations about language as an autonomous entity produced by colonialism. We show how standards and other educational products are being used to police linguistic borders that are increasingly responsible for the failure of Latinx bilingual students.

Keywords Academic language, bilingual students, English language standards, Latinx students, translanguaging

Equitable education and the language ideological work of academic language (Introduction to special issue on academic language)

Gregory A. Thompson, Brigham Young University, USA

Abstract After briefly describing some of the contributions academic language proponents have made in advancing educational equity for language-minoritized students, I point to the central question of this special issue: Might the construct of academic language also perform language ideological work that contributes to inequitable educational outcomes for language-minoritized students? I then briefly describe the field of language ideology before introducing each of the articles in this special issue.

Keywords Academic language, language ideology, language equity, linguistic, anthropology of education

期刊简介

Language and Education provides a forum for the discussion of recent topics and issues in language and literacy which have an immediate bearing upon thought and practice in education. Articles draw important and well-communicated implications from their subject matter for one or more of the following: policy, curriculum, pedagogy or evaluation in education.

The task of the Journal is to encourage language specialists and researchers in language in education and educational linguists to organise and present their material in such a way as to highlight its educational implications, thereby influencing educational theorists and practitioners and leading to improved educational outcomes for students.

《语言与教育》聚焦探讨语言文学前沿问题，对教育的思想和实践有直接影响。该期刊的范围包括：教育政策，课程，教学法或评估。

该期刊鼓励语言专家和语言教育研究人员、专家突出教育启发，从实践和理论两个层面提升学生的教育成果。

Articles are welcomed concerning all aspects of language education in the dominant language of the country, society, or educational system in question. This includes mother tongue and second language education, issues related to immersion education, content-based language teaching, CLIL, bi/multilingualism, and medium-of-instruction. The remit of Language and Education, however, does not extend to modern foreign language education (i.e. modern foreign languages or English as a foreign language).

该期刊欢迎有关国家，社会或教育体系的语言教育的文章。涵盖母语和二语言教育，沉浸式教育、内容教学法、内容与语言整合教学，双语/多语和教学媒介等话题。其范围不涵盖现代外语教育（即现代外语或英语作为外语）。

官网地址：

https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/rlae20

本文来源：LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION官网

往期推荐

欢迎加入
“语言学心得交流分享群”“语言学考博/考研/保研交流群”请添加“心得君”入群请备注“学校+研究方向“

 今日小编：Kemay

 审    核：心得小蔓

转载&合作请联系

"心得君"

微信：xindejun_yyxxd

点击“阅读原文”可跳转下载