From academic language to language architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic ideologies in research and practice
Abstract
In this article, I argue that academic language is a raciolinguistic ideology that frames racialized students as linguistically deficient and in need of remediation. I propose language architecture as an alternative framing of language that can serve as a point of entry for resisting these raciolinguistic ideologies in both research and practice. I use this framework as a lens for analyzing the literacy demands of the Common Core State Standard (CCSS). Using data collected as part of a larger ethnographic study, I illustrate how Latinx children from bilingual communities have unique opportunities for engaging in the language architecture called for in the standards. I then describe a unit plan that I developed from this perspective. I end with a call for situating language architecture within broader political struggles seeking to dismantle the political and economic inequities that are the root causes of deficit perspectives of Latinxs and other racialized students.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The translanguaging stance advocates that the linguistic and cultural knowledge learners of English as a second, foreign, or additional language already have is legitimate on its own terms, and therefore must be taken seriously as a necessary component in ensuring these learners' success in education.
“The translanguaging stance advocates that the linguistic and cultural knowledge learners of English as a second, foreign, or additional language already have is legitimate on its own terms, and therefore must be taken seriously as a necessary component in ensuring these learners' success in education (Flores 2020).”
From Translanguaging as a political stance: implications for English language education (2022) · cites this paper as Flores 2020
Culturally and linguistically diverse students have historically been viewed as inherently having an educational deficit because of their cultural, linguistic, and racial backgrounds.
“who have throughout Western education's history been viewed as inherently having an educational deficit, lacking the knowledge and skills to succeed in schools because of their cultural, linguistic, and racial backgrounds (Espinoza et al., 2021; Flores, 2020; MacSwan, 2020; Reyes et al., 2016; Ruiz, 2010; Valencia, 2010).”
From Exploring Students’ World: Leveraging Funds of Knowledge Through Virtual Community Explorations (2024) · cites this paper as Flores, 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 320
- Authors
- Flores, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Flores, Nelson
- ORCID
- Flores, Nelson
- Venue
- Theory Into Practice
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-11-11
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-31
- ISSN
- 0040-5841 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-0421
- OpenAlex
- W2979565391
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 89.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Theory Into Practice (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
- Keywords
- raciolinguistic ideologies, academic language, language architecture, deficit perspectives, racialized students, Hispanic students, bilingual education, Common Core State Standards, literacy demands, unit planning, educational inequity, remediation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
