Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education

By N. Flores, J. Rosa. 2015

Subfields: Linguistics, Social Sciences & Humanities

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Linguistics

1. Maarten Sap
2. Sender Dovchin
3. J. Cummins
4. A. F. Mejía
5. R. A. Martínez
6. N. Flores
7. J. Rosa
8. Eric Wallace

In Social Sciences & Humanities

1. Sender Dovchin
2. J. Cummins
3. Maarten Sap
4. J. Rosa
5. N. Flores
6. K. Seltzer
7. Cati V. de los Ríos

Citations in the corpus

• Detoxifying Language Models Risks Marginalizing Minority Voices (2021, positive): “Concretely, we evaluate detoxified LMs on text with minority identity mentions (e.g., words such as “gay” or “Muslim”) and surface markers of African-American English (Green, 2002, AAE).”
• Translanguaging, Coloniality, and English Classrooms: An Exploration of Two Bicoastal Urban Classrooms (2017, background): “In this context, Lourdes was not allowed to be a Spanish speaker of any kind, which highlights the racialized language ideologies through which Flores and Rosa (2015) argue that Spanish speakers are held to colonial standards of correctness and linguistic purity governed by privileged White…”
• Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective (2017, background): “In previous work (Flores & Rosa 2015) we explored how US educational classifications such as long-term English learner, heritage language learner, and standard English learner, which are often associated with distinct racialized populations and analyzed separately, function in similarly…”
• Translanguaging: Definitions, Implications, and Further Needs in Burgeoning Inquiry (2017, unknown): “…would be expected to point to applications beyond remediation and scaffolding for historically oppressed linguistic communities towards success within the status quo of an inequitable society that will still undervalue students’ linguistic practices and racialized identities (Flores & Rosa, 2015).”
• Looking closely and listening carefully: A sociocultural approach to understanding the complexity of Latina/o/x students’ everyday language (2020, background): “…matters, ideological constructions of academic language incorporate configurations of both linguistic and extra-linguistic signs, such that whether or not Latina/o/x students get perceived as speaking in academic ways can often be more about race than about language (Flores & Rosa, 2015).”
• The psychological damages of linguistic racism and international students in Australia (2020, background): “Raciolinguistic ideologies may produce ‘racialized speaking subjects who are constructed as linguistically deviant’ even when they engage in language practices situated as ‘normative or innovative’ (Flores and Rosa 2015, 150).”
• Teaching Minoritized Students: Are Additive Approaches Legitimate? (2017, background): “Flores and Rosa (2015) explain the construct of raciolinguistic ideologies as follows: “Our conception of raciolinguistic ideologies links the white speaking and listening subject to monoglossic language ideologies, which position idealized monolingualism in a standardized national language as the…”