Article published In: Language, Culture and Society
Vol. 1:1 (2019) ► pp.83–105
Authority and morality in advocating heteroglossia
Published online: 12 April 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/lcs.00005.jas
https://doi.org/10.1075/lcs.00005.jas
Abstract
In this article I address the fact that influential strands in socio- and applied linguistics advocate heteroglossic policies in education and other monolingually organised domains without extending this heteroglossia to public debate about language policy. Often this occurs by presenting linguistic diversity to relevant stakeholders as natural and real, or as the only option on account of its proven effectiveness. I argue that this strategy removes options from the debate by framing it as a scientific rather than political one, that it confronts stakeholders with academic pressure and blame, and that this may diminish scholars’ impact on policy making. Using examples from research on translanguaging, repertoires, and linguistic citizenship, I will suggest that scholars may be more effective in contexts of value conflict when their knowledge serves to expand rather than reduce the range of alternatives for stakeholders. Focusing on education I will then explore how we may reclaim language policy from an evidence-based discourse and address matters of value besides matters of fact.
Keywords: heteroglossia, authority, morality, translanguaging, repertoire, linguistic citizenship
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Translanguaging
- 3.Repertoires and linguistic citizenship
- 4.The relation between science and policy
- 5.From “what is/works” to “what do we want (and why)”
- 6.Conclusion
References
References (60)
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination (ed. by M. Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bezemer, J. (2015). Partnerships in research. In J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic ethnography (pp. 207–224). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 211, 33–46.
Biesta, G., & Osberg, D. (2010). Complexity, education and politics from the inside-out and the outside-in. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.), Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 1–3). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas. London: Sage.
Block, D. (2018). The political economy of language education research (or the lack thereof). Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 15(4), 237–257.
Blommaert, J. (1999). The debate is open. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp. 1–38). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2011). Repertoires revisited. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 671.
Bruce Morton, J., & Harper, S. N. (2007). What did Simon say? Revisiting the bilingual advantage. Developmental Science, 10(6), 719–726.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.
Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, B., & Richardson, K. (1992). Researching language. London: Routledge.
Chun, E., & Lo, A. (2016). Language and racialization. In N. Bonvillain (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp. 220–233). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cooke, M., Bryers, D., & Wistanley, B. (2018). ‘Our languages’. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 234.
De Bruin, A., Treccani, B., & Della Sala, S. (2014). Cognitive advantage in bilingualism: An example of publication bias? Psychological Science, 26(1), 99–107.
Del Percio, A., Flubacher, M., & Duchêne, A. (2016). Language and political economy. In O. García, N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and society (pp. 55–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(4), 335–356.
Flores, N. (2017). Developing a materialist anti-racist approach to language activism. Multilingua, 36(5), 565–570.
García, O., & Flores, N. (2012). Multilingual pedagogies. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 232–246). New York, NY: Routledge.
García, O., & Hesson, S. (2015). Translanguaging frameworks. In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Multilingualism and language in education (pp. 221–241). Cambridge: CUP.
García, O., & Lin, A. (2016). Translanguaging and bilingual education. In O. García, A. Lin, S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 117–130). Dordrecht: Springer.
Garcia, O., Flores, N., & Woodley, H. H. (2015). Constructing in-between spaces to ‘do’ bilingualism. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education (pp. 199–224). Cambridge: CUP.
Hammersley, M. (2005). Is the evidence-based practice movement doing more good than harm? Evidence & Policy 1(1), 85–100.
(2014). The perils of ‘impact’ for academic social science. Contemporary Social Science 9(3), 345–355.
Heller, M. (1999). Ebonics, language revival, la qualité de la langue and more. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(2), 260–266.
Heller, M., Pietikäinen, S., & Pujolar, J. (2017). Critical sociolinguistic research methods. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heller, M., & McElhinny, B. (2017). Language, capitalism, colonialism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hill, J. H., & Hill, K. C. (1980). Mixed grammar, purist grammar, and language attitudes in modern Nahuatl. Language in Society, 9(3), 321–48.
Hogan-Brun, G., Mar-Molinero, C., & Stevenson, P. (Eds.) (2009). Discourses on language and integration. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2012). Collaborative practice, linguistic anthropological enquiry and mediation between researcher and practitioner discourses. In S. Gardner & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Multilingualism, discourse and ethnography (pp. 334–352). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jaspers, J., & Van Hoof, S. (2013). Hyperstandardization in Flanders. Extreme enregisterment and its aftermath. Pragmatics, 23(2), 331–359.
Kompridis, N. (2005). Normativizing hybridity/neutralizing culture. Political Theory, 33(3), 318–343.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Professional vision and the politics of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 271, 505–514.
Lewis, M. C. (2018). A critique of the principle of error correction as a theory of social change. Language in Society, 471, 325–384.
Li, Wei. (2016). Epilogue. In V. Cook & W. Li (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multicompetence (pp. 533–543). Cambridge: CUP.
Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2013). Defence of the school. Leuven: E-ducation, Culture and Society Publishers.
McNamara, T. (2009). Language tests and social policy. In G. Hogan-Brun, C. Mar-Molinero, & P. Stevenson (Eds.), Discourses on language and integration (pp. 153–163). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307.
Rampton, B. (1997). Retuning in applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 3–25.
Rampton, B., Cooke, M., & Holmes, S. (2018). Promoting linguistic citizenship. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 2331.
Salö, L. (2017). Sociolinguistics and epistemic reflexivity. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 2061.
Silverstein, M. (1985). Language and the culture of gender. In E. Mertz & R. J. Parmentier (Eds.), Semiotic mediation (pp. 219–259). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Stroud, C. (2001). African mother-tongue programmes and the politics of language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22(4), 339–355.
Stroud, C., & Heugh, K. (2004). Linguistic human rights and linguistic citizenship. In D. Patrick & J. Freeland (Eds.), Language rights and language survival (pp. 191–218). Manchester: St Jerome.
Cited by (13)
Cited by 13 other publications
Zirak Ghazani, Ahmad
Ciriza, Maria Del Puy & Isabella A. Marrin
Catedral, Lydia & Madina Djuraeva
Imre Heltai, János
Tian, Zhongfeng & Sunny Man Chu Lau
Brooks, Emma
Maseko, Busani
Sakamoto, Mitsuyo & Gavin Furukawa
Santello, Marco
Valdés, Guadalupe
García, Ofelia
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
