On Linguicism, Epistemic Injustice, and Research in Language‐in‐Education: A Commentary on “Midadolescents’ Language Learning at School: Toward More Just and Scientifically Rigorous Practices in Research and Education”

Abstract

Current research in (language) education is rightly concerned about the potential of linguicism and epistemic injustice. Linguicism can be broadly defined as excluding and/or silencing students’ other languages and epistemic injustice as excluding and/or silencing students’ ways of knowing, doing, and being. Thus, any attempts at reducing or eliminating the potential of linguicism and epistemic injustice is a positive move which can help in creating an inclusive and enabling environment for students from diverse backgrounds. At the same time, many language-in-education researchers/practitioners avoid defining language, which is not wholly their fault; but it does impact their work. Traditional linguists have typically avoided defining language. Instead, they typically contrast human language with nonhuman communication and use these differences to establish the discipline of linguistics. Other approaches to linguistics have attempted to define language. For example, systemic functional linguistics sees language as a semogenic system; however, language can be defined in other ways as well. Three additional ways of defining language are described below (see Mahboob, 2020, for a detailed discussion of these definitions and their social and environmental consequences). Drawing on all these definitions of language can contribute to the goals of pedagogies of voices (Uccelli & Boix Mansilla, 2020/2022) that Uccelli has proposed in her target article. A semo-genic system means a meaning (semo)-making (genic) system, that is, a system that helps language users make and share meanings. In language-in-education research, this definition has been used to develop the notion of learning language, learning through language, and learning about language (Halliday, 1980), to which Uccelli has also referred in her target article. Oral language (boli in my speech, ) is only one set of sound frequencies (within a range of frequencies) used by humans to mean different things. Other sets of sounds (e.g., music, thunder, buzzing) also make meanings for humans. And, in addition, humans also use sight, smell, touch, and taste to make meanings. Writing systems are different from boli as they operate through sight, a different sensory system. And reading is just one thing that humans do with their eyes (as boli is with sound); sign language also operates through sight. In addition, humans use gestures, colors, size, distance, dimensions, and many other things that they see to make and share meanings. An understanding of the difference between boli, writing systems, and sign language has implications for education. For example, by realizing that reading is just one aspect of their visual system, we can question the use of literacy as a primary measure of ability, development, and success. One can ask: If people will not discriminate against a person who cannot see, then why discriminate against someone who does not use one aspect of their sight? Boli is inheritance: Children typically learn language from their elders and care givers who learned it from their elders, and they from theirs, and so on. As humans’ ancestral boli evolved and passed across generations, they captured the nuances of their environment as well as their ways of knowing, doing, and being, that is, their epistemologies. These epistemologies evolved based on what was necessary in living with the environment and other species in particular regions. Boli is a sociosemiotic inheritance and, unlike humans’ material/biological inheritance, it is passed on through social engagement and not through DNA. For boli to pass down effectively, it has to remain relatively independent within a larger linguistic ecology. If the linguistic ecology of a community is disturbed, for example, by introducing new concepts and categories, these new concepts and categories can impact local ways of knowing, being, and doing. If one strips science of all applications and methodologies, what remains are taxonomies: ways of classifying and categorizing things and processes. These taxonomies form humans’ boli and their semogenic abilities. Since boli evolves in different contexts and geographies, they reflect different ways of classifying and categorizing things and processes. Taxonomies can influence how humans see and engage in the world. While boli evolves naturally and may change the ways that it classifies or categorizes things, a deliberate or external influence in the ecology of language can also bring about changes. For example, the concept of religion and taxonomies associated with it (e.g., names of religions, characteristics of religions) evolved during the early period of European colonization. This classificatory system was then borrowed into other languages—evidence of this can be observed in how languages around the world borrow or translate the concept of religion. Once borrowed and/or translated, the concept creates new divisions between groups and often shifts people attention away from practices to belief systems, which can lead to conflict (see also Mahboob & Tupas, 2022). (a) The system consists of multiple agents (the speakers in the speech community) interacting with one another. (b) The system is adaptive; that is, speakers’ behavior is based on their past interactions, and current and past interactions together feed forward into future behavior. (c) A speaker's behavior is the consequence of competing factors ranging from perceptual mechanics to social motivations. (d) The structures of language emerge from interrelated patterns of experience, social interaction, and cognitive processes. (p. 2) Given the complex dynamic nature of boli, one can ask: Can one and should one write grammars of boli when they are not stable? While one may argue that there are certain patterns in boli that are used across many contexts, and hence a description of such patterns can be a useful resource in education and training, one should also be aware that these patterns may change across time and space. An understanding of language as a complex dynamic system has implications for what educators teach, how they teach, and how they carry out assessment (see Mahboob, 2018, for a longer discussion of this). Current directions in language-in-education research that question and provide alternatives to linguicism and epistemic injustice, such as the pedagogies of voices as proposed in Uccelli's target article, are essential in creating a more inclusive educational environment. To support these efforts, one can draw on a more inclusive set of definitions of language and integrate all sensory systems instead of just speech and literacy in their work. Language, or more specifically boli, is a semogenic system, a sociosemiotic inheritance, a science, and a complex dynamic system. Each of these definitions offers unique insights into boli and how it can lead to or avoid linguicism and epistemic injustice. An understanding of boli as an action/performance/verb (and its differences from reading–writing) can help challenge the use of reading–writing as the dominant approach to education and evaluation. An understanding of how boli is inheritance can boost the prestige of boli and recognize the loss represented by a loss of boli. An understanding of taxonomies and how they influence perception and knowledge can help teachers and others to show how different boli can lead to different ways of seeing, knowing, and acting. And, an understanding of how language is complex dynamic, educationists can create pedagogies that sharpen students’ ability to identify patterns and relationships between patterns without the necessity of using any standard language or genre. Proficiency in a complex dynamic system lies in how many variations and patterns one can navigate, not in how well one measures on a test against standards. These definitions highlight the social and environmental impact of monolingual and Anglo-centric education and show the urgency of enabling pedagogies of voices and other approaches to counter linguicism and epistemic injustice.