语言 & Social Justice in the - 麻省理工学院人工智能研究专业

语言 & Social Justice in the
美国: 一个介绍

Walt Wolfram, Anne H. Charity Hudley &
Guadalupe Valdés

I n recent decades, the United States has witnessed a noteworthy escalation of

academic responses to long-standing social and racial inequities in its society.
In this process, 研究, 宣传, and programs supporting diversity and in-
clusion initiatives have grown. A set of themes and their relevant discourses have
now developed in most programs related to diversity and inclusion; 例如,
current models are typically designed to include a range of groups, 特别
reaching people by their race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation,
性别, and other demographic categories. 很遗憾, one of the themes typ-
ically overlooked, dismissed, or even refuted as necessary is language. 更远-
更多的, the role of language subordination in antiracist activities tends to be treat-
ed as a secondary factor under the rubric of culture. Many linguists, 然而, 看
language inequality as a central or even leading component related to all of the
traditional themes included in diversity and inclusion strategies.1 In fact, writer
and researcher Rosina Lippi-Green observes that “Discrimination based on lan-
guage variation is so commonly accepted, so widely perceived as appropriate, 那
it must be seen as the last back door to discrimination. And the door stands wide
open.”2

Even academics, one of the groups that should be exposed to issues of compre-
hensive inclusion, have seemingly decided that language is a low-priority issue. 作为
noted in a 2015 article in The Economist:

The collision of academic prejudice and accent is particularly ironic. Academics tend
to the centre-left nearly everywhere, and talk endlessly about class and multicultural-
主义. . . . And yet accent and dialect are still barely on many people’s minds as deserving
respect.3

像这样, as the editors of this collection, we have commissioned thirteen essays
that address specific issues of language inequality and discrimination, both in their
own right and directly related to traditional themes of diversity and inclusion.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Recent issues of Dædalus have addressed immigration, climate change, 使用权
to justice, 不等式, and teaching in higher education, all of which relate to lan-
guage in some way.4 The theme of the Summer 2022 issue is “The Humanities in
American Life: Transforming the Relationship with the Public.” As an extension of
that work, the essays in this volume focus on a humanistic social science approach
to transforming our relationship with language both in the academy and at large.

There is a growing inventory of research projects and written collections that
consider issues of language and social justice, including dimensions such as racio-
语言学, linguistic profiling, multilingual education, gendered linguistics, 和
court cases that are linguistically informed. Those materials cover a comprehen-
sive range of language issues related to social justice. The collection of essays in
this Dædalus volume is unique in its breadth of coverage and extends from issues
including linguistic profiling, raciolinguistics, and institutional linguicism to
multi lingualism, language teaching, 移民, and climate change. 作者
are experts in their respective areas of scholarship, who combine strong research
records with extensive engagement in their topics of inquiry.

T he initial goal of this Dædalus issue is to demonstrate the vast array of so-

cial and political disparity manifested in language inequality, 范围从
ecological conditions such as climate change, social conditions of inter-
and intralanguage variation, and institutional policies that promulgate the notion
and the stated practice of official languages and homogenized, monolithic norms
of standardized language based on socially dominant speakers. These norms are
socialized overtly and covertly into all sectors of society and often are adopted
as consensus norms, even by those who are marginalized or stigmatized by these
distinctions. As linguist Norman Fairclough notes in Language and Power, 前任-
ercise of power is most efficiently achieved through ideology-manufacturing
consent instead of coercion.5 Practices that appear universal or common sense
often originate in the dominant class, and these practices work to sustain an un-
equal power dynamic. 此外, there is power behind discourse because the
social order of discourses is held together as a hidden effect of power, such as stan-
dardization and national/official languages, and power in discourse as strategies
of discourse reflect asymmetrical power relations between interlocutors in sets of
routines, such as address forms, interruptions, and a host of other conversational
routines. 在此背景下, the first step in addressing these linguistic inequalities
is to raise awareness of their existence, since many operate as implicit bias rather
than overt, explicit bias recognized by the public.

很遗憾, and somewhat ironically, higher education has been slow in
这个流程; 实际上, several essays in this collection show that higher education
has been an active agent in the reproduction of linguistic inequality at the same
time that it advocates for equality in many other realms of social structure.6 Two

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesLanguage & Social Justice in the United States: 一个介绍

essays in particular explore underlying notions of standardization and the use of
language in social presentation and argumentation. The essays also address lan-
guage rights as a fundamental human right. In “Language Standardization & 林-
guistic Subordination,” Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk, and Rachel
Elizabeth Weissler discuss how ideologies about standardized language circulate
在高等教育中, to the detriment of many students, and they include a range
of suggestions and examples for how to center linguistic justice and equity within
higher education.

Curzan and coauthors give us an important overview of language stan-

dardization:

We have suggested some solutions to many of the issues we’ve highlighted in this es-
说; 然而, implementing solutions in a meaningful way first requires recognition
of how important language variation is for our everyday interactions with others. 秒-
另一, implementing solutions depends on recognizing how our ideas about language
(standardized or not) can pose a true barrier to meaningful change. Such recognition
includes the understanding that much of what we think about language often stands
as a proxy for what we think about people, who we are willing to listen to and hear, 和
who we want to be with or distance ourselves from.7

In “Addressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model,”
Walt Wolfram describes a proactive “campus-infusion” program that includes
activities and resources for student affairs, academic affairs, human resources,
faculty affairs, and offices of institutional equity and diversity. Wolfram’s essay
shows directly and specifically how academics aren’t always the solution but, 作为一个
whole, are complicit in linguistic exclusion. 他写:

A casual survey of university diversity statements and programs indicates that a) 那里
is an implicitly recognized set of diversity themes within higher education and b) 它
traditionally excludes language issues.8 Topics related to race, 种族, 性别, reli-
只园, sexual preference, and age are commonly included in these programs, but lan-
guage is noticeably absent, either by explicit exclusion or by implicit disregard. Ironi-
卡莉, issues of language intersect with all of the themes in the canonical catalog of di-
versity issues.9

The absence of systemic language considerations from most diversity and in-
clusion programs and their limited role in antiracist initiatives is a major con-
cern for these programs, since language is a critical component for discrimination
among the central themes in the extant canon of diversity. Language is an active
agent in discrimination and cannot be overlooked or minimized in the process.

Some of the essays in this volume of Dædalus address the sociopolitical dom-
inance of a restricted set of languages and its impact on the lives of speakers of
devalued languages. The authors of these essays consider the effects of climate,

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram, Anne H. Charity Hudley & Guadalupe Valdés

社会的, educational, 合法的, and political dissonance confronted by speakers of non-
dominant languages. They also show how the metaphors of “disappearance” and
“loss” obscure the colonial processes responsible for the suppression of Indig-
enous languages. People who speak an estimated 90 percent of the world’s lan-
guages have now been linguistically and culturally harmed due to the increasing
dominance of a selected number of “world languages” and changes in the phys-
ical and topographical ecology. The authors describe the implications of this ex-
tensive language subjugation and endangerment and the consequences for the
speakers of these languages. Both physical and social ecology are implicated in
this threat to multitudes of languages in the world.

Linguistics in general, and sociolinguistics in particular, has a significant his-
tory of engagement in issues of social inequality. From the educational controver-
sies over the language adequacy of marginalized, racialized groups of speakers in
the 1960s, as in linguist William Labov’s A Study of Non-Standard English, to ideo-
logical challenges to multilingualism and the social and cultural impact of the de-
valuing of the world’s languages, as described in the essays by Wesley Y. Leonard,
Guadalupe Valdés, and Julia C. Fine, Jessica Love-Nichols, and Bernard C. Perley,
the role of language is a prominent consideration in the actualization and dispen-
sation of social justice.10

此外, this collection addresses areas of research that are complementa-
ry to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ 2017 report by the Commission
on Language Learning, America’s Languages: Investing in Language Education for the
21st Century.11 In spite of the long-term presence of the teaching of languages other
than English in the American educational system, concern over “world language
capacity” has surfaced periodically over a period of many years because of the
perceived limitations in developing functional additional language proficiencies.
The consensus view (as in Congressman Paul Simon’s 1980 report The Tongue-Tied
美国人) has been that foreign/world language study in U.S. schools is generally
unsuccessful, that Americans are poor language learners, and that focused atten-
tion must be given to the national defense implications of these language limita-
tions.12 In the 2017 Language Commission report, foreign/world language study is
presented as 1) critical to success in business, 研究, and international relations
in the twenty-first century and 2) a contributing factor to “improved learning out-
comes in other subjects, enhanced cognitive ability, and the development of em-
pathy and effective interpretive skills.”13

The Academy’s report presents information about languages spoken at home
by U.S. residents (76.7 percent English, 12.6 percent Spanish). It also includes a
graphic illustrating the prevalence of thirteen other languages (including Chi-
nese, Hindi, Filipino and Tagalog, and Vietnamese) commonly spoken by 0.13
百分比到 0.2 percent of the population, as well as a category identified as all
other languages (a small category comprising 2.2 percent of residents of the Unit-

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesLanguage & Social Justice in the United States: 一个介绍

编辑状态).14 The report focuses on languages–rather than speakers–and rec-
ommends: 1) new activities that will increase the number of language teachers,
2) expanded efforts that can supplement language instruction across the educa-
tion system, 和 3) more opportunities for students to experience and immerse
themselves in “languages as they are used in everyday interactions and across all
segments of society.” It also specifically mentions needed support for heritage lan-
guages so these languages can “persist from one generation to the next,” and for
targeted programming for Native American languages.15

While it effectively interrupted the monolingual, English-only ideologies that
permeate ideas on language in the United States, the conceptualization of language
undergirding the report needs to be greatly expanded. The report focuses on devel-
oping expertise in additional language acquisition as the product of deliberative
学习. 例如, in the case of heritage languages (defined as those non-English
languages spoken by residents of the United States), the report highlights efforts
such as the Seal of Biliteracy. Through this effort (now endorsed by many states
全国各地), high school students who complete a sequence of established
language classes and pass a state-approved language assessment can obtain an offi-
cial Seal of Biliteracy endorsement. 很遗憾, the series of courses and the as-
sessments required to obtain the Seal are only available in a limited number of lan-
guages. The report mentions other efforts, including dual language immersion pro-
克, yet it does not recognize family- and community- gained bilingualism and
biliteracy. 尤其, the report specifically laments what are viewed as limited literacy
abilities of heritage language speakers and recommends making available curricula
specially designed for heritage language learners and Native American languages.

The view of language that the report is based on is a narrow one and does not
represent the linguistic realities of the majority of bilingual and multilingual stu-
凹痕. In her contribution to this volume, “Social Justice Challenges of ‘Teaching’
Languages,” Guadalupe Valdés “specifically problematize[s] language instruction
as it takes place in classroom settings and the impact of what I term the curricu-
larization of language as it is experienced by Latinx students who ‘study’ language
qua language in instructed situations.”16 Valdés shows us how these specific issues
play out in what is typically viewed as the neutral “teaching” of languages. 她
writes that challenges to

linguistic justice [结果] from widely held negative perspectives on bi/multilingual-
ism and from common and continuing misunderstandings of individuals who use re-
sources from two communicative systems in their everyday lives. My goal is to high-
light the effect of these misunderstandings on the direct teaching of English.17

In “Refusing ‘Endangered Languages’ Narratives,” Wesley Y. Leonard draws
from his experiences as a member of a Native American community whose lan-
guage was wrongly labeled “extinct”:

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram, Anne H. Charity Hudley & Guadalupe Valdés

Within this narrative, I begin with an overview of how language endangerment is de-
scribed to general audiences in the United States and critique the way it is framed and
共享. From there, I shift to an alternative that draws from Indigenous ways of know-
ing to promote social justice through language reclamation.18

Leonard encourages us to directly refute “dominant endangered languages nar-
ratives” and replace the focus on the actors of harm in Indigenous communities
with a focus on the creativity and resolve of native scholars working to revitalize
native language and culture. As he states, the “ultimate goal of this essay is to pro-
mote a praxis of social justice by showing how language shift occurs largely as a
result of injustices, and by offering possible interventions.”19

In “Climate & 语言: An Entangled Crisis,” Julia C. Fine, Jessica Love-

Nichols, and Bernard C. Perley

note that these academic discourses–as well as similar discourses in nonprofit and
policy-making spheres–rightly acknowledge the importance of Indigenous thought
to environmental and climate action. Sadly, they often fall short of acknowledging
both the colonial drivers of Indigenous language “loss” and Indigenous ownership of
Indigenous language and environmental knowledge. We propose alternative framings
that emphasize colonial responsibility and Indigenous sovereignty.20

Fine, Love-Nichols, and Perley present models of how language and climate are
intertwined. They write, “Scholars and activists have documented the intersec-
tions of climate change and language endangerment, with special focus paid to
their compounding consequences.” The authors “consider the relationship be-
tween language and environmental ideologies, synthesizing previous research on
how metaphors and communicative norms in Indigenous and colonial languages
influence environmental beliefs and actions.”21

T he essays in this volume profile a wide range of language issues related to

社会正义, from everyday hegemonic comments to legislative policies
and courtroom testimony that depend on language reliability and the lin-
guistic credibility of witnesses who do not communicate in a mainstream Amer-
ican English variety. 在 1972, the president of the Linguistic Society of America,
Dwight Bolinger, gave his presidential address titled “Truth is a Linguistic Ques-
tion” as a forewarning of the linguistic accountability of public reporting of na-
tional events. In his other work, he describes language as “a loaded weapon.”
Through these essays, we find both concepts to be true.22

Over recent decades, the field of linguistics has developed a robust specializa-
tion in areas that pay primary attention to the application of a full range of legal
and nonlegal verbal, digital, and document communication that is at the heart of
equitable communication strategies. Language variation is also a highly politi-

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesLanguage & Social Justice in the United States: 一个介绍

cized behavior, extending from the construct of a “standardized language” con-
sidered essential for writing and speaking to the use of language in negotiating
the administration of social and political justice. The essays on linguistic variation
and sociopolitical ideology, by Curzan and coauthors, Jonathan Rosa and Nelson
Flores, 和H. Samy Alim, examine both the ideological underpinnings of con-
sensual constructs such as “standard” versus “nonmainstream” and their use in
the political process of persuasion and sociopolitical implementation.23 The au-
thors in this section address key issues of language variation and language dis-
crimination that demonstrate the vitality of language in issues of social justice,
both independent of and related to other attributes of social justice. This mod-
el includes standardization in media platforms, as described in Rosa and Flores’s
散文, demonstrating the systemic othering of those who do not speak this variety
as their default dialect.

In “Rethinking Language Barriers & Social Justice from a Raciolinguistic Per-
观望的,” Rosa and Flores show how “the trope of language barriers and the top-
pling thereof is widely resonant as a reference point for societal progress.”

We argue that by interrogating the colonial and imperial underpinnings of wide-
spread ideas about linguistic diversity, we can connect linguistic advocacy to broader
political struggles. We suggest that language and social justice efforts must link affir-
mations of linguistic diversity to demands for the creation of societal structures that
sustain collective well-being.24

Rosa and Flores present and update their raciolinguistics model in current
spaces where race meets technology. With this emerging technology as a refer-
ence point, they demonstrate why “it is crucial to reconsider the logics that in-
form contemporary digital accent-modification platforms and the broader ways
that purportedly benevolent efforts to help marked subjects modify their language
practices become institutionalized as assimilationist projects masquerading as
assistance.” They also note that disability has always been part of the story–and
needs to be brought back to light–sharing that Mabel Hubbard and Ma Bell, WHO
were both influential on modern linguistic technology, were deaf women.25

In “Black Womanhood: Raciolinguistic Intersections of Gender, Sexuality &
Social Status in the Aftermaths of Colonization,” Aris Moreno Clemons and Jessica
A. Grieser “call for an exploration of social life that considers the raciolinguistic
intersections of gender, 性欲, and social class as part and parcel of overarching
social formations.” They center the Black woman as the prototypical Other, 她
condition being interpreted neither by conventions of race nor gender. 像这样, 我们
take “Black womanhood as the point of departure for a description of the neces-
sary intersecting and variable analyses of social life.” Clemons and Greiser “inter-
rogate the intersections of gender, 性欲, and social status, focusing on the ex-
periences of Black women who fit into and lie at the margins of these categories.”

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram, Anne H. Charity Hudley & Guadalupe Valdés

They highlight the work of semiotician Krystal A. Smalls, who “reveals a model
for how interdisciplinary reading across fields such as Black feminist studies, 黑色的
人类学, Black geographies, and Black linguistics can result in expansive and
inclusive worldmaking.”26

In “Asian American Racialization & Model Minority Logics in Linguistics,”
Joyhanna Yoo, Cheryl Lee, Andrew Cheng, and Anusha Ànand “consider histori-
cal and contemporary racializing tactics with respect to Asians and Asian Ameri-
cans.” Such racializing tactics, which they call model minority logics,

weaponize an abstract version of one group to further racialize all minoritized groups
and regiment ethnoracial hierarchies. We identify three functions of model minori-
ty logics that perpetuate white supremacy in the academy, using linguistics as a case
study and underscoring the ways in which the discipline is already mired in racializing
logics that differentiate scholars of color based on reified hierarchies.27

The authors consider the often-overlooked linguistic experiences of Asian
Americans in linguistics and show how “ideological positioning of Asian Amer-
icans as “honorary whites” is based on selective and heavily skewed images of
Asian American economic and educational achievements that circulate across in-
stitutional and dominant media channels.”28

In “Inventing ‘the White Voice’: Racial Capitalism, Raciolinguistics & Cultur-

ally Sustaining Pedagogies,” H. Samy Alim explores

how paradigms like raciolinguistics and culturally sustaining pedagogies, 其中-
呃, can offer substantive breaks from mainstream thought and provide us with new,
只是, and equitable ways of living together in the world. I begin with a deep engagement
with Boots Riley and his critically acclaimed, anticapitalist, absurdist comedy Sorry
to Bother You in hopes of demonstrating how artists, activists, creatives, and scholars
可能: 1) cotheorize the complex relationships between language and racial capitalism
和 2) think through the political, 经济的, and pedagogical implications of this new
theorizing for Communities of Color.29

Alim digs deep into models of aspirational whiteness in Sorry to Bother You and
shows how it goes past the mark. In the script, Boots states, “It’s not really a white
嗓音. It’s what they wish they sounded like. 所以, it’s like, what they think they’re
supposed to sound like.” All of the authors in this section examine varied kinds of
intervention strategies and programs in institutional education and social action
that can raise awareness of and help to ameliorate linguistic subordination and
sociolinguistic inequality in American society.

From our perspective, it is not sufficient to raise awareness and describe lin-
guistic inequality without attempting to confront and ameliorate that inequality.
因此, our third and final set of papers by John Baugh, Sharese King and John R.
Rickford, and Norma Mendoza-Denton offer legal and policy alternatives that

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesLanguage & Social Justice in the United States: 一个介绍

implement activities and programs that directly confront issues of institutional
不等式. As linguist Jan Blommaert puts it, “we need an activist attitude, one in
which the battle for power-through-knowledge is engaged, in which knowledge is
activated as a key instrument for the liberation of people, and as a central tool un-
derpinning any effort to arrive at a more just and equitable society.”30 Our authors
illustrate the communicative processes involved when we use our human capacity
for language to work toward justice.

In “Linguistic Profiling across International Geopolitical Landscapes,” Baugh
“explore[s] various forms of linguistic profiling throughout the world, culminat-
ing with observations intended to promote linguistic human rights and the aspi-
rational goal of equality among people who do not share common sociolinguistic
backgrounds.”31 Baugh extends his previous work on linguistic profiling into the
international geopolitical landscape and notes, in countries that have them, 这
role that language academies play in reinforcing narrow norms, showing how those
practices relate to practices in countries where these processes are more organic
and situated in the educational systems.

In “Language on Trial,” King and Rickford draw on their case study of the testi-
mony of Rachel Jeantel, a close friend of Trayvon Martin, 在里面 2013 trial of George
Zimmerman v. The State of Florida.32 They show that despite being an ear-witness (经过
cell phone) to all but the final minutes of Zimmerman’s interaction with Trayvon,
and despite testifying for nearly six hours about it, her testimony was dismissed
in jury deliberations. “Through a linguistic analysis of Jeantel’s speech, comments
from a juror, and a broader contextualization of stigmatized speech forms and
linguistic styles,” they show that “lack of acknowledgment of dialectal variation
has harmful social and legal consequences for speakers of stigmatized dialects.”33
Their work complements legal scholar D. James Greiner’s essay on empiricism in
法律, from a previous volume of Dædalus, to show how empirical linguistic analysis
should be included in such models.34 As King and Rickford state:

Alongside the vitriol from the general public, evidence from jury members suggested
that not only was Jeantel’s speech misunderstood, but it was ultimately disregarded in
more than sixteen hours of deliberation. With no access to the court transcript, 除非
when requesting a specific playback, jurors did not have the materials to reread speech
that might have been unfamiliar to most if they were not exposed to or did not speak
the dialect.35

In “Currents of Innuendo Converge on an American Path to Political Hate,”
Norma Mendoza-Denton shows that politicians’ “innuendo such as enthymemes,
sarcasm, and dog whistles” gave us “an early warning about the type of relation-
ship that has now obtained between Christianity and politics, and specifically
the rise of Christian Nationalism as facilitated by President Donald Trump.” She
demonstrates that “two currents of indirectness in American politics, one reli-

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram, Anne H. Charity Hudley & Guadalupe Valdés

gious and the other racial, have converged like tributaries leading to a larger body
of water.”36

Anne H. Charity Hudley concludes the collection with “Liberatory Linguis-
抽动症,” offering the model as “a productive, unifying framework for the scholarship
that will advance strategies for attaining linguistic justice [. . .] [e]merging from
the synthesis of various lived experiences, academic traditions, and methodolog-
ical approaches.” She highlights promising strategies from her work with Black
undergraduates, 研究生, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty members
as they endeavor to embed a justice framework throughout the study of language
broadly conceived that can “improve current approaches to engaging with struc-
tural realities that impede linguistic justice.”37 Charity Hudley ends by noting
how this set of essays is in conversation with the 2022 Annual Review of Applied Lin-
guistics on social justice in applied linguistics, and the forthcoming Oxford vol-
umes Decolonizing Linguistics and Inclusion in Linguistics, which “set frameworks for
the professional growth of those who study language and create direct roadmaps
for scholars to establish innovative agendas for integrating their teaching and re-
search and outreach in ways that will transform linguistic theory and practice for
years to come.”38

As our summaries suggest, this collection of essays is diverse and comprehen-
西韦, representing a range of situations and conditions calling for justice in lan-
规格. We hope these essays, along with other publications on this topic, broad-
en the conversations across higher education on language and justice. We are
extremely grateful to the authors who have shared their knowledge, 研究, 广告-
vocacy, and perspectives in such lucid, accessible presentations.

about the authors

Walt Wolfram, 自此成为美国科学院院士 2019, is one of the pio-
neers of sociolinguistics. He is the William C. Friday Distinguished University Pro-
fessor at North Carolina State University, where he also directs the Language and
Life Project. He has published more than twenty books and three hundred articles
on language variation, and has served as executive producer of fifteen television
documentaries, winning several Emmys. His recent publications include Fine in the
世界: Lumbee Language in Time and Place (with Clare Dannenberg, Stanley Knick, 和
Linda Oxendine, 2021) and African American Language: Language Development from In-
fancy to Adulthood (with Mary Kohn, Charlie Farrington, Jennifer Renn, and Janneke
Van Hofwegen, 2021).

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesLanguage & Social Justice in the United States: 一个介绍

Anne H. Charity Hudley is Associate Dean of Educational Affairs and the Bonnie
Katz Tenenbaum Professor of Education and African and African- American Stud-
ies and Linguistics, by courtesy, at the Graduate School of Education at Stanford
大学. She is the author of four books: The Indispensable Guide to Undergraduate
研究 (with Cheryl L. Dickter and Hannah A. Franz, 2017), We Do Language: 英语
Language Variation in the Secondary English Classroom (with Christine Mallinson, 2013),
Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. 学校 (with Christine Mallinson,
詹姆斯·A. Banks, Walt Wolfram, and William Labov, 2010), and Talking College: Mak-
ing Space for Black Linguistic Practices in Higher Education (with Christine Mallinson and
Mary Bucholtz, 2022). She is a Fellow of the Linguistic Society of America and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Guadalupe Valdés, 自此成为美国科学院院士 2020, is the Bonnie
Katz Tenenbaum Professor of Education, Emerita, in the Graduate School of Edu-
cation at Stanford University. She is also the Founder and Executive Director of the
English coaching organization English Together. Her books Con Respeto: Bridging the
Distances Between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools: An Ethnographic Portrait (1996)
and Learning and Not Learning English: Latino Students in American Schools (2001) 有
been used in teacher preparation programs for many years. She has recently pub-
lished in such journals as Journal of Language, 身份, and Education; Bilingual Research
杂志; and Language and Education.

尾注

1 看, 例如, the statement by the Linguistic Society of America, “LSA Statement on

种族,“ 可能 2019, https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/lsa-statement-race.
2 Rosina Lippi-Green, English with an Accent: 语言, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United

状态 (纽约: 劳特利奇, 2012).

3 右. L. G。, “The Last Acceptable Prejudice,” The Economist, 一月 29, 2015, https://万维网

.economist.com/prospero/2015/01/29/the-last-acceptable-prejudice.

4 Cecilia Menjívar, “The Racialization of ‘Illegality,’” Dædalus 150 (2) (春天 2021): 91–105,
https://www.amacad.org/publication/racialization-illegality; Jessica F. 绿色的, “Less
Talk, More Walk: Why Climate Change Demands Activism in the Academy,“放弃。”-
字 149 (4) (落下 2020): 151–162, https://www.amacad.org/publication/climate-change
-demands-activism-academy; D. 詹姆斯·格雷纳, “The New Legal Empiricism & Its Ap-
plication to Access-to-Justice Inquiries,代达罗斯 148 (1) (冬天 2019): 64–74, https://
www.amacad.org/publication/new-legal-empiricism-its-application-access-justice
-inquiries; Irene Bloemraad, 威尔·基姆利卡, Michèle Lamont, and Leanne S. Son Hing,
“Membership without Social Citizenship? Deservingness & Redistribution as Grounds
for Equality,” Dædalus 148 (3) (夏天 2019): 73–104, https://www.amacad.org/
publication/membership-without-social-citizenship-deservingness-redistribution
-grounds-equality; and Sandy Baum and Michael McPherson, “The Human Factor: 这
Promise & Limits of Online Education,代达罗斯 148 (4) (落下 2019): 235–254, https://
www.amacad.org/publication/human-factor-promise-limits-online-education.
5 Norman Fairclough, Language and Power, 2ND版. (纽约: 劳特利奇, 2001).

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram, Anne H. Charity Hudley & Guadalupe Valdés

6 Stephany Brett Dunstan, Walt Wolfram, Andrey J. Jaeger, and Rebecca E. Crandall, “Ed-
ucating the Educated: Language Diversity in the University Backyard,” American Speech
90 (2) (2015): 266–280, https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-3130368.

7 Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk, and Rachel Elizabeth Weissler, “Language
Standardization & Linguistic Subordination,代达罗斯 152 (3) (夏天 2023): 31, https://
www.amacad.org/publication/language-standardization-linguistic-subordination.
8 Kendra Nicole Calhoun, “Competing Discourses of Diversity and Inclusion: Institutional
Rhetoric and Graduate Student Narratives at Two Minority Serving Institutions” (博士
指责。, 加州大学, 圣巴巴拉, 2021), https://www.proquest.com/open
view/552b09ea236453a210e8b541d03188fe/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
9 Walt Wolfram, “Addressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive
模型,” Dædalus 152 (3) (夏天 2023): 37, https://www.amacad.org/publication/
addressing-linguistic-inequality-higher-education-proactive-model.

10 William Labov, A Study of Non-Standard English (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: Center for Applied
语言学, 1969), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED024053.pdf; Wesley Y. Leon-
ard, “Refusing ‘Endangered Languages’ Narratives,代达罗斯 152 (3) (夏天 2023):
https://www.amacad.org/publication/refusing-endangered-languages-narratives;
Guadalupe Valdés, “Social Justice Challenges of ‘Teaching’ Languages,” Dædalus 152
(3) (夏天 2023): https://www.amacad.org/publication/social-justice-challenges
-teaching-languages; and Julia C. Fine, Jessica Love-Nichols, and Bernard C. Perley,
“Climate & 语言: An Entangled Crisis,代达罗斯 152 (3) (夏天 2023): 84–98,
https://www.amacad.org/publication/climate-language-entangled-crisis.

11 American Academy of Arts and Sciences, America’s Languages: Investing in Language Education
for the 21st Century (剑桥, 大量的。: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017),
https://www.amacad.org/publication/americas-languages.

12 Paul Simon, The Tongue-Tied American: Confronting the Foreign Language Crisis (纽约:

The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1980), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED206188.

13 American Academy of Arts and Sciences, America’s Languages, 七.
14 同上。, 4.
15 同上。, 6.
16 Valdés, “Social Justice Challenges of ‘Teaching’ Languages,” 53.
17 同上.
18 Leonard, “Refusing ‘Endangered Languages’ Narratives,” 69.
19 同上.
20 Fine, Love-Nichols, and Perley, “Climate & 语言,” 84.
21 同上.
22 Dwight Bolinger, 语言: The Loaded Weapon—The Use and Abuse of Language Today (新的

约克: 劳特利奇, 2021).

23 Curzan et al., “Language Standardization & Linguistic Subordination”; Jonathan Rosa
and Nelson Flores, “Rethinking Language Barriers & Social Justice from a Raciolin-
guistic Perspective,” Dædalus 152 (3) (夏天 2023): 99–114, https://www.amacad
.org/publication/rethinking-language-barriers-social-justice-raciolinguistic-perspective;
和H. Samy Alim, “Inventing ‘The White Voice’: Racial Capitalism, Raciolinguistics

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesLanguage & Social Justice in the United States: 一个介绍

& Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies,代达罗斯 152 (3) (夏天 2023): 147–166, https://
www.amacad.org/publication/inventing-white-voice-racial-capitalism-raciolinguistics
-culturally-sustaining.

24 Rosa and Flores, “Rethinking Language Barriers & Social Justice from a Raciolinguistic

Perspective,” 99.

25 同上。, 101–102.
26 Aris Moreno Clemons and Jessica A. Grieser, “Black Womanhood: Raciolinguistic Inter-
sections of Gender, Sexuality & Social Status in the Aftermaths of Colonization,代达罗斯
152 (3) (夏天 2023): 115, 117, 119, 124, https://www.amacad.org/publication/black
-womanhood-raciolinguistic-intersections-gender-sexuality-social-status-aftermaths.
27 Joyhanna Yoo, Cheryl Lee, Andrew Cheng, and Anusha Ànand, “Asian American Racial-
化 & Model Minority Logics in Linguistics,代达罗斯 152 (3) (夏天 2023): 130,
https://www.amacad.org/publication/asian-american-racialization-and-model-minority
-logics-linguistics.

28 同上。, 134.
29 Alim, “Inventing ‘The White Voice,’” 147.
30 Jan Blommaert, “Looking Back, What Was Important?” Ctrl+Alt+Dem, 四月 20, 2020,

Looking back: What was important?

31 John Baugh “Linguistic Profiling across International Geopolitical Landscapes,代达罗斯
152 (3) (夏天 2023): 167, https://www.amacad.org/publication/linguistic-profiling
-across-international-geopolitical-landscapes.

32 约翰·R. Rickford and Sharese King, “Language and Linguistics on Trial: Hearing Rachel
Jeantel (and Other Vernacular Speakers) in the Courtroom and Beyond,” Language 92
(4) (2016): 948–988, https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/Rickford
_92_4.pdf.

33 Sharese King and John R. Rickford, “Language on Trial,代达罗斯 152 (3) (夏天 2023):

178, https://www.amacad.org/publication/language-on-trial.

34 Greiner, “The New Legal Empiricism & Its Application to Access-to-Justice Inquiries.”
35 King and Rickford, “Language on Trial,” 181.
36 Norma Mendoza-Denton, “Currents of Innuendo Converge on an American Path to Polit-
ical Hate,代达罗斯 152 (3) (夏天 2023): 194, https://www.amacad.org/publication/
currents-innuendo-converge-american-path-political-hate.

37 Anne H. Charity Hudley, “Liberatory Linguistics,代达罗斯 152 (3) (夏天 2023): 212,

https://www.amacad.org/publication/liberatory-linguistics.

38 Alison Mackey, Erin Fell, Felipe de Jesus, 等人。, “Social Justice in Applied Linguistics:
Making Space for New Approaches and New Voices,” Annual Review of Applied Linguis-
抽动症 42 (2022): 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190522000071; Anne H. Charity
Hudley and Nelson Flores, “Social Justice in Applied Linguistics: Not a Conclusion,
but a Way Forward,” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 42 (2022): 144–154, https://土井
.org/10.1017/S0267190522000083; Anne H. Charity Hudley, Christine Mallinson, 和
Mary Bucholtz, 编辑。, Decolonizing Linguistics (牛津: Oxford University Press, 向前-
未来); and Anne H. Charity Hudley, Christine Mallinson, and Mary Bucholtz, 编辑。,
Inclusion in Linguistics (牛津: 牛津大学出版社, 即将推出).

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
5
2
3
5
2
1
5
5
8
3
8
d
A
e
d
_
e
_
0
2
0
1
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram, Anne H. Charity Hudley & Guadalupe Valdés
下载pdf