An Introduction To Language and Social Justice

‘Rooted in a profound commitment to engaged scholarship, Avineri and
Baquedano-López’s An Introduction to Language and Social Justice is a path-

breaking contribution which powerfully synthesizes diverse insights and gener-
ously offers multiple entry points for dynamic praxis linking communication to
the creation of more just societies.’
Jonathan Rosa, Stanford University, USA
‘As a comprehensive review of the tenets of language and social justice re-
search, An Introduction to Language and Social Justice adeptly synthesizes a
heretofore heterogeneous collection of scholarship into one unified text. The
book is expertly designed as a pedagogical tool with social justice principles
at its base.’
Robin Conley Riner, Marshall University, USA
An Introduction to Language
and Social Justice
This innovative, interdisciplinary course textbook is designed to provide the who,

what, where, when, why, and how of the intersections of language, inequality,
and social justice in North America, using the Applied Linguistic Anthropology
(ALA) framework.
Written in accessible language and at a level equally legible for advanced
undergraduate and graduate students, this text connects theory and practice by
sketching out relevant historical background, introducing theoretical and concep-
tual underpinnings, illustrating with case studies, discussing a wide range of key
issues, and explaining research methodologies. Using a general-to-specialized
content structure, the expert authors then show readers how to apply these
principles and lessons in communities in the real world, to become advocates
and change agents in the realm of language and social justice.
With an array of useful pedagogical resources and practical tools including
discussion questions and activities, reflections and vignettes, further reading
and a glossary, along with additional online resources for instructors, this is the
essential text for students from multiple perspectives across linguistics, applied
linguistics, linguistic anthropology, and beyond.
Netta Avineri is a Professor of Language Teacher Education and Intercultural

Communication at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey,
where she also serves as the Intercultural Competence Committee Chair and
Kathryn Wasserman Davis Collaborative in Conflict Transformation Graduate
Education Pillar Lead.
Patricia Baquedano-López is an Associate Professor of Education at the Uni-

versity of California, Berkeley. She is also affiliated faculty in the Department of An-
thropology and the Department of Linguistics. She is co-founding and core faculty
of the doctoral Designated Emphasis in Indigenous Language Revitalization.
An Introduction
to Language and
Social Justice
What Is, What Has Been, and
What Could Be
Netta Avineri and

Patricia Baquedano-López
Designed cover image: © Getty Images | enjoynz
First published 2024
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2024 Netta Avineri and Patricia Baquedano-López
The right of Netta Avineri and Patricia Baquedano-López to be identified as
authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78
of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Avineri, Netta, author. | Baquedano-López, Patricia, author.
Title: An introduction to language and social justice : what is, what has
been, and what could be / Netta Avineri and Patricia Baquedano-López.
Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2023022702 (print) | LCCN 2023022703 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367725310 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367725297 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003155164 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Sociolinguistics—North America. | Social
justice—North America.
Classification: LCC P40.45.N7 A95 2023 (print) | LCC P40.45.N7 (ebook)
| DDC 306.44—dc23/eng/20230831
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023022702
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023022703
ISBN: 978-0-367-72531-0 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-72529-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-15516-4 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003155164
Typeset in Helvetica Neue and Optima
by codeMantra
Access the Support Material: www.routledge.com/9780367725297
We dedicate this book to our students: past, present,
and future.
Contents
List of Figures x
List of Tables xi
Preface xii
Acknowledgements xvii
1. Applied Linguistic Anthropology and Social Justice 1
2. Centering Language: A Lexicon for Language

and Social Justice Issues (LSJIs) 28
3. What Is: Applied Linguistic Anthropological

Methods for LSJI Inquiry 49
4. What Has Been: Deepening the Connections

between Past and Present 80
5. What Could Be: Relationships, Aspirations,

and Actions 107
6. Now What 142
Index 161
ix
Figures
5.1 Audience Coalescence Tool (ACT) 122
x
Tables
1.1 Applied Linguistic Anthropology Framework 11

1.2 Engaged Linguistic Anthropology 16
2.1 The Who, Whom, What, Where, When, How,
and Why of the LSJI 36
4.1 The Cycle of Liberation 102
5.1 The Cycle of Liberation Redux 109
6.1 Essential Components of the ALA Framework 144
xi
Preface
The world is changing constantly, from environmental changes to political

struggles, from educational inequities to immigration debates. This book pro-
vides you with the Applied Linguistic Anthropology (ALA) framework and the
tools to identify who you are in relation to the issues that matter most to you—
centering the role of language in these wide-ranging topics. It then provides you
with concrete methods for examining the relationships between present-day
and historical trends, to prepare you for collaborating for social change.
Throughout the book we focus on the who, what, where, when, why, and
how of the intersections of language and social justice—including how language
is implicated in social justice as well as how language can be used to mobilize
towards social justice. We focus on theoretical and conceptual underpinnings
of the emerging area of language and social justice, bringing together selected
case studies, topical connections, as well as scholars and activists’ vignettes.
Language is implicated in social justice.

Language can be used to mobilize towards social justice.
Our main argument in the book is that language is integral to an under-

standing of and a movement towards social justice; we operationalize it as
working collaboratively to ensure that social institutions are inclusive of every-
one’s needs and wants, which means full and equal participation, equitable
distribution of resources, access to opportunities, a recognition of the histo-
ries of oppression, and consciousness-raising for resistance (Adams et al.,
2007). The topics cover key issues in social justice from an applied linguistic
xii
P reface
anthropological point of view. We frame and return throughout the book to

two key issues—1. representation of Indigenous cultures and languages and
2. equity and access in/through language education. To support an approach
that centers language and social justice we also address case studies on lan-
guage rights (linguicism, language endangerment), the proliferation of ‘lan-
guage gap’ discourses and their deficit-based practices, the need for spaces
of belonging (equity and inclusion, access to health services), intersectionality
within and across institutions, and established U.S. institutional practices such
as the use in sports of mascot names that continue to denigrate Native Amer-
ican people.
Our book proposal was submitted on March 13, 2020, at the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic. We, of course, did not anticipate that the pandemic would
extend for three years during which time we advanced this book project. As
soon as restrictions began to be lifted we designed in-person writing retreats
that greatly supported our process of collaboration and inspiration. Our pri-
mary goal has been to offer an accessible, doable, and actionable framework
to engage with others, addressing situations where language can be used for
social justice. The educational shifts during the pandemic provided us also with
opportunities to test some of the ideas and materials in the book in our own
university seminars, which have included different modalities such as online,
hybrid, and in-person. Many of our proposed activities can therefore easily be
adapted to a variety of pedagogical modalities.
The comprehensive list of recommended readings and resources at the
end of each chapter connects you to a wide array of authors, institutions, proj-
ects, grants, and materials and provides invaluable information for extended and
sustained projects in the field. We have added to the book selected v ignettes
from a scholar, practitioner, or community member that offers another point
of view and reflection on the topics covered in the chapters. The book also
includes a glossary of key terminology used in the chapters that serves as an
invitation to comment and expand on these terms. We also integrate various
pedagogical activities and resources that will be useful for instructors and oth-
ers using the textbook for different purposes.
Our process writing this book has been one of collaboration and joint
decision-making at key junctures across several venues and outlets. Inspired
by Netta’s vision and long-standing engagement of/with/in language and social
justice (Avineri & Perley, 2019; Avineri & Martinez, 2021; Avineri et al., 2019;
Avineri et al., 2021), we each bring a shared experience of academic training as
applied linguists from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). During
our professional and disciplinary trajectories, the interdisciplinary nature of
our doctoral programs brought us into very close collaborations with scholars
across linguistic anthropology, communication studies, sociology, educa-
tion, and teacher education. Our career trajectories have taken Netta to the
xiii
P reface
iddlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey and California State

M
University, Monterey Bay and Patricia to the University of California, Berkeley.
We have both taught courses addressing language education, research meth-
ods, teacher education, and undergraduate education. Our collaboration has
also benefited from the diversity of topics that we each have addressed in our
theoretical work with distinct populations of learners in secular and religious set-
tings, including adult Yiddish heritage language socialization in California, Cath-
olic instruction for young Latinx immigrant children also in California, projects of
language maintenance, and in our current engagements with community advo-
cacy, at MIIS (land acknowledgement and relationships with Indigenous com-
munities in Central California) and Patricia’s university-partnership to support
Indigenous Maya language revalorization at an elementary school in northern
California. Moreover, in 2014 we both served together as core members of the
AAA Task Group for Language and Social Justice, which offered opportunities
for us to engage with wider publics on many of the cases covered in the book.
A main driving force behind our joint collaboration emerges out of each of
our positionalities and commitments to social justice work.
Netta: I was born in Beer Sheva, Israel in 1979. My father was born in 1926
in Iasi, Romania (the center of Jewish life in Moldavia) and my mother in 1947 in
Chicago, Illinois (to German-Jewish parents). I have three older siblings from my
parents and two siblings on my father’s side. My family and I moved to the United
States (Southern California) when I was two years old. My parents spoke Hebrew
to one another and English was the language of our home. My older brothers
were ‘ESL’ students in their elementary school. My father owned a construction
company and learned Spanish to speak with the men who worked with him.
When I was 13 years old my father was diagnosed with cancer, and he was in
and out of remission for the four years after that. He passed away when I was 17
years old. My mother was our primary caregiver and an accomplished Marriage
and Family Therapist. She pursued her doctorate while my father was ill. She has
been a leader in the Los Angeles area mental health arena for the past 25 years.
My partner Eduardo is from El Salvador and moved to the United States when
he was eight years old. We are raising our daughter Liliana in Monterey, a multi-
lingual and multicultural region of California. She is learning English and Spanish
in our home, and some words in Hebrew. I reflect deeply on my personal roots
as a Jewish immigrant from a country with a history of contested land, and my
present roles as a mother and partner raising our child in the United States con-
text. My academic career has been focused on unearthing immigrants’ and In-
digenous people’s experiences, cultivating intercultural interactions, and ethical
community engagement. I recognize that my parents modeled for me a focus on
the role of social justice and building new worlds, through their actions within our
family and in their professional spheres. I have sought to continue these motiva-
tions and goals in my academic and personal pursuits as well.
xiv
P reface
Patricia: I grew up in Ichcantiho (Mérida), Yucatan, in the southeast re-

gion of Mexico, the youngest of seven children in a family with Indigenous,
Arab, and Spanish backgrounds. Impacted in those early years by racism
and classism, I learned at an early age to feel and identify marginalization
and injustices around me. I learned not to talk about our Indigenous grand-
mothers and to highlight instead our other racial backgrounds. I watched my
father learn Maya as an older man and speak the language with his closest
friends who were Indigenous men he had met through his job as a govern-
ment tax supervisor of ‘cooperativas’ led by Maya leaders and workers. I
saw his decisions to cultivate those relationships as part of ‘back stage’
behavior (Goffman, 1959), actions hidden from others in our middle-class
aspirations. I have come to understand Indigenous erasure in my own family
as a result of settler colonial logics of ‘racial purism’ and exclusionary poli-
tics around race and ethnicity. This perspective has influenced my work on
language and race in the past 23 years as a university professor raising my
daughter Paulina bilingual (Spanish and English) as a single parent. In the
past few years, Paulina has been doing important social work and advocacy
in the area of disability and access for children and families, many of whom
are multilingual and immigrant. These influences and experiences from my
family and ongoing work have shaped the ethical commitments that I bring
to my work which include critical listening, studying up,1 and reflecting on
and engaging my various roles to support the education of linguistically
minoritized and racialized students and their families, seeking ways to uplift
their knowledge and educational experiences.
In the course of writing the book we are grateful for the opportunities that
we have had to engage multiple audiences and to share drafts of our frame-
work, ideas, and activities in our courses at MIIS, California State University,
Monterey Bay, and UC Berkeley. In addition, we received generous feedback
from papers and workshops we co-presented at the Society for Linguistic
Anthropology conference (‘Towards New Pedagogies for New Times: Culti-
vating a Language and Social Justice Praxis’, American Anthropological As-
sociation conference (‘Nurturing Diverse and Inclusive Anthropology’ panel),
American Association for Applied Linguistics conference (‘Being Critical of
Applied Linguist(ic)s: How Can We Collaborate for Social Change?’), and the
Berkeley Language Center (‘Applied Linguistic Anthropology’ in Action: Social
Justice Projects and Praxis), Netta also appreciates feedback she received
from colleagues at the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
conference, CERCLL, the Modern Language Association conference, as
well as at Rutgers University, Western Ontario University, Emory University,
George Mason University, Kansas World Language Teachers workshops. We
sincerely appreciate our colleagues’ and students’ thoughtful engagement in
these diverse spaces.
xv
P reface
WHY THIS BOOK NOW?
Over the past 15 years in the U.S. there has been an exciting and promising con-
certed effort to examine, question, and interrupt practices where language is
used to create contexts and situations of social inequities. Anthropologists, ap-
plied linguists, and scholars in related language disciplines have come together
joining interest groups and supporting task force agendas to raise awareness
of issues at the nexus of language and social justice. These collaborations have
produced an impressive number of key scholarly publications addressing the
nature of the emergent field of language and social justice as well as official
statements from professional organizations condemning practices where lan-
guage denigrates and creates conditions for exclusion. Scholars in this emer-
gent field have also written and circulated Op-Eds for wider public reach. This
textbook complements these efforts by offering a framework that can guide
‘hands-on’ activities and actions to invite, support, and engage students learn-
ing about language and social justice issues. We provide an overview of topics
of interest as well as tools for you to engage in this work yourselves. Therefore
the book encourages you to not just read and understand but also a ‘how to’
for collaborating with others for critical action.
xvi
Acknowledgements
We thank our students in the courses where we taught and engaged with some
of the ideas and activities featured in the book.
At the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey Netta work-
shopped the activities for the book in her Language Teaching for Social Justice,
Power & Identities in Intercultural Contexts, and Sociolinguistics courses. At
California State University, Monterey Bay Netta workshopped activities for the
book in her Civics Service-Learning, Hunger and Homelessness, and Teacher
Education courses.
At UC Berkeley, Patricia taught and engaged many of the topics and activ-
ities in the book in her courses Indigenous Language Revitalization: Contexts,
Methods, Outcomes; Narrative; Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods;
and during the weekly meetings of her seminar Group Study for Graduate
Students.
We are particularly indebted to the book’s vignette contributors, Uju Anya,
Carla Marie Muñoz, Desirée Muñoz, Bernard Perley, Rachel Showstack, and
K. Wayne Yang, who were incredibly generous with their knowledge and time.
We thank the American Anthropological Association’s Language and So-
cial Justice Task Group for ongoing collaboration and inspiration.
Colleagues at our and other institutions whose support was important
to move this book project forward. Patricia thanks the members of the De-
colonial Knowledge and the Pluriversal group at the Latinx Research Center
(Laura E. Pérez, Maria Cecilia Titizano, Abraham Ramírez, Lisette Bastidas,
and Daniel Marquez). Netta thanks colleagues at Middlebury (in particular,
CoLab and the Collaborative in Conflict Transformation) and California State
University, Monterey Bay (Service Learning, Teacher Education) with whom
xvii
A cknowledgements
she engaged through multiple workshops, presentations, and conversations

about this work.
We thank MIIS graduate student research assistants in the TESOL/TFL
program (Miranda Doremus-Reznor, Lauren Wilmore, Sharon Situ, Maggie
Kwasnik, Isha Banks, and Elisabeth Ampthor) and at UC Berkeley we thank
doctoral student Jonathan Landeros-Cisneros for his support.
We take this opportunity to acknowledge funding to support this book
project, including the MIIS Faculty Development Awards and the UC Berkeley
Excellence Grants program.
At Routledge, we thank Ze’ev Sudry, Amy Laurens, and Bex Hume. We
thank the multiple reviewers of our proposal for their generous and generative
feedback.
We thank one another for the shared journey.
Netta appreciates Patricia’s generous engagement with her and with col-
leagues, thoughtful dialogue about key components of the book, and ongoing
work addressing important language and social justice issues.
Patricia is grateful for Netta’s leadership in the field, for her groundedness
on all matters of language and social justice, and for her inspired vision to make
this book real.
Netta thanks Eduardo and Liliana for being the most amazing and support-
ive family through this three-year endeavor. I learn something new every day
from each of you about the interconnectedness of language, love, and com-
munication. Eema, I have appreciated your encouraging words and ongoing
support during this entire process.
Patricia thanks Paulina for her generosity and constant support. Your com-
mitment to children and families in your work profoundly inspires my own think-
ing and work.
Last but not least we thank you, our readers, students and instructors, who
are our partners in realizing this book. Our hope is that you find the material we
present in this book a source of knowledge and inspiration to advance your
classroom and community engagement, and a helpful resource and guidance
in your ongoing collaborations.
NOTE
1. This references anthropologist Laura Nader’s call to extend our focus of inquiry
to study not the marginalized or the dispossessed but the marginalizing and
dispossessing institutions as well, that is, to the locus of power. Nader, L. (1969).
Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up. In D. Hymes (Ed.),
Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284–311). Random House.
xviii
A cknowledgements
REFERENCES
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for diversity and social
justice (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Avineri, N., Graham, L. R., Johnson, E. J., Riner, R. C., & Rosa, J. (Eds.). (2019).
Language and social justice in practice. Routledge.
Avineri, N., Johnson, E. J., Perley, B. C., Rosa, J., & Zentella, A. C. (2021). A pplied
linguistic anthropology: Balancing social science with social change. In D. S.
Warriner & E. R. Miller (Eds.), Extending applied linguistics for social impact
(pp. 171–194). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Avineri, N., & Martinez, D. (2021). Applied linguists cultivating relationships for justice:
An aspirational call to action. Applied Linguistics, 42(6), 1043–1054.
Avineri, N., & Perley, B. (2019). Mascots, name calling, and racial slurs: Seeking
social justice through audience coalescence. In N. Avineri, L. R. Graham, E. J.
Johnson, R. C. Riner, & J. Rosa (Eds.), Language and social justice in practice
(pp. 147–156). Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Nader, L. (1969). Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up. In D.
Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284–311). Random House.
xix
CHAPTER ONE
Applied Linguistic
Anthropology and
Social Justice
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter will provide you with an overview of the book and begins with
Terms of Engagement, so that your faculty member, you, and your fellow stu-
dents can decide upon the specific actions you will take to ensure respectful
and meaningful dialogue. We then provide the frame of critical university stud-
ies and a genealogy of the fields of applied linguistics and linguistic anthropol-
ogy, as relevant background for the central framework of the book: applied
linguistic anthropology. We share key definitions for language as well as social
justice before providing a summary of the book contents and features (including
case studies, vignettes, tension boxes, and key resources). We invite you to be
part of the inquiry and action process, entering an inclusive space cultivating
your language and social justice praxis.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• Provide a working definition of social justice

• Describe how language and social justice are connected
• Become familiar with the ‘reflexive turn’ in both applied linguistics and
linguistic anthropology
• Identify the steps of the applied linguistic anthropological (ALA) approach to
language and social justice work
DOI: 10.4324/9781003155164-1 1
APPLIED LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY
GUIDING QUESTIONS
1. What is social justice?

2. What is language?
3. How are language and social justice related?
4. What knowledge, skills, and dispositions are necessary to engage in
applied linguistic anthropological work focused on language and social
justice?
TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT
Discussions of language and social justice can generate dialogue and

exchange of ideas in partnership with others. Language can be a catalyst for
social change, but it also has the potential to shut down conversations. These
discussions address issues that are personal as well as systemic, and thus it
is important to create spaces where everyone can share their experiences and
perspectives. This book is about how language is central to creating spaces
where new versions of the world can be created. We encourage the creation
of ‘terms of engagement’ to facilitate the exchange of ideas, recognizing that
the most effective ‘terms of engagement’ are generated in collaboration with
people within a particular context.
Below is a sample ‘terms of engagement’ that Netta has used at the Mid-
dlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey graduate institution where
she teaches, as well as in other educational contexts:1
• Assume positive intent

• Be accountable for the impact of your actions and words
• Call people in (vs. Call people out)2
• Come to the discussion with kindness for each other and for yourself
• Challenge an idea, not the person
• Engage in inclusive and respectful language use3
• Use ‘I’ statements
• W.A.I.T. Why am I talking/Why aren’t I talking?
• We are all responsible for this space
• What’s Said Here Stays Here, What’s Learned Here Leaves Here
In some of Patricia’s classes students select a rotating system of ‘classroom

process observers’ who record notes on the general dynamics of student and
instructor engagement in class discussion. These notes then serve as an in-
valuable learning tool to further support ongoing revision and modification of
community agreements for everyone in the classroom. The point here is to
2
underscore the importance of collaboration, inclusivity, and growth as a class-

room learning community.
Activity 1.1
To make these Terms of Engagement relevant to your classroom, consider the
following questions for discussion in small groups and then share-out as a
larger group: What makes you feel open to sharing in a classroom space? What
changes would you make to the list above? What other inclusive actions would
you add?
Create a shared document you can edit as needed. As a reminder of these
agreements you can print out your shared document and display it in your
classroom or you can include the list in your weekly slide deck if your class uses
this online method for organizing daily classroom activities.
DEFINING ‘LANGUAGE’
REFLECTION 1.1
How would you define language? What other concepts do you associate
with the word ‘language’?
In this book we use a broad definition of language to include oral, written,

and multimodal communication for meaning-making in particular social con-
texts. This definition serves to anchor the foci of the book: 1) how language is
used to describe the world (representation) and 2) how languages and those
who use them are connected to power (recognition). The two language and so-
cial justice case studies in the book will highlight how representation and recog-
nition are interconnected across contexts. Whereas more formal definitions of
language may focus on structural features including lexicon, morphology, pho-
nology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, this book will highlight language
within its sociopolitical and historical (even affective) context—for individuals,
groups, and society at large.
For example, language can include the smallest morpheme or phoneme
(e.g., ‘x’ in Latinx) to a broader meaning to describe people or groups of peo-
ple (e.g., ‘person experiencing housing insecurity’) to what we call certain
languages (e.g., Mandarin, Cantonese) and beyond. The smallest particles of
language can have important meanings beyond grammar. For example, civil
rights leader Malcom X rejected his slave name (the last name given to him at
3
birth) and instead used ‘X’ in his name which stood for his unknown ancestors’
African names. Another use of ‘x’ has other historical meanings, such as the
use of ‘x-marks’ as signatures on land sale treaties between Indigenous people
and European settlers in the 18th and 19th centuries. These signatures were
interpreted to indicate a form of agreement and assent, but which in the context
of colonization, x-marks signaled coercion. As proxies for signatures, x-marks
also point to the complicated dynamics of agency in situations where outcomes
are unknown, although scholars have argued that x-marks were also efforts
to document injustices and duress from the Indigenous point of view (Lyons,
2010, p. 10). In one increasing use of ‘x’ in ethnic categories, such as Latinx,
the ‘x’ ending signifies a social justice commitment to representing intersec-
tional experiences beyond gender binaries marked in Spanish (de Onís, 2017;
Vidal-Ortiz & Martinez, 2018).4
Language is at the center of perceptions of which language(s) are valued
and which are not. In the history of language education in the U.S. bilingual edu-
cation has been designed to primarily teach English to immigrant children using
their home language as a transitory support to achieve English proficiency. The
term ‘bilingual’ has also come to indicate immigrant English language learners.
Language is also used in the representation of certain groups as we will dis-
cuss at length through the book to also misrepresent and even erase groups,
such as the case of many Indigenous groups and their cultures (e.g., streets
and places that are consistently named in English or are sometimes misnamed
using Indigenous languages). Other ways in which language shapes percep-
tions of groups of people are found in geographical references, for example,
the use of ‘inner city’ as a location of racialized populations. Language also
links consumerist and body types as in the marketing and discourses of ‘fat’ or
‘plus size’ to refer to particular body types. Language is intimately connected
to race, for example in the use of Mock Spanish (see Hill, 1998) among whites
who do not speak Spanish. In addition, language is at the core of perceptions
of accent, including those who are heard as having an accent and those who
are not (Lippi-Green, 1997).
DEFINING SOCIAL JUSTICE: RELATIONAL

AND ASPIRATIONAL
REFLECTION 1.2
How do you define ‘social justice’? Where does this definition come
from? What examples of ‘social justice’ can you identify in your own life,
what you observe around you, and/or on social media?
4
In this book, we define social justice as working collaboratively with others

to ensure that social institutions are inclusive of everyone’s needs and wants,
which means agency, full and equal participation, equitable distribution of re-
sources, meaningful representation, respect, access to opportunities, along-
side a recognition of the histories of oppression, and consciousness-raising
for resistance (Adams & Zúñiga, 2016; Adams et al., 2007; Picower, 2012a,
2012b). Social justice is therefore both a process and a goal (Bell, 2007) deeply
connected with human rights. We highlight here that in order to move towards
a more just world it is essential to understand and analyze issues and also
collaborate with others—in this way social justice is both relational and aspira-
tional; it is about solidarity and reimagining our world (see Avineri & Martinez,
2021). Some have claimed that the goal of social justice is to restore the world
of its full humanity. Brazilian philosopher and educator, Paulo Freire, proposed
that the struggle for liberation requires the restoration of humanity for both the
oppressed and the oppressor: ‘In order for the struggle to have meaning the
oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to
create it), become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers
of the humanity of both’ (Freire, 1970, p. 4). In addition, central to these issues
is counteracting forms of epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007), including testimo-
nial injustice that relates to prejudice or bias in believing someone’s word (see
also Martinez et al., 2021) and hermeneutical injustice that focuses on systemic
forms of (willful) misinterpretation of a set of experiences. These broader defini-
tions of social justice can then be explicitly connected to issues of language, as
described in the following sections.
HOW ARE LANGUAGE AND

SOCIAL JUSTICE CONNECTED?
Our main argument in this book is that language is integral to an understanding

of, and a movement towards, social justice. Ultimately, we will demonstrate the
myriad ways that language is implicated in issues of justice and can also be
mobilized for justice (Avineri et al., 2019; Avineri & Martinez, 2021; Avineri et al.,
2021; Baugh, 2020; Briggs & Mantini-Briggs, 2016; Bucholtz et al., 2016; Pi-
cower, 2012a, 2012b; Piller, 2016; Riley et al., 2023). As we note in the Preface,
over the past decade there has been an increased focus on the relationships
between language and social justice and it has influenced the development of
new models for critical and social justice approaches to research on children’s
bi/multilingualism and language socialization (Baquedano-López & Garrett,
2023; García-Sánchez & Avineri, forthcoming). Core to our vision of language
and social justice are the key concepts of access, equity, power, privilege, and
marginalization (Avineri et al., 2019).
5
We here highlight how social justice is a living and breathing practice,

and the textbook is dynamic and usable across time scales so you can see
how these social justice concepts and phenomena manifest across differ-
ent language contexts. We also note that our focus on the book is in North
America, as the research that we have both engaged in has focused pri-
marily in this area. Moreover, we recognize that geopolitical boundaries of
present-day nation states (the U.S., Canada, Mexico) do not always take into
account Indigenous epistemologies and practices that may not be confined
to a region or country due to colonization and processes of displacement and
relocation of Indigenous territorial boundaries. While we include concepts,
frameworks, and case studies that span the globe, we have chosen to high-
light and deepen understandings of historical and present-day circumstances
around language and social justice issues in the North American context.
Since we have each experienced and researched many of these issues, and
are therefore more familiar with them, we are able to enrich the examples and
the framework itself. In the book we also seek to use language in accessible
ways, to facilitate inclusion around the core ideas we discuss. We envision
that through the framework and these deeper examples you will be able to
apply concepts, methods, and approaches to the language and social justice
issues of interest to you.
At the core of our vision for language and social justice is the recogni-
tion that present-day language study and analysis must be understood in
the historical context of European colonization and expansion into Indige-
nous lands of this continent which has brought about the marginalization of
languages other than the variety of English known as Academic English. It
is precisely this history of colonization that has created contexts where lan-
guage is used to exclude and where languages themselves (and speakers
of those languages) are excluded. As an example, we echo the words of re-
nowned language scholar April Baker-Bell’s call to end Black linguistic racism
as ‘the linguistic violence, persecution, dehumanization, and marginalization
that Black Language-speakers experience in schools and in everyday life’
(Baker-Bell, 2020, p. 11).
A LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE PRAXIS: BUILDING

ON CRITICAL PEDAGOGY AND INTERCULTURALITY
As we work towards an expanded understanding and definitions of language

and social justice we also identify and integrate other areas of critical schol-
arship in our framework for an applied linguistic anthropology. We draw from
a long-standing body of work in critical pedagogy, praxis, and interculturality.
You may be familiar with the notion of critical pedagogy, especially as it is often
6
used to refer to practices that seek to transform K-12, community-based, and

higher education towards more equitable aims and ends. Critical pedagogy has
thus focused on bringing awareness to social reproduction in education, that
is, attention to the ways the accumulation of capital (material goods and other
forms of privilege) in some sectors of society lead to inequities for other groups
of people who have historically experienced marginalization and labor exploita-
tion. Much of this work has been influenced by Marxist thinkers and social the-
orists who have written on economic and cultural reproduction in sociology and
anthropology (Bourdieu, 1977) and in education (Giroux, 1997; McLaren, 1995;
McLaren & Jaramillo, 2007). But importantly, and at its core, critical pedagogy
has centered on advancing a liberatory education through what Paulo Freire
has defined as ‘praxis’ defined as ‘reflection and action upon the world in order
to transform it’ (Freire, 1970, p. 51). You can see then how social justice cannot
be thought of independently from a perspective that seeks to transform social
reality—and therefore how we learn within, are socialized into, and educate oth-
ers as part of a society (see May & Caldas, 2023; Palmer et al., 2019). The role
of interculturality (Gruenewald, 2003; Martin & Pirbhai-Illich, 2016; Sorrells &
Nakagawa, 2008), dispositions and practices for engaging with those who are
part of diverse groups (Avineri, 2019), is central to the ethnographic and dialogic
approaches foregrounded in this book.
LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

WITHIN CRITICAL UNIVERSITY STUDIES
REFLECTION 1.3
What do you think the role of universities should be in the 21st century?
Why? What is your role as a student? To learn, understand, critique, act?
Why? Have you seen changes in the way universities operate? In what
ways?
Over the last decade, the emerging area of Critical University Studies has
been critiquing the shifting role of universities in the U.S. Scholars in this field of
studies have been concerned with the changing nature of the goals of universi-
ties, which were once seen as a space to advance democracy and social prog-
ress and are now becoming models of corporate management. With strong
‘market-based logics’ in place (students as consumers, education only afford-
able through short- or long-term debt), post-secondary spaces and higher
education now celebrate academic work and research that supports and
7
rewards practices and ideologies of individual student success, when in fact,

individual students cannot be isolated from the broader social and economic
conditions of U.S. society. This focus on social complexity and how actions
that seem to be the status quo, for example, loss of public funding and ensuing
privatization or large student debt, cannot be understood as a good or bad
choice of individual students, but as limited options due to structural inequities.
In their collection of essays The Undercommons: Fugitive planning and Black
study (2013) Stefano Harney and Fred Moten urge us to reconsider intellectual
activity as social activity. For Harney and Moten, to ‘study,’ with its focus on
Black knowledge and experience, is a form of coalescence: ‘We are committed
to the idea that study is what you do with other people. It’s talking and walking
around with other people, working, dancing, suffering, some irreducible con-
vergence of all three, held under the name of speculative practice’ (Harney &
Moten, 2013, p. 110). We see the aims of Critical University Studies echoing
concerns around Black inequities, access, and futurities to be crucially related
to language and social justice work. In many ways, to engage in language and
social justice work means to also ‘study,’ that is, to do work with others as we
examine the structural conditions that lead to inequities and to the way lan-
guage can play a role in perpetuating or stopping those inequities. Such a focus
is helpful for disrupting the role of public universities and social institutions that
function, in Quechua scholar Sandy Grande’s words, as ‘an arm of the settler
state’ (Grande, 2018, p. 47). An ongoing dialogue on the ways a language and
social justice praxis can point us towards liberatory, decolonizing, and more just
futures is timely and necessary.
Connected to critical university studies are community-based research
approaches, in which university researchers and community leaders or
organizations collaborate to identify research goals, resources, and practices,
thereby recognizing and working to shift power dynamics (Avineri & Ahlers, 2023).
In recent years, scholars across diverse fields have explored the importance of
publicly facing, applied, and engaged research and publicly engaged schol-
arship (see Eatman et al., 2018). Related approaches include critical service-
learning (Mitchell, 2008), participatory action research (Avineri, 2017; Camma-
rota & Fine, 2008), community engaged research and university-community
partnerships (Baquedano-López, 2021; Godínez & Baquedano-López, 2022;
Hall et al., 2015), appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider et al., 2008), and engaged
linguistic anthropology (Avineri & Ahlers, 2023). A core component of these
community engagement methodologies is the notion of solidarity (Liu &
Shange, 2018) and a redistribution of power and expertise—challenging us all
to consider the following key questions: Who has knowledge? And how should
knowledge be shared in collective spaces with an eye towards social change?
These epistemological provocations are directly connected to the approaches
highlighted in this book, in relation to language, rights, and justice.
8
CONNECTIONS AMONG LINGUISTIC RIGHTS,

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
We argue here that language and social justice must address questions of lan-
guage rights and their connection to civil and human rights. We understand
linguistic rights as the right of an individual, community, or people to have and
use a particular language variety (see Higgins, 2019). Civil rights are those rights
protected by the U.S. Constitution and laws created to uphold them, including
‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ They also include freedom of speech
and other rights including the right to vote, equal protection, due process, and
the right to live free of discrimination. Human rights are guarantees that are ex-
tended to all human beings and they include the right to life, education, housing,
and protection from torture among others.5 Drawing from these descriptions,
we see linguistic rights as encapsulating both civil and human rights (see Avineri
et al., 2019 for further discussion). Linguistic rights are related to semiotic rights,
the notion that individuals and groups have the institutional and structural free-
dom to use, wear, and hold symbols that are important for their identity and
culture.6, 7, 8 Situating linguistic and semiotic rights alongside civil and human
rights allows us to see how language is central to political struggles over access
to resources and institutions. Importantly, the preservation of and respect for
these rights foregrounds dignity, and requires advocacy and collaborative work
to address systemic issues of equity, access, oppression, and marginalization.
Activity 1.2
Select and consult one of the following sources:
• The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/

universal-declaration-human-rights/9
What connections can you identify between the human rights listed here and
a language that you know and/or a language community that you are part of?
• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Indigenous Languages Plan:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/draft-dhs-indigenous-
languages-plan.pdf
What connections can you identify between civil rights and language rights
in this document?
• The Guidance regarding Title 6 for ‘Limited English Proficient’ Persons:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/06/18/02-15207/
guidance-to-federal-financial-assistance-recipients-regarding-title-vi-
prohibition-against-national
9
What connections can you identify between civil rights and language rights
in this document?
• The International Mother Language Day and Decade of Indigenous Lan-

guages: https://idil2022-2032.org/ https://www.un.org/en/observances/
mother-language-day
What connections can you identify between human rights and language
rights in this document?
APPLIED LINGUISTIC
ANTHROPOLOGY FRAMEWORK (ALA)
We now introduce the Applied Linguistic Anthropology (ALA) framework (first

conceptualized in Avineri et al., 2021), a theoretical, conceptual, and method-
ological approach that is the core of this textbook. Together the five compo-
nents described below demonstrate balancing in-depth observation of a given
context, examining historical and structural underpinnings, and collaboratively
engaging in efforts for social change. We support and extend our important
commitments to ‘long-term, in-depth understanding of issues, contexts, and
communities alongside active engagement in collaboration with others’ (Avineri
et al., 2021, p. 187). Here we define applied linguistic anthropology as a multi-
scaled, temporally-shaped critical engagement with socially-situated language
issues, balancing contextual knowledge, relationship-building, and aspirations
for action.
We incorporate a temporal dimension (what is, what has been, what could
be) to help us historicize and expand present-day events and practices as
guidance for developing a deeper critique and engagement of work around
language and social justice. We see this aspect of our process as a way to
complicate a linear rendering of time (as simply past, present, or future) and to
position the work of language and social justice scholars and advocates in re-
lation to and collaboration with others from a more complex temporal horizon.10
This broader perspective on time is helpful in language and social justice work
in order to connect present-day events to histories and legacies and to advance
futurities, or following Freire (1970), as praxis to reflect and act on the world.
Our ALA framework is scaffolded through a scaling approach that includes
a nested engagement across macro-meso-micro-‘me-cro’ (individual) scales
and temporal scales. The steps are presented in a particular order. However,
it is essential to emphasize that the framework is iterative—meaning that the
10
steps can be returned to at different phases of one’s process, deepened,

re-engaged—for the particular research and/or projects you are focused on.
Some of the key components of the ALA framework include awareness rais-
ing (within oneself and also with relevant publics/audiences). Though these pro-
cesses are certainly intertwined, in Chapter 3 (‘What Is’) and Chapter 4 (‘What
Has Been’) the primary focus is on inward-facing/personal awareness-raising,
while the Chapter 5 focus is on outward-facing/public awareness-raising for
social change (‘What Could Be’). Central to the framework is the role of contex-
tualizing our understanding of general concepts—and deepening our analysis
and engagement with particular issues, groups, and dynamics. As Chapters
2–6 demonstrate, the ability to contextualize is centrally relevant for all steps
of the framework. Another important piece of the framework is the role of in-
tercultural ethics (see Phipps, 2013) throughout the research and engagement
process, which can manifest in terms of the 4 Rs of ethics (Avineri, 2017) (one’s
reasons for engaging with a particular group/topic, the dynamic roles of the
people involved, the relationships among those people, and the responsibilities
each person has to one another, to the group, and to the community). As you
will see through our in-depth exploration of each ALA component, the frame-
work provides a set of strategies that are complementary, mutually informing,
and interrelated. For example, a dialogue about the use of pronouns can in-
volve awareness-raising at individual and public levels; this process can lead to
recognition of an issue as well as a consciousness of possibilities for change
and transformation at various scales. And central to all of these dynamics, their
analysis, and possible actions is the role of power,11 at me-cro, micro, meso,
and macro scales.
We see the ALA framework to not be a linear process or steps to follow
as a recipe, but rather a commitment to a process that is iterative and tem-
porally complex.12 By this we mean being sensitive to context and the nature
and history of a particular social issue, allowing us to engage one or more of
the various lenses/steps to better approximate an understanding of the issue/
TABLE 1.1 Applied Linguistic Anthropology Framework
• What Is (Chapter 2): Identifying a social justice issue, Centering language
• What Is (Chapter 3): Reflection, Noticing, Observation, Narrative, Positionalities and
Commitments, Critique
• What Has Been (Chapter 4): Researching historical background, Deepening 'what is'
• What Could Be (Chapter 5): Relationships, Aspirations, Action
11
injustices—in order to then collectively imagine a suitable response. This in-

volves a dual looking outward and a looking inward—examining social issues
and simultaneously looking at oneself in relation to those social issues—asking
the key question ‘What should the world look like?’
APPLIED LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY:

FROM OBSERVATION TO CRITIQUE TO ACTION
Linguistic anthropology (Duranti, 1997; Duranti et al., 2023) is a subfield of an-

thropology primarily concerned with the relationships among language, cul-
ture, and social life. Through ethnographic methods, linguistic anthropologists
examine how individuals and communities use language to make collective
meaning and negotiate relationships with one another. Applied linguistics is fo-
cused on the ways that language is connected to ‘real world’ issues, including
education, health care, and immigration. At the core of both of these disciplines
is a deep focus on context, humans, language, and relationships.
REFLECTION 1.4
Do you think it is necessary to examine a social issue objectively/

without bias in order to engage in meaningful research? Do you think it
is possible to examine a social issue objectively/without bias in order to
engage in meaningful research? Why or why not?
In the later part of the 20th century, an important theoretical and method-
ological shift began to take place in anthropology and other social sciences,
which has been called ‘the reflexive turn.’ This shift critiqued methodologies
based on scientific principles such as objectivity, which was considered to be
achieved through the practice of maintaining distance from study participants
and the object of research. We mention two key interventions advanced first
by Chicano scholar, Renato Rosaldo, who questioned the idea of researchers
as detached and objective observers. In a foundational piece that grounded
the idea of a reflexive turn, his book Culture and truth: The remaking of so-
cial analysis (1989) asks readers to recognize anthropologists are ‘positioned
subjects,’ that is, anthropologists as social individuals are impacted by their
life histories which shape their emotions, perceptions, and interpretations of
what they are observing. Cuban-American anthropologist, Ruth Behar (1995)
extended Rosaldo’s points in her book The vulnerable observer: Anthropol-
ogy that breaks your heart by problematizing the way research encourages a
12
distance between the anthropologist and the object of research. In work that
is done about people and with people, one must continually reassess (human-
ize) the goals of research and to also be open to examining who is doing the
research, and in Rosaldo’s sense, recognizing and making space for emotion
and self-reflection as part of the interpretive framework. Whereas the bias in
the field of anthropology was on the cultural and social first, the reflexive turn
highlights the role of the researcher (and their lenses) in shaping what is seen,
noticed, and foregrounded in analyses, the roots of critical ethnography that
we discuss later in the chapter.13 A core component of this reflexive turn also
necessarily includes a relational focus that highlights the negotiated nature of
inquiry into the human condition. We will address this relational component in
greater detail in Chapter 3.
Our approach in this book also draws on the methodological approaches
inspired by the reflexive turn in anthropology that we discussed above. One
such approach includes critical ethnographic methods with an explicit focus
that connects the study of language and culture with processes and structures
of power, exclusion, and domination forms the basis of critical ethnographic
work (Castagno, 2012; Foley, 2002; Martin-Jones & da Costa Cabral, 2018;
Palmer & Caldas, 2017) extending into the related disciplinary study of language
and power in critical applied linguistics (Pennycook, 2008; Talmy, 2015) and in
sociolinguistics (Heller et al., 2018). We see critical methods centering research-
ers at the matrix of language and power:
[A] critical stance applies also to ourselves: we use our understandings

about the role of language in social processes of power and inequality
reflexively, that is, by applying them to how we undertake the social ac-
tivity of doing research (as socially constructed and traversed by relations
of power), and to how we make sense of the data we generate as a result
of the research process.
(Heller et al., 2018, p. 2)
Within the field of applied linguistics there have also long been debates among
those who focus on descriptive approaches to language (i.e., observing and pro-
viding analytical detail about language forms) and those who espouse prescrip-
tive approaches to language (i.e., focusing on the ways that language ‘should’ be
used given predominant language ideologies, standardized language, and norms
of practice in particular contexts). Anthropological linguistics has historically been
centered on analyzing linguistic forms within their ethnographic context. As we
note in the Preface, in the past 15–20 years there has been a concerted move
towards critical applied linguistics (Fairclough, 2001; Kubota & Lin, 2009; Heller,
2013; Heller et al., 2018; Motha, 2014) that examines the interrelatedness of lan-
guage forms, contextual features, power dynamics, and sociopolitical realities.
13
This critical examination of the field of applied linguistics itself (see case studies
in Avineri & Martinez, 2021) has demonstrated the ways that its historical under-
pinnings have centered so-called ‘native speaker’ competence and Whiteness.
This approach resonates with recent critical examinations of the field of linguistic
anthropology as well (see Leonard, 2021; Smalls et al., 2021).
Building upon these more intentional foci on reflection, reflexivity, and po-
sitionality, the ALA framework brings together the primary guiding principles
and methodologies from these fields and mobilizes them in the service of social
change. In both applied linguistics and linguistic anthropology, there has been a
more recent move from observation of contexts to critique of the structures and
institutions that create inequitable systems in society. Taking this critique a step
further is collaborating with different parties to take action—addressing those
inequities through both small-scale and larger-scale efforts. It is important to note
that this move from observation to critique to action may be contrary to what
many of us have been taught in more traditional approaches to language-related
fields. The process of unlearning and troubling linguistic anthropology and ap-
plied linguistics may involve tensions, as described in the following section.
TENSIONS
We have found it important to identify and surface the tensions (Britzman,

2003; Avineri, 2019; Uzum et al., 2022) involved in language and social justice
engagement. Tensions refer to ‘push-pull’ experiences between two or more
competing interests. These tensions may manifest at any scale (me-cro, micro,
meso, macro) and can help us critically examine where sameness and dif-
ferent co-exist. Surfacing tensions that emerge allows individuals and groups
to challenge and disrupt the dynamics that are at the core of those tensions,
which can provoke discovery at multiple levels. The following methodology can
be helpful in this regard: Pay Attention to the Tension in order to Set Intention
(Avineri, 2023, forthcoming). You will see some of these tensions explored more
deeply throughout the chapters in the book. The tensions include: objectivity
vs. subjectivity, one’s institutional positionality vs. one’s individual identity, com-
plexity vs. clarity, urgency of social justice issues vs. slowing down to deeply
understand histories and present-day realities, being (or not being) part of the
group impacted and advocating for groups and issues beyond oneself.
REFLECTION 1.5
What is one tension that you can identify around the languages that you
know (or want to know)?
14
In the vignette below, Dr. Uju Anya integrates a discussion of objectiv-

ity and researcher positionality as a black scholar. As you read the vignette,
consider the following questions: What tensions is Dr. Anya referring to in the
vignette? How are tensions explained? What is ‘critical research’? How is
Dr. Anya defining ‘objective’? Have you heard of other definitions of ‘neutrality’
and ‘objectivity’?
VIGNETTE 1.1
U ju Anya: ‘I Don’t Make Claims of
Neutrality and Objectivity’
My work in general, my research is critical research. So my research

positioning has, like, from the very beginning, any kind of article
I write, any publication, I make very transparent that I do have an
agenda in the work that I do. So the agenda is anti-racism, equity,
feminism, and issues of inclusivity, belonging, and justice. So I make
this very, very clear and very transparent. I don’t make any claims to
neutrality and objectivity, because none of that exists. Period. Ev-
erybody has an agenda. Everybody has something to promote and
the biggest agenda out there is to maintain the status quo and don’t
change anything. So. And those of us who are conceived of or looked
up upon as change-makers, or, you know rabble-rousers, are always
identified as people who are trying to do something different. But,
and this is considered political, but people don’t, who wanna maintain
an unjust status quo are not called political. They’re called neutral or
objective somehow even though they are coming from a very, very
strong ideology of don’t change what’s working for me and my people.
So in the work that I do, the publications, the writing, it centers black
people, and it centers questions of anti-racism, and you know, human
rights. I work from that perspective.
INTERDISCIPLINARITY IN LANGUAGE
AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ENGAGEMENT
In this book, we argue that the tools of applied linguistics and linguistic anthro-
pology are most fruitfully integrated for a thorough engagement with language
and social justice.14 In order to address the world’s most complex problems we
need to mobilize tools, methods, and frameworks from a range of disciplines
(Avineri et al., 2021). The Applied Linguistic Anthropology framework that we
put forward in this book is interdisciplinary, in that it integrates perspectives
and methodologies from diverse disciplines. Multiple disciplinary lenses are
15
TABLE 1.2 Engaged Linguistic Anthropology
Key Questions:
• Your why—review what the goals of the project (e.g., research, engagement) are,
whether it is applied, and how the goals are decided upon.
• With whom are you working (individuals, groups, communities, contexts)? How are
you working with them? Who are the authors of the work produced in the project?
• Next, consider what language-based issues are the focus of the project, and what
societal inequities are implicated and/or addressed.
• How will the knowledge generated by the project be shared, and who are the intended
publics and audiences?
• And finally, now what—what are the implications of this research?
(Adapted from Avineri & Ahlers, 2023, p. 555)
important to address complex global issues. This approach unsettles and trou-
bles disciplinary boundaries. When moving across disciplines some tensions
may arise, since you are examining issues from diverse perspectives and syn-
thesizing those to create holistic understandings.
We draw here on engaged linguistic anthropology’s four hallmarks: 1.
Explicit attention to the relationships between language and social inequities
within and between communities, 2. ‘Radical redistribution of expertise’ (Ry-
mes, 2021, p. 204), 3. Iterative reflexivity, and 4. Accountability to oneself and
others (Avineri & Ahlers, 2023, p. 544).
SOCIETY FOR LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY (SLA)

LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE TASK GROUP
An exemplary model of a space for collaborative inquiry and action across con-
texts, the American Anthropological Association (AAA)’s Language and Social
Justice (LSJ) Task Force is a professional group serving the affiliates of the
AAA and reaches beyond professional membership to address societal issues
(ideological or institutional) that impede progress towards elevating the use of
language as a social justice equalizer (see https://www.linguisticanthropology.
org/aboutsocialjustice/). The task group has an email listserv (begun in 2010)
with over 200 members (as of January 2023) who are focused on knowledge
sharing, collaboration, and mobilizing around particular issues. The listserv
members share about topics (e.g., websites, videos, teaching resources, pro-
fessional organization statements), collect lists of resources (e.g., decoloniz-
ing syllabi), and call for collaboration on particular initiatives. Both Netta and
Patricia had the opportunity to serve as a ‘Core Member’ of the Task Group,
16
which involved co-facilitating processes for language-related advocacy and ac-

tion among the group members. The four case studies analyzed in-depth in
the book chapter ‘Applied Linguistic Anthropology: Balancing Social Science
with Social Change’ by Avineri et al. (2021), which came out of comprehensive
efforts focused on language and social justice—sports team mascot names,
Census categories, ‘language gap’ discourse, and ‘illegal’ immigration. These
efforts focused on a range of advocacy and action, including op-eds, blog
posts, interviews, media engagement, and position statements.
KEY FEATURES IN THE BOOK
Each chapter in the book begins with a chapter overview, learning objec-
tives, and guiding questions. You will also see a number of reflections and
activities in each chapter, which are designed to help you think deeply about
the issues raised and connect them with your own life and experiences. We
also include tension boxes in each chapter, which are designed to highlight a
core tension that might arise when engaging in some component of the frame-
work. The tension boxes will also provide you with opportunities to reflect upon
ways to set intentions that can minimize or address those tensions. At the end
of each chapter you will find a set of key resources that relate to the topics and
methods that were explored within that chapter.
We will encourage you to reflect in a sustained way on your understanding
of the connection between language and social justice and to make sense of the
context and histories behind oppressive practices that seem part of normal, ev-
eryday routine. To this end, we provide opportunities to record your thoughts as
you continue to engage in reflexive praxis about your own participation in a society
that is built on histories of colonization and injustices. We provide ‘tension boxes’
to highlight your role and examine commitments as you move through processes
that create and sustain an applied linguistic anthropology that generates and pro-
duces critical questions about scholarly and advocacy work. These moments of
reflexivity sustain a recentering of self across scales, especially as they are meant
to build on your own knowledge and experience, and especially as you engage the
ALA framework with others in your university and community work.
As noted above, there are two main language and social justice case stud-
ies (in-depth examples of broader phenomena) that we will return to throughout
the book (Indigenous representation and the role of language in education/eq-
uity). We will also bring in an array of other key examples to illustrate the core
concepts and methods of the book. We have also included vignettes that are
based on interviews with a scholar/practitioner who engages in applied linguis-
tic anthropology and/or language and social justice-focused work that embody
the steps of the ALA framework.
17
THE BOOK’S VIGNETTES
Since the initial conceptualization of this book, we have prioritized the inclusion
of the voices of scholars and community leaders who have been deeply en-
gaged in language and social justice work. We invited four scholar/practitioners
and two community leaders who agreed to participate in interviews about
their work and their views of language and social justice: Dr. Uju Anya, Second
Language Acquisition Associate Professor at Carnegie Mellon U niversity; Carla
Marie Muñoz and Desirée Muñoz, Ohlone Sisters; Dr. Rachel Showstack, Span-
ish and Linguistics Associate Professor at Wichita State University; Bernard
C. Perley, Associate Professor, Director of the Institute for Critical Indigenous
Studies Center at the University of British Columbia and cartoonist; and Dr.
K. Wayne Yang, Ethnic Studies Professor and Provost of Muir College at the
University of California, San Diego. Throughout the book we include excerpts
of these five interviews as vignettes to highlight a point and open up possibil-
ities for further discussion and engagement on relevant topics. The vignettes
provide multiple voices on the framework and topics addressed in the book, to
complement the examples and references provided throughout.
The interviews were conducted by three Middlebury Institute of Interna-
tional Studies at Monterey graduate student researchers (Isha Banks, Maggie
Kwasnik, and Lauren Wilmore). As part of this process, the students researched
the work of the vignette participants to learn about their ongoing engagement in
language and social justice. Based on what they learned through this process,
the graduate student researchers then created a specific set of questions to
ask the vignette participants more clearly focused on the particular areas of
focus/expertise. As noted in Chapter 3, the role of interviews and narrative is
central to an understanding of language and social justice as it allows for multi-
ple voices and perspectives to become integrated in our deeper understanding
of individuals, groups, and social issues. We sought to enact this ethos through
our vignette methodology. In addition, as the textbook’s primary audience is
students, we felt it was relevant to have the interviewees share directly with
students about their perspectives and goals in this arena.
We have had long-lasting connections with our vignette participants. Uju
and Netta were in the same PhD program and co-organized a conference on
linguistic diversity during that time. Since then they have collaborated on pub-
lications and other professional engagement, focused on language and so-
cial justice. Bernie and Netta have collaborated in professional organizations,
publication outlets, and other projects. Rachel and Netta have also worked
together in professional organization leadership, publications, and language
teacher professional development. Netta has been working closely to build a
lasting partnership with Ohlone Sisters15 and the Middlebury Institute, focused
on guest speaker opportunities, course-based projects, learning circles, and
18
an institution-wide land acknowledgement process. Wayne was one of Patri-

cia’s PhD students in the Social and Cultural Studies program at UC Berkeley.
Patricia and Uju were presenters at an invited colloquium at the American Asso-
ciation for Applied Linguistics that Patricia organized on the topic of language,
race, and place in transregional settler colonialism. Patricia and Bernie have
been linguistic anthropology colleagues and AAA Task Group on Language
and Social Justice members for a number of years.
Below is the list of core questions to which each of the vignette participants
responded. They also responded to specific questions related to the particular
areas of focus in their ongoing language and social justice-related engagement.
We also asked each of them for their thoughts on the Applied Linguistic Anthro-
pology (ALA) framework based on their own experiences, which we have since
integrated in the final version of the framework shared in the book.
1. Where do you work? How did the work start?

2. How would you define social justice? Can you share about the work you do
that is related to social justice?
3. Can you share examples of how language specifically plays a role in the
social justice-related work you have engaged in?
4. How do you see the relationships between language and social justice?
5. What should students who read this book know about engaging in work
that is focused on social justice?
Below are key quotes where they describe who they are and the work they do
(brief introductions of the vignette participants drawn from their interviews).
Carla Marie Muñoz and Desirée Muñoz:
• You mention that the language of the Ohlone people is Rumsen and that it
has been spoken for hundreds and thousands of years and is still thriving
today. For you, why is the speaking and preservation of Rumsen language
so important?
° How have you learned the language?
° What efforts are you and/or the Tribe involved with in relation to the
language?
• How specifically does sharing the Rumsen language through song, prayer
and ceremony help to communicate the importance of your culture? Can
you share examples of how you engage people with these songs, prayers,
and ceremonies?
° What words/phrases do you teach? When/how/why?
• For those who are interested in working with and supporting your ongoing
engagement—how would you recommend that they get involved?
19
• When you identify a social justice issue that you want to take on—what pro-
cesses do you go through to attain your goal? (For example, collaboration,
communication with allies, learning about the relevant history, identifying
common priorities, etc.?) A specific example here would be very helpful.
• Is there something else you would like to share?
K. Wayne Yang:
• What is the relationship between land and social justice? What inspired you
to convene the Land Relationships Super Collective?
• Is there/can there be/should there be a role for the settler-activist in
indigenous-focused social justice (such as efforts towards decolonization)?
If so, what is that role?
• How would you describe your approaches to writing (as la paperson, as
yourself, in collaboration with others, etc.) and how do these embody your
approach to social justice?
• How has your work as a public school teacher informed your approach to
social justice?
• What do you hope people take away from your work? What strategies/ad-
vice do you have for teaching young people about social justice?
• Is there something else you would like to share?
Rachel Showstack:
• How would you describe the relationships among language, healthcare,

and social justice based on your work?
° What is most important for people to understand about the connec-
tions among them?
• What inspired you to become involved in your work connecting language
and the healthcare system?
• As a professor, what do you think is the most notable impact of your
service-learning courses that you developed, for students, community

partners, and community members?
° How do you think this community-based framework can/should play
into language study as it connects with social justice?
• How has your work as a professor, scholar, and a researcher informed your
approach to social justice?
° For example: How has your work with heritage language speakers in-
formed what you want to see in policy? Other connection points?
• What impact do you hope your work has on the field of language and social
justice?
° What are a few things you hope people take away from it?
20
Bernard C. Perley:
• What inspired you to create your comics?

• What role can and/or should art play in social justice work?
• What would you like to see from the field of anthropology in the future?
• In what ways can non-indigenous anthropologists and linguistics respect-
fully research and engage with indigenous cultures and communities?
• What do you hope people take away from your work?
• Is there something else you’d like to share that you have not already?
• Do you have advice for me as an interviewer?
Uju Anya:
• Is there something you’d like to share about your own language learning
experiences, in relation to your current research and advocacy?
• In what ways has the language learning field succeeded in adopting critical
race theory since you have entered the field?
° In what ways does there still need to be improvement/more work?
• Can you share a story of when your work made an impact on African/Black
American students’ participation in language learning?
• Do you believe COVID has impacted your efforts to bring more African/
Black Americans into the world of language learning? If so, how?
SUMMARY
We began this chapter discussing the philosophical, methodological, and peda-

gogical assumptions that frame the core of the Applied Linguistic Anthropology
(ALA) framework to examine and address language and social justice issues.
We drew interdisciplinary connections that point towards a language and so-
cial justice praxis—examining, questioning and addressing inequities stemming
from issues of access, equity, power, privilege, and marginalization. We note that
the iterative conceptualization of the ALA framework offers methodological tools
that guide the complex work of language and social justice from observation to
critique and to action. Finally, we invite all of you to engage, reflect, and critique,
as steps towards your own involvement in language and social justice actions.
CHAPTER OVERVIEWS
We envision that each chapter in the book could be explored over two to
three weeks in a quarter or semester, allowing for deeper engagement in the
steps, reflections, and activities throughout an academic term. Below are short
21
descriptions of each chapter, to provide an overview of what to expect for each

phase of the framework.
Chapter 2 provides readers with a lexicon to help frame their understand-
ing of the myriad connections between language and social justice, as well as
tools for identifying what aspects of language are implicated in a social justice
issue. The chapter also defines what a ‘language and social justice issue’ (LSJI)
is and provides some key examples of LSJIs to explore.
Chapter 3 provides detailed approaches for examining ‘What Is’ through
ALA methods, including Reflection, Noticing, Observation, Narrative, Position-
alities and Commitments, and Critique.
Chapter 4 deepens these elements to explore ‘What Has Been,’ the histor-
ical and structural underpinnings for what we may experience and/or perceive
in the present day.
Chapter 5 shares a range of examples focused on ‘What Could Be,’ which
includes identifying collaborators, envisioning new futures, and coming up with
a plan of action for social change. The chapter also allows the reader to apply
the various steps of the framework to LSJIs of the readers’ choosing.
Chapter 6 is the conclusion of the book, which provides the authors’ reflec-
tions and ideas for next steps for those interested in the intersections between
language and social justice.
RESOURCES
For additional information on human rights as a foundation of social justice and

social change, see:
• https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/sites/mlk/files/lesson-activities/civilright-
sorhumanrightspdf.pdf
• https://folklife.si.edu/magazine/language-rights-are-human-rights-future-
of-linguistic-diversity
NOTES
1. Adapted from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey

Symposium on World Languages Education and Queers & Allies at MIIS.
2. https://edib.harvard.edu/files/dib/files/calling_in_and_calling_out_guide_v4.
pdf?m=1625683246.
3. See more on creating ‘terms of engagement’ in Chapter 2.
4. This recognition is also present in other gender inclusive uses including Latin@
and latine, and relatedly, the gender neutral uses of the third person singular
ellx/elle.
22
5. For a brief history of civil and human rights, consult: https://library.law.how-

ard.edu/civilrightshistory and the essay by Angela Rose Myers, former Pres-
ident of the Minneapolis NAACP: https://facingtherisingsun.medium.com/
why-dont-we-think-of-civil-rights-as-human-rights-880afcfaf3f3.
6. https://www.aaihs.org/chadwick-boseman-and-the-semiotics-of-liberation/.
7. https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/22/1/101/436591?login=true.
8. h t tp s:// w w w.re u te r s.c o m /a r ti c l e /u s - n e w ze a l a n d - p o l i ti c s - n e c k ti e -
idUSKBN2AB0EP.
9. United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 1948.
10. On this point, there is a wealth of work in anthropology and related social sci-
ences that has helped problematize our view of events in history as discrete and
successive along a plotted line and to instead think of them, and of accepted
notions of time, as part of practices and ideologies of social control (Gingrich
et al., 2002; Luckmann, 1991; Solís et al., 2009; Orellana & Thorne, 1998).
11. https://sustainingcommunity.wordpress.com/2019/02/01/4-types-of-power/.
12. We refer here to the complexity inherent in time, beyond clock and calendars.
Stanner (1979) refers to the interconnectedness of past, present, and future
as ‘everywhen’; see also McGrath, A., Troy, J., & Rademaker, L. (Eds.). (2023).
Everywhen: Australia and the language of deep history. University of Nebraska
Press.
13. For an expanded discussion of ‘the reflexive turn’ see D. E. Foley (2002). Crit-
ical ethnography: The reflexive turn. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(5),
469–490.
14. Avineri & Rosa: http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2016/07/07/
interdisciplinary-collaborations-around-language-and-social-justice/.
15. https://www.instagram.com/ohlonesisters/.
REFERENCES
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for diversity and social
justice (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Adams, M., & Zúñiga, X. (2016). Getting started: Core concepts for social justice ed-
ucation. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, D. J. Goodman, & K. Y. Joshi (Eds.), Teaching
for diversity and social justice (3rd ed., pp. 95–130). Routledge.
Avineri, N. (2017). Research methods for language teaching: Inquiry, process, and
synthesis. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Avineri, N. (2019). ‘Nested interculturality’: Dispositions and practices for navigating ten-
sions in immersion experiences. In D. Martin & E. Smolcic (Eds.), Redefining teach-
ing competence through immersive programs (pp. 37–64). Palgrave Macmillan.
Avineri, N. (2023, forthcoming). Cultivating a language teaching and social justice
praxis: Paying attention to the tension to set intention. In A. Fuad Selvi &
C. Kocaman (Eds.), Critical language teacher education: Theory, praxis, and
pedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing.
23
Avineri, N., & Ahlers, J. (2023). Engaged linguistic anthropology. In A. Duranti, R.

George, & R. Conley Riner (Eds.), A new companion to linguistic anthropology
(pp. 542–559). Wiley Blackwell Publishers.
Avineri, N., Johnson, E. J., Perley, B. C., Rosa, J., & Zentella, A. C. (2021). Applied
Warriner & E. R. Miller (Eds.), Extending applied linguistics for social impact (pp.
171–194). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Avineri, N., & Martinez, D. C. (2021). Applied linguists cultivating relationships for
justice: An aspirational call to action. Applied Linguistics, 42(6), 1043–1054.
Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity and ped-
agogy. Routledge.
Baquedano-López, P. (2021). Learning with immigrant indigenous parents in school
and community. Theory into Practice, 60(1), 51–61.
Baquedano-López, P., & Garrett, P. B. (2023). On becoming bilingual: Children’s
experiences across homes, schools, and communities. Routledge.
Baugh, J. (2020). Sociolinguistic evaluations of inequality. The International Journal
of the Sociology of Language, 2020(263), 59–66.
Behar, R. (1995). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart.
Beacon Press.
Bell, L. A. (2007). Theoretical foundation for social justice education. In M. Adams,
L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 1–14).
Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
Briggs, C. L., & Mantini-Briggs, C. (2016). Tell me why my children died: Rabies,
indigenous knowledge, and communicative justice. Duke University Press.
Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach.
SUNY Press.
Bucholtz, M., Casillas, D. I., & Lee, J. S. (2016). Beyond empowerment: Accompa-
niment and sociolinguistic justice in a youth research program. In R. Lawson &
D. Sayers (Eds.), Sociolinguistic research (pp. 25–44). Routledge.
Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participa-
tory action research in motion. Routledge.
Castagno, A. E. (2012). What makes critical ethnography ‘critical.’ Qualitative re-
search: An introduction to methods and designs, 37, 373–390.
Cooperrider, D. L., Stavros, J. M., & Whitney, D. (2008). The appreciative inquiry
handbook: For leaders of change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
de Onís, C. M. (2017). What’s in an ‘x’?: An exchange about the politics of ‘Latinx.’
Chiricú Journal: Latina/o Literatures, Arts, and Cultures, 1(2), 78–91.
Duranti, A. (1997). Universal and culture-specific properties of greetings. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 7(1), 63–97.
Duranti, A., R. George, & R. Conley Riner (Eds.). (2023). A new companion to linguis-
tic anthropology. Wiley Blackwell Publishers.
Eatman, T. K., Ivory, G., Saltmarsh, J., Middleton, M., Wittman, A., & Dolgon, C.
(2018). Co-constructing knowledge spheres in the academy: Developing
24
frameworks and tools for advancing publicly engaged scholarship. Urban

Education, 53(4), 532–561.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific
research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 5(11), 121–138.
Foley, D. E. (2002). Critical ethnography: The reflexive turn. Qualitative Studies in
Education, 15(5), 469–490.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford
University Press.
García-Sánchez, I., & Avineri, N. (forthcoming). Language socialization methods
and social justice. In M.T. Winn & L.T. Winn (Eds.), Bloomsbury encyclopedia of
social justice in education research methods volume (Eds. Danny C. M artinez
and Elizabeth Montano). Bloomsbury Publishers.
Gingrich, A., Ochs, E., & Swedland, A. (2002). Repertoires of timekeeping in anthro-
pology. Current Anthropology, 43(S4), S3–S4. https://doi.org/10.1086/339564.
Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope. Westview Press.
Godínez, R., & Baquedano-López, P. (2022). Mother pedagogies of migration:
Multiplicitous identities and pedagogies. Journal of Diaspora, Indigeneity and
Minority Education, 16(3), 185–199.
Grande, S. (2018). Refusing the university. In E. Tuck & K. W. Yang (Eds.), Toward what
justice? Describing diverse dreams of justice in education (pp. 47–66). Routledge.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place.
Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12.
Hall, B., Tandon, R., & Tremblay, C. (2015). Strengthening community university
research partnerships: Global perspectives. University of Victoria and PRIA.
Harney, S., & Moten, F. (2013). The undercommons: Fugitive planning and Black
study. Minor Compositions.
Heller, M. (2013). Gumperz and social justice. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,
23(3), 192–198.
Heller, M., Pietikäinen, S., & Pujolar, J. (2018). Critical sociolinguistic research meth-
ods: Studying language issues that matter (1st ed.). Routledge.
Higgins, C. (2019). The dynamics of Hawaiian speakerhood in the family. Interna-
tional Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2019(255), 45–72.
Hill, J. H. (1998). Language, race, and white public space. American Anthropologist,
100(3), 680–689.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second lan-
guage education: Exploring critically engaged practice. Routledge.
Leonard, W. (2021). Toward an anti-racist linguistic anthropology: An indigenous re-
sponse to white supremacy. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 31(2), 218–237.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimina-
tion in the United States. Routledge.
Liu, R., & Shange, S. (2018). Toward thick solidarity: Theorizing empathy in social
justice movements. Radical History Review, 2018(131), 189–198.
Luckmann, T. (1991). The constitution of human life in time. In J. Bender & D. W.
Wellbery (Eds.), Chronotypes: The construction of time (pp. 151–166). Stanford
University Press.
25
Lyons, S. R. (2010). X-Marks: Native signatures of assent. University of Minnesota Press.

Martin, F., & Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2016). Towards decolonising teacher education:
Criticality, relationality and intercultural understanding. Journal of Intercultural
Studies, 37(4), 355–372.
Martin-Jones, M., & da Costa Cabral, I. (2018). The critical ethnographic turn in
research on language policy and planning. The Oxford handbook of language
policy and planning, 71–92.
Martínez, G. A., Showstack, R. E., Magaña, D., Dejbord-Sawan, P., & Hardin, K.
J. (2021). Pursuing testimonial justice: Language access through patient-
centered outcomes research with Spanish speakers. Applied Linguistics,
42(6), 1110–1124.
May, S., & Caldas, B. (Eds.). (2023). Critical ethnography, language, race/ism and
education. Multilingual Matters.
McGrath, A., Troy, J., & Rademaker, L. (Eds.). (2023). Everywhen: Australia and the
language of deep history. University of Nebraska Press.
McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in
a post-modern era. Routledge.
McLaren, P., & Jaramillo, N. (2007). Pedagogy and praxis in the age of empire:
Towards new humanism. Sense Publishers.
Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to
differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
Spring, 50–65.
Motha, S. (2014). Race, empire, and English language teaching: Creating responsi-
ble and ethical anti-racist practice. Teachers College Press.
Myers, A. R. (2002, February 18). Why don’t we think of Civil Rights as Human Rights?
Medium, https://medium.com/foundation-of-african-americans-for-civic/why-
dont-we-think-of-civil-rights-as-human-rights-880afcfaf3f3.
Orellana, M. F., & Thorne, B. (1998). Year-round schools and the politics of time.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(4), 1–27.
Palmer, D., & Caldas, B. (2017) Critical ethnography. In K. King, Y-J. Lai, & S. May
(Eds.), Research methods in language and education: Encyclopedia of lan-
guage and education (3rd ed., pp. 1–12). Springer.
Palmer, D. K., Cervantes-Soon, C., Dorner, L., & Heiman, D. (2019). Bilingualism,
biliteracy, biculturalism, and critical consciousness for all: Proposing a fourth
fundamental goal for two-way dual language education. Theory into Practice,
58(2), 121–133.
Pennycook, A. D. (2008). Critical applied linguistics and language education. In N.
H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 169–181).
Springer.
Phipps, A. (2013). Intercultural ethics: Questions of methods in language and in-
tercultural communication. Language and intercultural communication, 13(1),
10–26.
Picower, B. (2012a). Teacher activism: Enacting a vision for social justice. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 45(4), 561–574.
Picower, B. (2012b). Practice what you teach (1st ed.). Routledge.
26
Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice. Oxford University Press.
Riley, K., Perley, B., & García-Sánchez, I. (2023). Language and social justice: Global
perspectives. Bloomsbury Academic.
Rymes, B. (2021). Afterword: Crossing borders, rethinking expertise and becoming
collaborative linguists. In D. S. Warriner & L. R. Miller (Eds.), Extending applied
linguistics for social impact: Cross-disciplinary collaborations in diverse spaces
of public inquiry (pp. 195–205). Bloomsbury.
Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture & truth: The remaking of social analysis. Beacon Press.
Smalls, K. A., Spears, A. K., & Rosa, J. (2021). Introduction: Language and white
supremacy. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 31(2), 152–156.
Solís, J., Kattan, S., & Baquedano-López, P. (2009). Locating time in science learn-
ing activity: Adaptation as a theory of learning and change. In K. Richardson
Bruna & K. Gomez (Eds.), Talking science, writing science: The work of lan-
guage in multicultural classrooms (pp. 139–166). Routledge.
Sorrells, K., & Nakagawa, G. (2008). Intercultural communication praxis and the
struggle for social responsibility and social justice. In O. Swartz (Ed.), Trans-
formative communication studies: Culture, hierarchy, and the human condition
(pp. 17–43). Troubador Publishing Ltd.
Stanner, W. E. H. (1979). White man got no dreaming: Essays 1938–1973. Australian
National University Press.
Talmy, S. (2015). Critical research in applied linguistics. Research methods in
applied linguistics, 153–168.
United Nations. (1948). United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.
un.org/en/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
Uzum, B., Yazan, B., & Avineri, N. (2022). Becoming teachers of emergent bilinguals:
How content area teacher candidates navigate ideological tensions of context,
language, and pedagogy. In Z. Tajeddin & B. Yazan (Eds.) Language Teaching
Research (Special Issue: Tensions in Language Teachers’ Professional Identity
Development and Coping Strategies).
Vidal-Ortiz, S., & Martínez, J. (2018). Latinx thoughts: Latinidad with a X. Latino
Studies, 16, 384–395.
27
CHAPTER TWO
Centering Language
A Lexicon for Language and
Social Justice Issues (LSJIs)
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The chapter will provide a working lexicon for language and society to help us
explore the various ways that language and social justice are interconnected.
We will highlight the role of creating ‘terms of engagement’ and discuss how
to center the role of language in relation to social justice issues. We will define
‘language and social justice issue’ (LSJI) and provide a key set of tools for crys-
tallizing the role of language in broader social justice efforts/movements.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• You will be able to define specific terms and develop a working lexicon that
relates to language and society
• You will identify the relationships between language and society
• You will recognize specific language and social justice issues (LSJIs)
• You will pinpoint one or two specific LSJIs that are of interest to you (for fur-
ther investigating using the ALA framework presented throughout the book)
GUIDING QUESTIONS
1. What languages do you know?

2. What role does language play in the societies/cultures you are familiar
with?
3. What terms are relevant for our discussion of language and society?
28 DOI: 10.4324/9781003155164-2
CENTERING LANGUAGE: A LEXICON FOR LSJIS
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Language plays a central role in how societies and cultures function and how
people interact with one another. Language can embody power and marginal-
ization within a particular group and across groups. Scholars and practitioners
in the language disciplines (linguistics, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, lin-
guistic anthropology, sociocultural linguistics, and anthropology) examine the
various ways that individuals and groups use language to interact and bring
people together—also to divide and differentiate themselves from others. Each
of these fields has been focused in more recent years on not only describing
the relationships between language and society but critiquing these societal
dynamics (see Flores & Rosa, 2015). In some cases, scholars and practitioners
in these fields have also collaborated with one another to dismantle these dy-
namics that sustain power for some groups while systematically marginalizing
others (see Avineri & Martinez, 2021). There are present-day social injustices
brought about and encouraged by certain uses of language. In some cases,
this can mean intentional exclusion of others through language.
This chapter will give us some key tools for examining how language is both
implicated in and can be mobilized for social justice. For example, when we see
that a language is threatened or endangered (e.g., Indigenous language endan-
germent and reclamation (Leonard, 2021)) we can analyze how this dynamic
connects with broader historical and societal phenomena (e.g., colonization,
discrimination, racism). We can also reflect on the ways language can represent
groups of people and their experiences, that is, how we use language to talk
about individuals/groups (e.g., debates around Latinx, Latin@, Latino, Latina,
LGBTQIA+ groups and pronoun use across different languages). In this way, we
are focused on the ways that we use language(s) we speak in to speak about
groups of people and to speak with one another. Another way to think about
this is how language is used about individuals and groups and language is
used by individuals and groups of people. Using the ALA framework to engage
with LSJIs, we can deeply explore how present-day inequalities connect with
language (e.g., food, water, climate change, class, age, race, gender, ability).
COLLECTIVELY CREATING A LANGUAGE

AND SOCIAL JUSTICE LEXICON (LSJL)
In this chapter we highlight how language is central to social justice. A criti-

cal step in these collaborative processes is a set of ‘meta’-level conversations
about how language will be used within your partnership (i.e., ‘your terms of
engagement’). This means having a collective dialogue about (for example) 1.
which language(s) will be spoken/written/read during the collaborative process
29
and 2. what vocabulary is necessary to engage in the work. This layer involves
a set of negotiated decisions about how to use language in specific ways for a
particular purpose. We envision that this process is an outgrowth of community
agreements (identified in Chapter 1)—and it will help to jumpstart engagement
of the ALA framework through reflection, noticing, selection, and identification
of what the collaborators need in order to meaningfully participate in these
dynamic processes.
To model this process, in this chapter we begin by providing a lexicon of
(approximately 45) key language/social justice terms, with relevant support and
examples to ensure clarity and your understanding of their meaning. By together
developing this common vocabulary and working definitions for these concepts
we will have a collective toolkit for the Applied Linguistic Anthropology (ALA)
framework at the heart of the book. Some of these terms are more general, while
others are more closely related to issues of language. These can then be applied
to your experience and also to the language and social justice issues (LSJIs) of
interest to you, as you’ll see below. We envision the common vocabulary and
lexicon you will be developing to be part of work done with a purpose, that is,
work beyond a collection of items. These tools require a constant conversation
with others, a meta level of engagement with concepts and actions related to
those concepts. As you read over the lexicon terms we invite you to annotate
them and also add more terms from your own experience. You can also try to
put these terms into your own words, create drawings of the concepts, or en-
gage creatively in other ways with the ideas they can represent. In this chapter
and the following chapters we encourage you to make sense of the case studies
and the issues we are trying to highlight by applying these terms as needed.
LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE LEXICON
Access Bias
The ability to enter or participate in society Preferences for situations and/or people that
on equitable terms with others are influenced by preconceived notions or
ideologies about people
Activism
Actions, including at times, direct action, that Civil rights
seek to bring about social change In democratic societies civil rights refer to
guarantees protected by the law to live lives
Advocacy free of discrimination based on race, class,
Actions on behalf of oneself or a group that gender, disability, and religious beliefs
support a cause or project
Cultural capital
Agency A concept advanced in the field of sociology,
The ability to make intentional choices in it refers to the accumulation of knowledge
one’s own life or on behalf of a group and skills that permit social mobility (moving
up in that society’s hierarchy)
(Continued)
30
Decolonization Identity (e.g., gender, race, class, abil-

Liberatory process and critical thinking that ity, sexuality)
includes examination of the root causes and Individual characteristics that shape one’s
effects of colonial and oppressive structures sense of self (background, culture, experi-
and systems, some of which are still main- ences, worldviews)
tained by social institutions (e.g., schools)
Inclusion
Discrimination Practices and policies that support and pro-
Actions that provide unjustified treatment vide access to social institutions to people or
and denial of equal access to participate groups who are marginalized in society
in society based on the categories of race, Indexicality
class, gender, sexual orientation, age, The ways that certain languages and ways of
disability, and national origin using language become symbolic of aspects
of one’s identities and social groupings
Diversity
Expression to recognize the inclusion of Intersectionality
people from multiple backgrounds A framework from legal studies that provides
a way to see the necessary integration of the
Empowerment categories of race, class, and gender in so-
Processes of liberation from oppressive society when considering how people are im-
cietal structures towards self-determination/ pacted by societal structures
autonomy and the enjoyment of freedoms
Language endangerment and sovereignty
and rights
A process that renders certain languages at
Equality risk of being lost. This process is often the
Related to the guarantees to having the result of language erasure by histories of col-
same access and enjoyment of rights onization or policies that limit the use of the
language. Language sovereignty is the use
Equity of language in a given context without con-
The commitment to fair treatment of all people straints or imposition by outsiders
Erasure Language ideologies

Historic and contemporary processes and The perceptions and belief systems we have
actions that ignore groups of people and about languages and the people who speak
their culture and knowledge them
Language policy
Hegemony A set of laws or mandates regarding lan-
Power and dominance of one group over guage use, typically, official language use
other groups across a variety of locations, from institutions
to nation states
Heritage languages
Languages that are minoritized in society Language rights
that are not typically learned first (the lan- Related to human and civil rights, language
guage of Indigenous people or the language rights are the rights to use one’s language
of immigrants) in a context where (a) domi- with one’s linguistic community and in both
nant language(s) is/are spoken private and public settings
Human rights Language socialization

Basic rights that every human being should A process whereby one learns the grammat-
have, such as the right to life, freedom, and ical and pragmatic properties and structures
opinion of a language while simultaneously being
taught those properties and structures
through language (Continued)
31
Linguicism Power
Discrimination of people based on their use The ability to act; the ability to control how
of language other people act
Linguistic hegemony Privilege

The use and acceptance of the dominant Advantages given to certain individuals and
group’s language norms as standard groups
Linguistic profiling Racialization

The targeting of individuals based on the A process that ascribes racial categories to
language(s) they use. Linguistic profiling has people
been used to discriminate against people Reflexivity
across a variety of settings (e.g., housing, job An ongoing process of reflection about and
applications) examination of one’s thoughts, values, and
actions
Literacies
Practices that facilitate learning and making Representation
sense of the world around us. They include, Uses of signs, symbols, including language,
but are not limited to, reading and writing to highlight social characteristics and belief
systems of people or groups
Marginalization
Actions that treat others as inferior and ex- Semiotics
cludes them The field of study focusing on signs and sym-
bols and their cultural interpretation
Markedness
The notion that some identities are viewed Semiotic rights
as ‘unmarked’ (seen as normal) while oth- The right to use and wear symbols valued by
ers are viewed as ‘marked’ (different from a particular group or culture
the norm/what is expected in a particular Socialization
context) The lifelong process of learning to become a
Minoritization member of society
Processes that subordinate a group to a Subjectivity
dominant group An individual’s particular perspective on the
world and those around them
Oppression
Unjust treatment that is prolonged and sys- Translanguaging
temic (e.g., racism, sexism, ableism, hetero- The use of linguistic resources by bi/multilin-
sexism, anti-Semitism, anti-Blackness) gual people to both make sense of the world
around them and interact with people
Positionality
The interplay between one’s life experiences/ Xenophobia
social attributes and our engagement within Prejudice and fear of those perceived as
particular contexts foreigners
Activity 2.1
Which of the terms above were you already familiar with? Where did you learn
them? Which terms are new for you? Can you identify any examples where the
terms above have been relevant in your life? What other terms would you add
to this lexicon and why?
32
Below you will see key quotes from the vignette interviewees that demon-
strate the myriad relationships between language and social justice, connected
(for example) to race and language learning, health care access, and Indige-
nous land.
VIGNETTE 2.1 R
elationships between Language and
Social Justice
Uju Anya We can’t just remain in the academy and ask each
other questions and do research for each other, and not
have any kind of meaningful impact or inclusion of the
community in the work that we do. So I’ve continued
along those lines in the research that I do. Very heav-
ily involved in social experiences. I’m also very active
online and trying to be very open and deliberate about
making linguistic concerns more popular and having
understandable and very normal conversations with
people online about linguistic topics and issues and
making it digestible. And also showing that there’s a lot
of theory and really fantastic ideas happening in regular
places that are not academic among regular people
who are not academic, who have very sophisticated
understandings and experiences of the language issues
that we’re talking about that can contribute to these
discussions. So another part of my social justice and
activism with regard to language and language learning
or just language awareness, in general, is just having
online conversations and threads with people where we
discussed language issues. And just have normal con-
versations, and not be telling people that we’re talking
about the theory of this and the theory of that … I look
at Black people’s experiences and language learning,
very specifically African American experiences in lan-
guage learning and systems and structures, that either
include them or exclude them, and how they transform
personally through language learning.
Carla Marie So language for me played a role in the social justice
Muñoz movement is…announcing ourselves within the space
because there’s a traditional way of…identifying yourself
(Continued)
33
and I think that that needs to be spoken in more areas

and in more places. So when we bring in language, we
bring it through song and prayer, and that also sets intent
through vibrations. And I think that that’s what me and
my sister kind of are known for doing in a lot of spaces is
setting a lot of intentions in those spaces, and I think it’s
super important that language is part of that because
language is part of the land, it’s part of the people. And
it hasn’t changed or, you know, gone away.
Rachel Right now I am leading an organization called Alce Su
Showstack Voz, whose mission is to work toward health equity
for speakers of Spanish and Indigenous languages in
Kansas. Much of our efforts until now have focused
on community education, including Spanish-language
workshops on how to ensure that one’s healthcare
communication needs are being met and how to bridge
gaps in public health information dissemination to
Spanish-speaking communities. We have also done
work with policy makers, including proposing a bill that
would enforce federal regulations that require healthcare
institutions to provide qualified interpreters for patients
who need them, and we are also working on training for
healthcare providers and collaboration with healthcare
institutions to improve language access services.
Bernard C. My personal experience with being, having Maliseet as
Perley my first language, and then having to go to school and
be silenced, and recognizing that everything that I had
held to be true and right with the world was rendered
meaningless, and I was rendered mute. And so I had
to learn English. And so that was a painful transition.
And that kind of trauma doesn’t go away. And I recog-
nized that many, many Indigenous peoples have had
to deal with that and other people from other language
minorities would have to deal with the same kinds of
pressures to assimilate to a dominant language. And so
for me, it was important that I rediscover and reacquire
not just the language but also the culture that goes with
it. And so for me, I think that’s where I bring this kind of
lifetime of rediscovery of will. Or repatriation is another
way to describe the kind of work that I’m doing… For me
it’s the kind of holistic approach, I guess is one way
34
to describe it. It’s how I think about for example in a

painting or a drawing, there’s an initial sort of impulse to
create. And so that impulse almost has its own catalyst.
And I may not know exactly how it’s going to end up, but
I know exactly how it needs to be done. And so there,
there is a vision to the work and the process is about
uh trying to make the work approximate that vision as
closely as possible.
K. Wayne I think of language as communion. So how we share
Yang and exchange with other people, how we hurt other peo-
ple sometimes, so it’s not, it’s not a benevolent act; how
we might help other people help themselves or help
other people heal or heal ourselves. I think of language
as both thinking through and working through. We need
language to analyze and to think, but then it’s also how
we communicate. And those two are not necessarily the
same thing, though they are connected. I think in terms
of examples, I feel like so many of us come to different
moments in social justice. Social justice is a really broad
thing but, through language first... I mean I’m in Ethnic
Studies and there’s the most common thing for students
to say is Ethnic Studies gave them the vocabulary to
explain reality. And it was. And they found that first mo-
ment liberating, later they find it frustrating. But initially,
there’s this moment: you can name something that you
always felt to be true, but you didn’t have the words for
it. And so for me, there are many moments like that and
they’re happening all the time.
LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES (LSJIs)
Throughout this book we will be discussing a range of ‘language and social

justice issues’ (LSJIs). LSJIs are social issues that involve (in)equitable repre-
sentation and (lack of) access to opportunities, as these relate to language.
There are two LSJI case studies that we will deeply focus on throughout
the book.
The first LSJI is Language Recognition in Education: the ways that
language recognition creates opportunities and barriers for the equitable
treatment of diverse learners in educational contexts. You will see connections
35
to this topic through our discussions of bilingual education, heritage language

socialization, the Seal of Biliteracy, anti-Blackness in language education,
‘language gap’ discourse, standardized testing, and the language that is used
to represent particular groups of students.
The second LSJI is Representation of Indigenous Groups: the
actions of and discourses about Indigenous individuals and groups (present,
past, and future) in the United States. You will see connections to this topic
through our discussions of language and land reclamation efforts and sports
team and mascot names.
In the following chapters, you will see that the case studies we highlight in
the book are connected with the five vignettes from scholars and practitioners
that we introduced in Chapter 1. For each of the case studies and key examples
we explore in the following chapters, we encourage you to use the key ques-
tions below to analyze and make sense of the LSJI.
TABLE 2.1 he Who, Whom, What, Where, When, How, and Why of
T
the LSJI
• Why are you interested in this issue?
• Who are you in relation to this issue?
• Who is involved? Who decides/implements/enforces?
• Whom is impacted?
• What are the broader social issues that this relates to? [Apply terms from the lexicon,
e.g., Access, Bias, Equity, Power]
• What are the language issues that this relates to? [Apply terms from the lexicon, e.g.,
Language Ideologies, Translanguaging, Language Access]
• How are language and social justice connected? Where/in what contexts?
• Where/when/in what situations? What histories are involved?
• How could you collaboratively undertake a process to address aspects of that social
issue?
Activity 2.2
Explore the example below, using the guiding questions from Table 2.1
above: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/01/1158364163/
3-abortion-bans-in-texas-leave-doctors-talking-in-code-to-pregnant-patients.
Here we also encourage you to consider who could be advocating for the
rights of pregnant patients—those who have directly experienced these issues
36
and/or those who have observed it? We will return to this key question through-
out the chapters that follow as well.
As an illustration of language in social justice work, in the vignette excerpt
below, Dr. Rachel Showstack centers the role of language exemplified in the
stories and testimonials offered by people from minoritized communities to de-
scribe their experiences with the healthcare system:
VIGNETTE 2.2
Rachel Showstack: Language Access and
Language Acceptance
Of course, the purpose of these testimonies has been to demand

equity in communication within healthcare encounters, which requires
both improved policies for language access and greater acceptance of
linguistically diverse patients within the healthcare system. To achieve
social justice for linguistically minoritized patients, the healthcare
system needs to provide services that allow for all patients to com-
municate their symptoms, understand their provider’s questions and
guidance, and develop a trusting relationship with their provider. My
colleague Glenn Martinez has pointed out that in addition to having
good language access policies in place, there needs to be language
acceptance. In other words, providers need to view the words of
linguistically minoritized patients as just as valuable as what any
other patient has to say. These two concepts—language access and
language acceptance—are both integral to linguistic social justice in
healthcare.
LSJIs: EXAMPLES
In this section, you will find a list of examples of LSJIs and a description of
some of the language and social justice collaborative efforts to address them.
In some cases, you will be able to more easily identify the broader social issue
and then you will need to center language in relation to it. In other cases, you
will first notice the language issue and then you can widen out to the social
issue of interest. Over the course of the next few chapters, you will continue to
develop your ability to identify the various interconnections between language
and social justice. You will have opportunities to begin using some strategies
for identifying a social justice-related topic/issue/problem that you would like to
explore, understand, and/or analyze.
37
• Language about migration (Drop the • Disability discourses (‘person first’

I-Word campaign) language)
• ‘Language Gap’ discourses • The discourse of reproductive rights
• Sports team mascots and naturalized • Noun endings that are not gendered,
racism towards Native Peoples of North such as Latin@/x/e
America
• Indigenous & endangered languages
• U.S. Census language categories and the dominance of English
(‘Language Use and Linguistic Isolation’)
• Language in the criminal justice system • Media coverage and discourse in the
political sphere
• Social media representations of racial-
ized groups • Race and language (how/why the lan-
guage of some groups is devalued)
• Gendered language
• Access and participation of Deaf com-
• Environmental justice and language
munities in society
• Indigenous language interpreting and
• Semiotic rights (school dress codes
language access
that become tied to groups or social
• Heritage language socialization organizations)
As we discussed in Chapter 1, the Applied Linguistic Anthropology frame-

work was first developed to capture how scholars and practitioners within the
AAA Language and Social Justice Task Group had approached four language
and social justice case studies (Avineri et al., 2021). We discuss some of these
case studies and examples to give you an idea of the different scales of en-
gagement regarding LSJIs.
• Language about migration: ‘Drop the I-Word’ campaign. Linguistic

anthropologist Jonathan Rosa and colleagues engaged in public outreach
to support the ‘Drop the I-Word’ campaign, calling for media outlets to
stop using anti-immigrant slurs that can fuel hate (see Avineri et al., 2021
for detailed discussion of these efforts). He notes that such labels not
only dehumanize migrants, they are also legally inaccurate as immigration
processes in the United states are individual and complex. In many ways,
the work of these scholar activists illustrated how language is relevant in
social justice work. As Rosa has noted: ‘The “Drop the I-Word” campaign
resonates with a central tenet of linguistic anthropology: language is not
merely a passive way of referring to or describing things in the world, but
a crucial form of social action’ (Rosa, 2015). Rosa also highlights’ how-
ever, that language change on its own does not equate to social change.
38
Therefore, multi- faceted approaches to social action campaigns can

more impactfully address immigrant rights in terms of policies and prac-
tices. You can find this statement and discussion on the Drop the I-Word
campaign in the following link: https://linguisticanthropology.org/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2015/02/Jonathan-Rosa-Contesting-Representations-of-
Immigration.pdf.
• ‘Language gap’ discourses. The framing of learning ‘gaps’ in educational
discourse and policy has been used to indicate deficits when minoritized
students’ practices and behaviors are perceived to not be in alignment
with normative expectations, especially within standardized classroom in-
struction and curricula (Avineri et al., 2015).1 In recent years, these deficit
discourses have centered around the notion of a ‘language gap’ to charac-
terize young children’s language competencies from poor and working-class
immigrant backgrounds.2 Backed by comparative research based on a
small sample of participating families, longstanding deficit-based assump-
tions about non-white, middle-class families provided a rationale for explain-
ing unequal academic outcomes. According to one of these studies, young
children from working-class and poor families had a ‘thirty million word gap’
compared to middle-class children by the time they first entered school (see
expanded discussion of this study in Johnson, 2019). In this case, percep-
tions about academic and language development were mapped onto class,
race, and immigrant status, placing the onus of language competency on
families experiencing economic disadvantages. A great deal of attention to
connections across deficit framings of minoritized and racialized families fo-
cused on debunking the original (and subsequent) studies and the interven-
tions that were developed to experiment on young multilingual children and
their families (Avineri et al., 2015; Blum et al., 2015; Johnson, 2019). Such
interventions required children to wear ‘talk pedometers’ to record the num-
ber of words spoken to the child by adults in their households. Responses
to the language gap metrics just discussed by linguistic anthropologists
and language and social justice advocates pointed to the limited theoretical
scope of studies around language development, particularly among bilin-
gual and multilingual children, and to the intrusive and dangerous nature
of surveillance technologies in the home. These processes, while perhaps
well intentioned from the perspective of the practitioners, in effect monitor
and racialize the language use of particular speakers and communities in
problematic ways.
• Sports team mascots and naturalized racism towards Native Peo-
ples of North America. Drawing on many years of advocacy and the work
of the AAA Language and Social Justice Task Group on the issue, on March
39
20, 2015, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement

objecting to the denigrating use of sports team mascot names and which is
posted on its website (see below). Netta stewarded this process alongside
colleagues in the Task Group and across the Association; the dialogue,
negotiation, and collaboration involved in this process is described in more
detail in Chapter 5.
Whereas:
 Anthropologists are committed to promoting and protecting the

right of all peoples to the full realization of their humanity, that is,
their capacity for culture, and rights to self-determination, and
sovereignty;
 The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is strongly

concerned whenever human difference is made the basis for a
denial of basic human rights;
 The AAA denounces and is proactive in combating all forms

of racism and racist ideologies, as expressed through the use
of language, symbols, images, names, nicknames, logos,
personalities, and mascots that perpetuate stereotypes;
 American Indian mascots are vestiges of colonial suppression of

American Indian self-determination and denial of American Indian
personal and tribal sovereignty;
 The continuing harm done to American Indians who are offended

by demeaning and racist mascots must be acknowledged and
viewed as the basis of determining what is a racist representation
or depiction; It is inappropriate and unjust to base this evaluation
on whether or not those who use these images view their
behavior as racist or claim non-racist intentions;
 The use of American Indian mascots undermines the ability of

American Indian nations to represent their own experiences,
cultural practices, and traditions in authentic and meaningful
ways;
 American Indian mascots perpetuate the use of disparaging racial

slurs in public conversation and mainstream media;
40
 Research has established that the continued use of American

Indian sports mascots harms American Indian people in
psychological, educational, and social ways;
 The continued use of American Indian mascots in sport has been

denounced by American Indian advocacy organizations, as well
as academic, educational and civil rights organizations, including
but not limited to: Association of American Indian Affairs,
National Congress of American Indians, and National Indian
Education Association, American Psychological Association,
North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, Modern
Language Association, Linguistic Society of America, United
States Commission on Civil Rights, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, and Southern Poverty Law
Center
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT The American Anthropolog-

ical Association calls for professional and college sport organizations
to immediately denounce and abandon the use of American Indian
nicknames, logos, and mascots, while respecting the right of indi-
vidual tribes to decide how to protect and celebrate their respective
cultural heritage.
(from https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.
aspx?ItemNumber=13107)
• U.S. Census language categories. The language categories employed

in the United States Census are indications of perceptions, and at times,
misconceptions, of people’s language proficiencies, which can be used as
examples of so-called failed efforts at linguistic assimilation into English. One
example is the descriptor ‘Linguistically Isolated’ to indicate that no person
14 years and older is an English-only speaker or speaks English ‘very well.’
This is the household context of many bilingual, multilingual, and indeed, im-
migrant families who, in the absence of other language proficiency measures
besides English, are labeled under a deficit (and largely incorrect) description
of their language context and proficiencies. The AAA Language and Social
Justice Task Group advocated for a change in the category and measure of
‘linguistically isolated’ and in 2008, the AAA membership voted in favor of a
resolution urging the Census Bureau to stop using the descriptor:
41
‘Be it resolved that:
The American Anthropological Association urges the CB to include

a question about proficiency in languages other than English, and to
stop classifying those who speak English less than “Very Well”—and
all members of their households—as “linguistically isolated” because
the term is inaccurate and discriminatory, and the classification
promotes an ideology of linguistic superiority that foments linguistic
intolerance and conflict.’
(Quoted in A. C. Zentella (2019))
As you engage with work in language and social justice, we encourage you
to identify key terms from the lexicon above that may be relevant to our under-
standing of these and other LSJIs.
• Language in the criminal justice system. An area of critical intervention

concerns the protection of people’s rights to access and fair treatment in le-
gal institutions. Access is often a barrier for immigrant individuals who speak
languages other than English are not properly represented in a legal system
that depends and functions based on English-only policies. Another issue
concerns the discourse of the judicial system that frames and dehuman-
izes people based on racist ideologies tied to criminality. We recommend
reviewing the work of Dr. Robin Conley Riner on this LSJI: https://www.
marshall.edu/dosa/faculty/conley/
• Social media representations of racialized groups. With the rise of
social media platforms as digital spaces for anti-Blackness advocacy ef-
forts in the Black Lives Matter movement, new representations of racialized
and minoritized groups have emerged. We mention the work of Dr. Krystal
Smalls on digital discourses connected to racial justice movements, what
Smalls calls ‘emphatic blackness’ or new forms of racial expression and in-
tentional affirmation of Black humanity: https://anthro.illinois.edu/directory/
profile/ksmalls
• We extend these racialization processes to other communities of color that
have been recently impacted by outrageous misconceptions and discourses
about the COVID-19 virus and pandemic that blamed Asian countries (and
thus Asian people) for global health effects. Violent physical attacks on Asian
people have been documented and on the increase during the pandemic,
prompting responses from scholars and advocates alike to denounce these
actions: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027236499/anti-asian-hate-
crimes-assaults-pandemic-incidents-aapi
42
• Gendered language. An important area of attention at the intersection

of language and social justice is the exploration of gendered pronouns as
default referents for individuals across contexts, including classrooms. Ef-
forts continue to be made to foster institutional supports for gender equity
and the language used to talk about gender including the use of pronouns,
advocacy for nonbinary and transgender rights, and access to gender-
inclusive public spaces (e.g., restrooms). We recommend the work of
Dr. Lal Zimman at the intersection of linguistics, gender, and social justice:
https://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/people/lal-zimman
• Environmental justice and language. Efforts focused on social justice
(e.g., environmental justice) in which language plays a role humanizing the
relationship between humans and land (e.g., the ways in which we talk
about nature, for example, the use of gendered pronouns and nouns to refer
to earth as ‘mother earth.’ For more examples of this LSJI read the essay by
Indigenous scholar Robin Wall Kimmerer (enrolled member of the Citizen of
the Potawatomi Nation) who asks for a shift in language to refer to nature and
the life that grows with pronouns that recognize animal and plant animacies
(aliveness) and our responsibility to the land that nurtures us. This call under-
scores the role of language in environmental justice, as Kimmerer poignantly
asks: ‘Might the path to sustainability be marked by grammar?’ https://
www.yesmagazine.org/issue/together-earth/2015/03/30/alternative-
grammar-a-new-language-of-kinship
• Indigenous language interpreting and language access. Indige-
nous language interpreting is connected with systemic issues of equity,
access, oppression, and marginalization. Given the large number of In-
digenous migrants from Central America in recent years (especially unac-
companied minors) who speak Indigenous languages, access to resources
(legal, medical, educational, social, and mental health to name a few) in-
terpretation becomes crucial. See for example the work of organizations
and advocates who have been working to create spaces of access to In-
digenous immigrant communities. The Natividad Center in Salinas, Cali-
fornia, offers interpreting services in 200 languages. The Frente Indígena
de Organizaciones Binacionales supports language interpretation for the
growing communities from the Oaxaca region in Mexico: https://www.nativ-
idad.com/interpreters/ https://www.natividad.com/news_press_release/
nmc-opens-indigenous-interpretation-program/
For more information see also Frente Indígena de Organizaciones Binacionales.
• Heritage language socialization. Heritage languages are those used in
one’s home or community but not as a dominant language within a society
(see He, 2010; Lynch & Avineri, 2021). Heritage languages overlap with cat-
egories including minoritized, diaspora, Indigenous, sleeping, threatened,
reclaimed, and revived languages, and are frequently taught in informal
43
learning contexts (e.g., community schools, cultural events, programs). It

is important to examine heritage languages and heritage language commu-
nities at all time scales—historical reasons for their current situation (e.g.,
fewer proficient speakers, individuals’ lack of familiarity with cultural knowl-
edge) as well as future-oriented visions of what the language and its asso-
ciated communities could look like moving forward. Traditionally, language
use and acquisition by heritage language learners (youth and adults) has
been tied to the degree to which they express ethnic identity affiliation or
the need for intergenerational language maintenance (Tse, 2000; Li, 1994;
Lee, 2002; Park, 2008). Metalinguistic communities are groups of people
who feel an affective/emotional connection to a language even if they do
not know how to use it (Avineri, 2012; Avineri & Harasta, 2021; Benor &
Avineri, 2019), highlighting how communities coalesce around a language
in proactive, generative, and meaningful ways.
Here we want to highlight that when identifying an LSJI it is also important to

explore its interconnections with other social justice issues, for a deeper exam-
ination of the relevant structures and systems at play. For example, consider the
Los Angeles Tenant Union and language access here: https://knock-la.com/
the-la-tenants-union-runs-on-language-justice/. You can notice that language
access is connected with broader social justice issues including housing ac-
cess, immigrant populations, economic insecurity, and renters’ rights (to name
a few).
REFLECTION 2.1
Identify an LSJI that you care about. Why do you care about it? Where
can you find out more information about this issue? How specifically
does language play a role in this social justice issue? Use terms from the
lexicon and the examples above as inspiration. You will have a chance to
further explore this LSJI through activities and reflections in Chapters 3,
4, and 5 as well.
TENSION BOX
Identify an LSJI that matters to you. Is this something you have experienced
directly? And/or is it something that you have observed? What tensions
might arise if you care about an issue but are not part of that group? How
might you work individually and relationally to address this tension?
44
Activity 2.3
Review the list of LSJIs above. Which of the examples above are about
representation? Which of the examples above are about recognition? What
issue(s) might you add to the list, based on your own experiences and ob-
servations? Returning to the collective creation of a language and social
justice lexicon—how might you engage in this process in relation to an LSJI
you care about?
In the following vignette, Uju Anya centers language as crucial to social
justice especially when access and barriers to language, such as language ed-
ucation, are also related to stigma and discrimination rendering African Ameri-
can students in particular ‘languageless’ and ‘illegitimate speakers of the white
language of power.’
VIGNETTE 2.3 U
ju Anya: On Language as a Social
Justice Issue
I think that language is a huge social justice issue. A lot of people

don’t understand how access to linguistic resources, or even just
issues of the status that different languages have, is a huge social
justice issue. So when we talk about racism, for example, people can
understand racism, like when you say that word right. But then, when
you talk about something like linguistic stigma, and it being based on
racism, it’s a lot harder for people to kind of get their head around that
right? Like, for example, how black people, especially African Amer-
icans, are considered languageless and like, what does that mean?
Well, they are considered illegitimate speakers of the white language
of power, right, and the language that they are seen as experts in
speaking is not considered a real language. Or it’s considered subpar
or just a bastardized or bad grammar in real English, as opposed to its
own African American language. So this is how they’ve been posi-
tioned as essentially languageless because your own language ain’t
real or legitimate, and you will never, no matter how well and proper
you think you speak will never be seen as a good enough speaker of
the white man’s language. So essentially you’re languageless. And
then when you look at the issue of why is black language looked down
upon so much? Especially because somebody else who’s not black
can speak black language and make all kinds of money and be looked
at as cool and fun and hip and interesting and just do extremely well
45
or make music that’s centered in black language and black linguistic

traditions, and have all kinds of legitimacy conferred upon them. But
then somebody who is visibly and unmistakably black cannot have
that same success, right, or the same legitimacy or respect. Quite
the opposite! They’re looked at less than, less intelligent, less this,
less classy because they happen to be speaking this language. So
then, this has to do with racism and blackness and anti-blackness
much more than it has to do with language. So language is definitely a
social justice issue because the linguistic discrimination and linguistic
stigma, linguistic marginalization, that people face is 100% rooted in
racism. You know, xenophobia and all kinds of ‘isms’ that we are famil-
iar with, that we all know and recognize are social justice issues.
Activity 2.4
In groups, drawing on the materials presented in this chapter (definitions of key
terms, background information, reflections, and vignettes) discuss and draft a
collective statement on the connection between language and social justice.
Select one or two LSJIs to highlight in your statement.
SUMMARY
In this chapter we have provided you with a working lexicon that can be helpful
to guide your understanding of the multiple ways in which language and social
justice are connected. We have also defined and given examples of ‘language
and social justice issues’ (LSJIs). We now invite you to learn more about and
do work that engages ALA methods under the frame of the ‘What Is.’ The next
chapter introduces you to key ingredients of the ALA framework around the
iterative steps of Reflection, Noticing, Observation, Narrative, Positionalities and
Commitments, and Critique.
RESOURCES
• On ‘languagelessness’ see Jonathan Rosa’s chapter addressing percep-

tions of high school Latinx, bilingual students in ‘They’re Bilingual . . . That
Means They Don’t Know the Language’: The Ideology of Languagelessness
46
in Practice, Policy, and Theorywork’ in Rosa’s book Looking like a Lan-

guage, Sounding like a Race: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and the Learning of
Latinidad (pp. 124–143). Oxford.
• To learn more about interpreting programs for language access see: https://
www.fiob.online.
• For materials for critical perspectives and pedagogy on history, social stud-
ies, and language access consult: https://www.zinnedproject.org/ https://
bookshop.org/shop/SocialJusticeBooks.
• For a comprehensive review of scholarship on deaf communities: https://
www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.020402.
101302.
NOTES
1. In this published Forum, see Teresa McCarty’s commentary ‘How the Logic of
Gap Discourse Perpetuates Education Inequalities: A View from the Ethnogra-
phy of Language Policy’ (pp. 70–72).
2. h t t p s : // w w w. n p r. o r g /s e c t i o n s / m o n e y/ 2 0 2 2 / 0 5 /17/10 9 8 5 24 4 5 4 /
the-case-for-revolutionizing-child-care-in-america.
REFERENCES
Avineri, N. (2012). Heritage language socialization practices in secular Yiddish ed-

ucational contexts: The creation of a metalinguistic community. Unpublished
dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Avineri, N., & Harasta, J. (Eds.). (2021). Metalinguistic communities: Case studies of
agency, ideology, and symbolic uses of language. Palgrave.
Avineri, N., Johnson, E., Brice-Heath, S., McCarty, T., Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T.,
Blum, S., Zentella, A. C., Rosa, J., Flores, N., Alim, H. S., & Paris, D. (2015).
Invited forum: Bridging the ‘language gap.’ Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,
25(1), 66–86.
Benor, S. B., & Avineri, N. (2019). Beyond language proficiency: Fostering meta-
linguistic communities in Jewish educational settings. In J. A. Levisohn & A.
47
Y. Kelman (Eds.), Beyond Jewish identity: Rethinking concepts and imagining

alternatives (pp. 167–192). Academic Studies Press.
Blum, S. D., Fagan, L., & Riley, K. (2015). The middle class (thinks it) knows best:
Daring to intervene in disadvantaged households. HuffPost (April 13): https://
www.huffpost.com/entry/the-middle-class-thinks-i_b_6653932.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and
language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.
He, A. W. (2010). The heart of heritage: Sociocultural dimensions of heritage
language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 66–82.
Johnson, E. (2019). A critical interrogation of the ‘language gap.’ In N. Avineri, L.
R. Graham, E. J. Johnson, R. C. Riner, & J. Rosa (Eds.), Language and social
justice in practice (pp. 97–106). Routledge.
Lee, J. S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in
heritage language learning, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 117–133.
Leonard, W. Y. (2021). Toward an anti-racist linguistic anthropology: An Indige-
nous response to white supremacy. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 31(2),
218–237.
Li, W. (1994). Three generations, two languages, one family: Language choice and
language shift in a Chinese community in Britain. Multilingual Matters.
Lynch, A., & Avineri, N. (2021). Sociolinguistic approaches to heritage languages.
In S. Montrul & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of heritage lan-
guages and linguistics (pp. 423–448). Cambridge University Press.
Park, E. (2008). Intergenerational transmission of cultural values in Korean American
families: An analysis of the verb suffix ‘-ta.’ Heritage Language Journal, 6(2),
21–53.
Rosa, J. (2015). Contesting representations of immigration. Anthropology News. On-
line: https://linguisticanthropology.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Jonathan-
Rosa-Contesting-Representations-of-Immigration.pdf.
Rosa, J. (2019). Looking like a language, sounding like a race: Raciolinguistic ideol-
ogies and the learning of latinidad. Oxford.
Tse, I. (2000). The effects of ethnic identity formation on bilingual maintenance and
development: An analysis of Asian narratives. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 3, 185–200.
Zentella, A. C. (2019). ‘Linguistically Isolated’: Challenging the U.S. Census Bureau’s
harmful classification. In N. Avineri, L. R. Graham, E. J. Johnson, R. C. R
iner, &
J. Rosa (Eds.), Language and social justice in practice (pp. 217–225). Routledge.
48
CHAPTER THREE
What Is
Applied Linguistic Anthropological
Methods for LSJI Inquiry
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
In the first two chapters, we discussed the historical and contemporary

significance of LSJIs, highlighting the importance of a deep understanding of
social inequities with an eye towards collaboration to enact social change. This
chapter will dive more deeply into the applied linguistic anthropology meth-
ods necessary to understand and analyze a context and LSJI, allowing you
to apply concepts and ‘key tools’ to real-world examples. The chapter will
provide you with concrete methodologies for exploring ‘what is’ in language
and social justice-oriented work—for you as an individual, relationships you
participate in, interactions that you observe in particular contexts, and in in-
stitutions. As we discussed in Chapter 1, this iterative approach gives you the
sociolinguistically-informed tools to move across different scales from ‘me-cro’
(individual) to ‘micro’ (interpersonal) to ‘meso’ (institutional) to ‘macro’ (big pic-
ture). The chapter is divided into six main sections that correspond to one or
two weeks in your quarter/semester: Reflection, Noticing, Observation, Narra-
tive, Positionalities and Commitments, and Critique. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4
go hand in hand, with this chapter focusing more on the ‘me-cro’ and ‘micro’
scales and what is ‘above the surface’ and with Chapter 4 integrating ‘meso’
and ‘macro’ scales and deepening our exploration of these scales. These
lenses for engagement will allow you to unearth the complex dynamics involved
in LSJIs that are relevant to you.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003155164-3 49
W H AT I S : A L A M E T H O D S F O R L S J I I N Q U I RY
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this chapter you will be able to:
• Reflect upon your own identities, intersectionalities, and positionalities

• Explore the relationships that you participate in
• Recognize the stories you share and listen to
• Identify language and social justice connections in your daily lives
• Employ applied linguistic anthropological methodologies to LSJIs of interest
to you
GUIDING QUESTIONS
1. What are some ways that you identify (e.g., race, class, gender, sexuality,
generation, nationality, languages)?
2. What are some relationships in your life that are important to you? Why?
3. Reflect upon the contexts that you participate in. What are you curious to
know more about in these contexts?
4. Do you feel like an ‘insider’ and/or an ‘outsider’ in these spaces?
5. What social issues are important to you? Why?
Activity 3.1
What is the story of your name?1 What can others learn about you through
your name (e.g., culture, history, family, geography)? In the contexts you par-
ticipate in (e.g., school, sports, restaurants)—do people pronounce your name
correctly? How does it feel when your name is pronounced or mispronounced?
What can this reflection tell us about the relationships among language, individ-
ual identity, interactions, and institutions?
INQUIRY, DEEPENING, AND ACTION QUESTIONS
As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, applied linguistic anthropology (ALA) pro-

vides a framework for deep ethnographic inquiry integrated with critique that
is mobilized for social change. This approach builds upon critical ethnographic
(Martin-Jones & da Costa Cabral, 2018; May & Caldas, 2023; Palmer & Caldas,
2017) and action research methodologies, in which research questions and impli-
cations questions (Avineri, 2017) are mutually informing at every stage of the pro-
cess. Inductive research questions generally begin with ‘How’ or ‘In what ways,’
allowing for grounded theory building based on patterns that emerge. Deductive
50
research questions (or hypothesis testing) generally begin with ‘Do’ or ‘To what
extent,’ assuming a particular dynamic and identifying empirical data to back that
up. Implications questions move our findings into action, by adding the words
‘Could’ or ‘Should.’ In considering the different phases of action research within
language classrooms, Avineri (2017) highlights description, analysis, interpreta-
tion, argument, and implications. In this chapter and Chapter 4, we provide a
range of tools for description (e.g., noticing, observation) and analysis (e.g., con-
tent analysis, critical discourse analysis). Based on the themes identified in those
phases, we can identify an argument (e.g., ‘discourse intended to persuade’) and
build towards implications and actions. Here we will provide you with an ALA
framework for asking relevant questions—through inquiry, deepening, and action.
An ALA inquiry question focuses on an LSJI in the present day, answerable
through reflection, noticing, observation, narrative, positionalities and commit-
ments, and critique. An ALA inquiry question focused on linguistic landscapes
might look like the following: ‘In what ways is English used on store signs in
Seaside, CA?’2 This ALA inquiry question is informed by noticing issues of
power, demographics, and language access. Chapter 4 will highlight the tools
necessary to explore the following ALA deepening question, which focuses
on past and present dynamics, systems, and structures, e.g., ‘What historical
dynamics and present-day structures have shaped the public language use
observed in Seaside, CA?’ Taking this a step further is an ALA action question
that identifies relationships, aspirations, and actions—e.g., ‘How could Sea-
side, CA public signage include non-English languages to better represent their
population?’ In order to engage in all the phases of the ALA framework it is
necessary to engage with all of these questions.
This chapter will focus on a range of methods to respond to your ALA
inquiry questions, including reflection, noticing, observation, narrative, position-
alities and commitments, and critique.
Activity 3.2
Look back at the LSJI that you identified in Chapter 2. What ALA inquiry ques-
tion could you identify in relation to this LSJI? Which of the following methods
might be relevant in order to answer your ALA inquiry question: reflection, no-
ticing, observation, narrative, positionalities and commitments, and critique?
INGREDIENT #1: REFLECTION
As we discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, the ALA framework involves center-

ing language and exploring ourselves in relation to the topics and contexts
that are of interest to us. Reflection (with a big ‘R’) involves structured, formal
51
opportunities to deeply explore who we are, what we are doing, and who we
want to be, whereas reflection (small ‘r’) is the informal day-to-day thinking we
engage in on a regular basis. Critical Reflection integrates both head and heart
(see Lederach, 2003), our whole selves, in connecting our own experiences to
issues of power, identity, and broader societal structures. In this section, we will
explore our own identities and intersectionalities as a key part of this process.
This connects with the ‘reflexive turn’ in both applied linguistics and linguistic
anthropology we discussed in Chapter 1, by highlighting who we are as partic-
ipants and observers in relation to the contexts we are seeking to understand.
We can then more clearly see the interplay between our own perspectives and
experiences, as well as the topics that matter to us. This can also help us to
identify the specific ways that we want to intervene in these issues.
The key Chapter 2 glossary terms that we are exploring in this section are
identity (e.g., gender, race, class, ability, sexuality) (characteristics that iden-
tify individuals and their sense of self), intersectionality (a framework from legal
studies that provides a way to see the necessary integration of the categories
of race, class, and gender in society when considering how people are im-
pacted by societal structures), and positionality (the interplay between one’s life
experiences/social attributes and our engagement within particular contexts).
Below are some reflections that you can engage in to further explore your own
identities, intersectionalities, and positionalities.
REFLECTION 3.1
What are some aspects of your identity that shape the ways that you
view and experience the world (e.g., race, class, gender, sexuality,
nationality, languages)? Do you have examples when your identities were
seen as ‘unmarked’ (e.g., viewed as expected, normal, or unremarkable)?
How about examples when your identities were seen by others as
‘marked’ (e.g., viewed as unexpected or outside the expected norm)?
REFLECTION 3.2
In what contexts did you experience socialization (e.g., learning norms,

values, beliefs) in a particular culture (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986)? Who
helped to influence or shape your norms, values, beliefs (ontologies and
epistemologies) in your first few years of life (Harro, 2000a)? In what
institutional contexts did you engage in socialization (Harro, 2000a) later in
life? How have those impacted how you see yourself and those around you?
52
REFLECTION 3.3
What languages have you learned? In what contexts? Are these languages
considered the dominant ones where you live? Do you know languages
that are not dominant where you live? Where/with whom do you use
those languages? What languages were you exposed to in school? How
do you use language in these situations/contexts? Why?
Through an exploration of our own identities and intersectionalities we be-

gin to see how our subjectivity (particular perspectives on the world) are shaped
by our life experiences. It also helps us to recognize our own biases when ex-
amining the world around us. Traditionally, the fields of applied linguistics and
linguistic anthropology have assumed a more ‘objective,’ distant, and neutral
stance on social issues. What we are advocating for in this book is a recognition
of our own subjectivity in relation to the topics that matter to us. Consider the
observation by Rachel Showstack below regarding the multiple roles and per-
spectives one can have, especially as multilingual and multicultural individuals.
TENSION BOX
Rachel Showstack: One thing that’s kind of sometimes a conflict for

heritage speakers who are serving as interpreters can be kind of figuring out
where to draw that line of having a professional role, being professional,
but also engaging in the kind of personalismo3… kinds of interpersonal
interactions that, kind of, their heart tells them to do, you know?
One tension that may arise during language and social justice oriented
work is between objectivity and subjectivity—how to analyze and
participate in issues with some detachment without our decisions
and judgments being overly determined by our own perspectives and
experiences. What do you think about this tension? Do you think it’s
possible to be objective when engaging with social issues? Do you think
it’s necessary to be objective when engaging with social issues? Why or
why not?
INGREDIENT #2: NOTICING
Now that we have engaged in some reflection about ourselves and our iden-
tities, we can begin to explore the contexts around us whether in-person or
53
in digital spaces. At the ‘me-cro’ level, noticing (see LeCompte & Schensul,
1999) is a somewhat natural process that involves bringing to our conscious
awareness our emotions, perspectives, and values in relation to what we see
around us. At a ‘micro’ level, noticing involves a recognition of the dynamics in
our relationships. At a ‘meso’ level, noticing involves acknowledging the institu-
tional and systemic contexts that we move through. At a ‘macro’ level, noticing
involves perceiving the relevant macro-level issues that may bear on our actions
and beliefs. Noticing involves paying attention to all of these scales individually
and simultaneously, providing opportunities for inward-facing awareness raising
in relation to a context, topic, or issue of interest. Part of the noticing process is
recognizing why we choose to be in particular settings and being mindful of all
that surrounds us within those settings. It also includes being aware of who we
are in a context, integrating our own perceptions and others’ perceptions. This
level of awareness-raising helps us decide what to focus on in the observation
phase, and sets us up well to determine our own relationships to the issues
that matter to us. There are therefore individual and social components to our
noticing of the world around us (Vygotsky, 1978), which reflect how interaction
with others is centrally mediational and pedagogical.
A key component of this noticing phase (which continues across many of
the steps outlined in this chapter) is the role of emotion, as we notice the world
through a lens of affect. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant
body of work in the anthropology of emotions (Lutz & White, 1986; Rosaldo,
1984; Schweder & LeVine, 1984) and the linguistic anthropology of affect
(Besnier, 1990; Goodwin et al., 2012; Irvine, 1993; Ochs, 1986). In ‘Towards an
Anthropology of Self and Feelings,’ Michelle Rosaldo invites us to consider how
anthropological work draws from and engages with emotions. Blurring the lines
between thought and feeling (and as a critique of rationality, cartesian dualism)
Rosaldo notes: Emotions are the ‘embodied thoughts, thoughts seeped with
the apprehension that “I am involved”’ (Rosaldo, 1984, p. 143)—that is, a sense
of being engaged and implicated. As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, there has been
a parallel line of inquiry and action in linguistic anthropology that has focused
on the connections between language and social justice (Avineri et al., 2019;
Riley et al., forthcoming), challenging scholars and researchers to transition
from reflexivity and observation to critique and action within politicized contexts
of inequality and oppression.
When considered in relation to noticing, we see how emotion and affect
can generate our interest in an LSJI (e.g., empathy, rage). Emotional responses
to LSJIs are private and public expressions of one’s recognition of engagement
and implication in one’s social world (e.g., addressing the denigration of Indig-
enous people in sports team mascot names, humanizing immigrants through
work with media organizations moving away from the word ‘illegal,’ counteracting
54
deficit ideologies of youth and parent language as embodied in the ‘language gap’
discourse). Emotion and affect are at the core of many LSJ engagements, but
have not been as overt and explicit in theories and methods. For example, how
is outrage part of noticing and observation—and also part of action, embedded
in the histories of racialized and marginalized individuals and groups? This holistic
view of LSJ engagement (e.g., case studies, issues) humanizes the overall ex-
perience as well as the researcher. In this way, we can engage multiple affective
modalities, including emotional, sensorial, ideological and semiotic, taking into ac-
count the practices of individuals and also their participation in collective activities.
As you can imagine, what you notice is based on who you are, what is sa-
lient to you, and your emotional connection, i.e., your positionality in relation to a
particular context. For example, Netta has learned many languages throughout
her life, including Hebrew, English, Yiddish, Spanish, and French. She feels a
close personal, familial, and emotional connection to both Hebrew and Yiddish.
It is because of these connections that she noticed that these languages were
primarily taught in Jewish educational settings but not as much in university
settings. This combination of her identity, intersectionality, and positionality
connected with her noticing—and eventually to her professional commitments.
In a reflection on the work of education philosopher Maxine Greene
whose lifework was dedicated to expanding our understanding of educa-
tion and social change to be more like the real world outside the classroom,
musician and cellist Christopher Gross made a similar connection between
appreciating art and the unfolding of social life: ‘[N]oticing is itself a cata-
lyst for change. From an artistic perspective, we notice what is there—in a
painting, in a piece of music, in a poem—and we reflect within ourselves to
uncover a deeper truth. The same can be true for how we notice the world.
When we engage with the world from an artistic stance we find mean-
ing through careful observation and deep reflection.’ You can read more
about this reflection in the following link: https://nycaieroundtable.org/news/
walking-with-maxine-noticing-and-reflecting-on-a-year-of-change/.
Once we have engaged in noticing who we are, what is around us, and
the relationships between those, we can begin the more intentional process
of observation—which provides additional structure and planning to unearth
particular aspects of the contexts we are in.
INGREDIENT #3: OBSERVATION
Linguistic anthropologists have long focused on the central role of

participant-observation (Avineri, 2017; Geertz, 1973; Duranti, 1997; Spradley,
2016) in ethnographic methods, recognizing that observation is an active set of
55
processes that we participate in. It is important to note that in recent years there
has been increased emphasis not only on our physical surroundings but on
observation within digital contexts (see Markham, 2013; Miller & Horst, 2020;
Bonilla & Rosa, 2015), including media, social media, emails, newsletters, and
other forms of online linguistic landscapes.
In order to understand a particular context and group of people in depth,
it is essential to observe and interact with them for a sustained period of time.
This means that you take time to learn about the context (Duranti & Goodwin,
1992), speak with people to explore practices (behaviors) and ideologies (belief
systems), and identify themes among what you see. It also means that you
analyze the context at various scales, including macro and meso—as well as
the relationships and interactions within it (micro) and your connection to the
context (‘me-cro’). Observation engages multiple modalities, including emo-
tional, sensorial, semiotic, and ideological—taking into account the practices
of individuals and also their participation in collective activities. Ideally, when
you observe you integrate both emic (insider) points of view and etic (outsider)
perspectives.4 A key tenet of anthropology is making the familiar strange and
the strange familiar, constantly pushing us to perceive the world around us from
a range of perspectives. We will return to this approach in Chapter 5, in terms
of collaborating in the service of social change. The notion of ‘native’ and ‘non
native’ is central to both anthropology and applied linguistics, and in both fields
have been more recently examined and problematized.
Activity 3.3
‘Day in the Life:’5 Look around your dorm room, apartment, or other living space.
What do you notice and observe about the language on the walls? Where do
you eat each day? What languages do people use in these restaurants, dining
halls, or homes? In your classrooms what languages are used? By whom? Why?
KEY TOOL: NOTETAKING VS. NOTEMAKING

Effective field notes provide you with a comprehensive picture of the
who, what, where, when, and how of the context you are observing,
connecting eventually to the ‘why’ (possible interpretations of what
you see). At first your field notes may be quite unstructured, looking
more like chronological brainstorming. Over time you will develop
notetaking methods that fit your particular interests and purposes.
One way to start is to divide up a piece of paper into ‘Notetaking’
(description of data) and ‘Notemaking’ (comments and interpretation).
In the ‘Notetaking’ column, you write down only ‘what’ you see and
56
‘how’ people are engaging, in as much detail as possible. In the ‘Note-

making’ column (completed while you’re observing and/or afterwards)
you make sense of what you wrote, interpreting it (asking ‘why?’) and
making connections/synthesizing across interactions. The notetaking-
notemaking tool is also similar to other tools used within intercul-
tural studies (including the 1. DIE (Describe—Interpret—Evaluate),
2. Describe—Analyze—Evaluate,6 3. DIVE (Describe—Interpret—
Verify—Evaluate),7 and 4. LENS (Look Objectively—Examine
Assumptions—Note Other Possibilities—Substantiate with Locals).
You can also use visual representations or mind maps to create field
notes, to capture all the components of the contexts that you are ob-
serving and documenting. Eventually you can build beyond the partic-
ulars of a context to make connections to broader scales and issues,
as discussed further in Chapters 4 and 5. Your field notes may also be
complemented by drawings, visuals, maps, audio recordings, and/or
video recordings, to provide additional multimodal documentation of
the people, interactions, and context.
(Source: Avineri, 2017, p. 129)
Example of Notetaking and Notemaking
Notetaking Notemaking
Two bulletin boards with pictures Why are the pictures above and the
captions below?
Captions are in black and white
typed English Why aren’t there translations to other
languages?
Push pins
Do the people in the pictures work
Two framed pictures
together?
Bolded titles
Are they students?
Some pictures of individuals
Are the pictures from before or after
Some pictures of groups COVID?
REFLECTION 3.4
How did you decide what to document? How did you decide what to
leave out? What tensions or dilemmas arose as you were making those
decisions?
57
In the following vignette, Bernard Perley highlights how he was able to do

a type of noticing through the lens of his cartoon art ‘Having Reservations and
Going Native.’8 Perley calls this approach ‘rich semiotic note-taking.’ The ex-
cerpt starts with Perley responding to a question about the motivation to start
drawing cartoons as a critique of anthropology, Indigeneity, and anthropology’s
relation with the notion of ‘native.’
VIGNETTE 3.1 B ernard C. Perley: Can an

Anthropologist Go Native? Can a
Native Go Anthropologist?
It was my fieldwork. It was when I was back home at Tobique First
Nation. And, I’m attending, for example, band council meetings and
so somebody would say, ‘Hey you know we operate on consensus
and we have to decide on this issue.’ And next thing you know, they
come really close to blows because they can’t agree. And so for me,
I’m watching all this transpire and so I sketch in my notebook this
image where all these people are fighting one another and the band
council, and then, one Native says to the other, ‘Have you reached
a consensus yet?’ And so for me it’s like being able to capture that
entire moment and the atmosphere in really quick drawings. So it was
rich semiotic note-taking. And so the more I saw these events and the
kind of humor that went into that, the kind of ironies, for me it became
this quick shorthand for being able to make sense of what was going
on and to record it really, really quickly…. I had the Having Reserva-
tions personal cartoon series and I would just send it to friends. And
so when that filtered to the executive board at the AAA, next thing you
know we’re circulating within AAA offices. And this is when Natalie
Konopinski, the Anthropology News editor, says, ‘Hey, let’s have a
cup of coffee. I wanna pitch an idea to you.’ And that’s how we came
up with the Going Native cartoons. And so that was also an oppor-
tunity to, again, call into question some of the unasked assumptions
or unquestioned assumptions we have about uh our field and also to
kind of, let’s say, recast some of the tensions that we’re dealing with
in a way that is productive rather than antagonistic. And, and so for
me, it allows me to, again, from my perspective, saying being a native
anthropologist—whatever that means—it’s like, ‘how do I make sense
of it?’ So Going Native was a play on what happens to anthropologists
when they go native or, historically, if they went native they’ve gone
too far, they’ve lost their western rationality. And even Evans-Pritchard
said, ‘Wow, you know, I was able to, I was able to think black.’ And so
58
he saw [witchery?] on its way. And so, you know, there’s this kind of
like: ‘Woah, woah what kind of an assumption is that?’ And so, and
then you think about the kind of Dances with Wolves and Avatar, so
it’s only the colonials that can be like super-natives. And that’s bizarre!
And so how do we call that into question? And so how do we invert
the question: Can a native go anthropologist? And so for me it allowed
me an opportunity to bring these questions to the forefront in a way
that invites conversation. So the semiotic aspect, it’s not just the text,
it’s the images, using the Lone Ranger and Tonto for example. It’s that
kind of trope of the Manichaean binaries. How do we break that down,
but how do we make fun of it at the same time?
KEY TOOL: LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPES

A methodology is needed for observing the ways that language is
used in public spaces (Bunin Benor & Avineri, 2021; Cenoz & Gorter,
2006; Shohamy et al., 2010; El Ayadi, 2022). Observe the Linguistic
Landscapes in a context or community you are familiar with. Take
notes about the patterns you see when considering the following
questions:
1. Which language(s) do you see and hear most? Which varieties?

Which languages are not included?
2. Which script(s) are used?
3. Which language(s) are on top/bottom/left/right?
4. Where do you see or hear languages used (e.g., store signs, ad-
vertisements, billboards, restaurants, stop signs, transportation,
background music, background noise, announcements)? In which
contexts is the language used?
5. Who created the signs? Who selected the music?
6. For whom are they created?
7. What is the context of the sign’s usage? What is the context of the
sound’s usage?
8. Select one or two signs and/or sounds that were especially
striking—what was surprising or not surprising about them?
9. What can we learn about language and/or society through ana-
lyzing linguistic landscapes and soundscapes? What ideologies,
structures, and/or systems do we see evidence of through these
activities?
59
See below for a compelling example of the ways that the ‘cultural land-
scape,’ language and symbols that are publicly visible within a particular con-
text, are meaningfully connected to historical events and circumstances—and
also to envisioning new futures. The Sogorea Te’ Land Trust is an example of
individuals collaborating to counteract histories of land appropriation and ex-
traction as connected with language, culture, and landscapes.
In Northern California, the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust is a women-led land

trust that seeks the restoration and rematriation of land to Indigenous
communities. Organizers within the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust have met
with city council leaders, district officials, and have participated in
demonstrations against environmental damage to the land. The group’s
vision seeks not just the return to land but also the disruption of the
settler process as noted on the group’s website: ‘We envision a Bay Area
in which Ohlone language and ceremony are an active, thriving part of
the cultural landscape, where Ohlone place names and history is known
and recognized and where intertribal Indigenous communities have
affordable housing, social services, cultural centers and land to live,
work and pray on.’
(From https://sogoreate-landtrust.org)
REFLECTION 3.5
Have you carried out research projects that require observation or

participation in communities other than your own? What were some
of the impressions that you recall from being an ‘outsider’ in that
community? Were there tensions between actively observing and then
writing about what you observed?
KEY TOOL: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION

Identify a classroom that you participate in. Engage in the steps in this
observation protocol,9 taking notes along the way. What you notice
are the ‘what’ and ‘how’ at first.
1. Topics covered
2. Curricular materials (e.g., textbooks, handouts)
3. Number of students in the classroom
60
4. What language(s) are the activities, faculty/student roles, and

locations shared in?
5. What language(s) are the signs, labels, murals in?
6. What language(s) is the university’s website in?
7. What configurations are the students in (one-on-one, small group,
whole class) and for which activities?
8. Do students seem like they’re engaged? Enjoying themselves?
Feeling a sense of accomplishment? What is the affective (emo-
tional) tenor in the room? Are there smiles and laughter? High or
low energy?
9. What types of assessment are happening (e.g., tests, worksheets,
oral check-ins)?
10. Do you have ideas for the reasons why you observed these pat-
terns? Where do these ideas or inferences come from?
11. What might you want to ask the teacher and/or students about
what you observed?
Once you have engaged in deep noticing and observation in a particular

context, along with possible interpretations of what you have seen, then you
can move to talking with people about their views and experiences related to
what you have observed/participated in. Then you are able to create a com-
posite picture, based on diverse perspectives of the same ‘scene.’ This helps
us transition to our next section, Ingredient #4 (Narrative).
INGREDIENT #4: NARRATIVE
Just as observation integrates more intention than noticing, interviews deepen

our engagement with the people, relationships, and contexts you are interested
in. As you engage in research on issues at the intersection of language and
social justice, you will likely conduct interviews with a variety of people who can
help shed light on the complexities of that issue, based on their perspectives
within a particular context. Interviews have traditionally played a large part in
the ethnographic process as they provide in-depth opportunities for members
of communities to share their perspectives and experiences from an ‘emic’ (in-
sider) point of view (Avineri, 2017; Briggs, 1986; De Fina, 2019; Spradley, 2016).
Interviews in the anthropological sense also offer opportunities to engage in both
critical listening (listening with intention) and storying (the act of telling a story or
an account). During interviews we position ourselves (who we are, how we are
related to the issues and topics being discussed) and we are also positioned by
61
others (how interlocutors respond to us and how they see us) (Kinloch & San
Pedro, 2014; Marsilli-Vargas, 2022; Riley, 2023; Talmy, 2011). In other words,
noticing and interviewing are ways to also develop and sustain relational ac-
countability, that is, the respectful relationship that is necessary to learning to
do research and become an advocate for social justice (Wilson, 2008). Eth-
nographic interview methods involve exploring people’s practices and ideolo-
gies and the complexities within particular cultural contexts. Engaging in these
methods involves a range of dispositions including curiosity, respect, and criti-
cal empathy. As we have mentioned previously, all the steps of the ALA frame-
work are iterative—meaning that you will return to each of them multiple times.
This is also the case for interviewing, as you may want to learn about people’s
perspectives various times over the course of your work. There are three main
types of interviews (open ended, semi structured, and structured) (Avineri, 2017;
Bernard, 2006). Open ended generally begins with a broad question and then
follows up with other questions based on the interviewee’s responses. Semi
structured interviews generally involve creating an interview guide with topics
and question foci. Structured interviews are more like a survey or questionnaire
but delivered in oral form, to allow for consistency across interviewees.
Activity 3.4
Create a set of at least ten questions that you can use to interview a person you
know about their language learning experience. Then interview someone (ide-
ally using a recorder, although written notes are also fine). Then connect their
experiences with at least five glossary terms from Chapter 2, if possible with a
classmate who can help you see patterns in different ways.
It is very helpful to transcribe a recorded interview, especially if we are
seeking to find common themes in ideas shared and to have a record for fu-
ture action items. There are many sources (and theories) for generating written
transcriptions out of audio-recorded interviews, but a principle to keep in mind
is that spoken and written language are very different, and our transcription
of language in social context (even during an interview) is in many ways an
interpretation or representation (Ochs, 1979;10 Bucholtz, 2000). Many online
platforms can transcribe audio into written form which offers many advantages,
including automatic time-coding (the systematic marking of time elapsed in the
recording). Be sure to include basic information prior to starting a transcription
(name of interviewer, interviewee(s), date, and place) for future reference. For
transcribing the interviews Avineri (2017) can provide you with additional details
about both what is said and how it is said, to help add relevant layers to your
analysis and understanding. In addition to one-on-one interviews, you might
also consider engaging in focus groups or story circles11 to learn more about
the perspectives of those involved in a context or an issue.
62
INGREDIENT #5: POSITIONALITIES AND COMMITMENTS
Once you have a deeper understanding of a particular context that you are
engaging in (through noticing, observation, and narrative), you can begin to
identify the ways that your identities connect with the people, issues, and com-
plexities there. This process will provide you with meaningful opportunities to
explore your positionalities, highlighting the role of reflexivity in understanding
and engaging with the world around us. As stated in the glossary, your position-
alities are the set of identities that are relevant in relation to a particular context,
group, and/or social issue. One way to think about this is that positionalities
= identities in context. The process of identifying your positionalities (Sultana,
2007) is an important step in reflexive and reflective, which we highlighted in
earlier chapters as being central components for the Applied Linguistic Anthro-
pology framework.
This extension of the previous ingredients integrates your understanding of
yourself in relation to an issue in the broader world, demonstrating integration
across various scales in that social issues are both personal and public. Your
positionalities connect meaningfully with your commitments, the topics and is-
sues that you are interested in addressing. This ingredient provides you with the
tools to explore relationships among who you are, the context, and your goals
and responsibilities.
Below is an example of Netta’s positionality statement, from a co-authored
chapter she wrote for the book Metalinguistic Communities: Case Studies of
Agency, Ideology, and Symbolic Uses of Language (Avineri & Harasta, 2021).
KEY TOOL: EXAMPLE OF POSITIONALITY STATEMENT

Netta: I was born in Beer Sheva, Israel. My parents, siblings, and I
moved to the United States when I was two years old, and I have not
been back to Israel since. My parents spoke Hebrew with one another
in the home, and English was the language of our family/household. I
therefore grew up with receptive knowledge of Hebrew and a simulta-
neous feeling of distance from both Israel and Hebrew. Growing up,
my siblings and I attended the local synagogue (where my stepfather
was the rabbi) on high holidays and a few other times each year, and
we celebrated Jewish holidays throughout the year—especially Pe-
sach [Passover] and Hanukkah. We did not attend Hebrew school. We
grew up eating Middle Eastern/Israeli food including tahini, hummus,
grilled eggplant, falafel, and shawarma. In college—UCLA—I studied
Hebrew formally. I feel relatively comfortable understanding Hebrew
63
(especially when listening to family members), but it is difficult for me

to speak (especially with non-family members). After my undergradu-
ate studies, I taught for a year at a local ‘Torah school.’ I enjoyed work-
ing with the children and being in a Jewish educational environment.
However, there were constraints to what I could teach comfortably.
For example, I remember either writing letters/words in cursive on the
board or depending on the cardboard letters, as I don’t feel comfort-
able writing in block Hebrew letters. Shortly thereafter, I went to UCLA
for my MA in Applied Linguistics. For my thesis I returned to that Torah
school and collected data with the students I had taught the year
before. I enjoyed returning to that environment in a researcher/ethnog-
rapher role. For my PhD I focused on Yiddish language socialization
(and developed the ‘metalinguistic community’ model) and continued
exploring my interests in minority/heritage language socialization
(including Hebrew). I continue to be fascinated by Jewish educational
contexts as examples of both broad and narrow definitions of heritage
language learning. In 2017, I wrote a book about research methods
for language practitioners. This research collaboration has therefore
merged my personal and professional interests in meaningful ways.
(Source: From Avineri, Benor, & Greninger, 2021, pp. 27–28)
REFLECTION 3.6
Review Netta’s Positionality Statement above. What do you notice

about her research on heritage language education, in relation to her
experiences, identities, and noticing/observation? What commitments do
you see in the statement? For another example of a positionality statement,
consult Uju Anya’s statement in Chapter 1 (in a description of her work in
Vignette 1.1: ‘I Don’t Make Claims of Neutrality and Objectivity’). Now
return to the LSJI Reflection that you engaged in for Chapter 2. Now add
the layer of your positionalities and commitments to that LSJI. What do you
discover by adding this additional level of reflection and analysis?
As we look for specific ways to explore our positionalities in order to develop

intentions and commitments to change injustices around us, we invite you to
consider the principle of the seventh generation12 explained by Desirée Muñoz
(Ohlone Sisters). This principle highlights the Indigenous perspective grounded
in a recognition that the present moment is the nexus between the learned
knowledge of prior generations and the commitment to heal future generations.
64
VIGNETTE 3.2 D
esirée Muñoz: The Seventh Generation
In indigenous culture you always hear about the Seventh Generation
and other people that are non native think that that term doesn’t apply
to them. But the Seventh Generation applies to everyone because
that generation is you. And what we like to teach people and this is
something also I like to leave in the classroom or to different folks is
that when I mean, you’re the seventh generation I don’t just mean
you, or my sister, or my relatives, anybody, it’s everybody in the room
because everything that you learn, you’re getting taught by the gener-
ation before you which is your parents, that’s who you’re growing up
with, and who taught them is your grandparents, who taught them is
your great grandparents. That’s three generations ahead of you. And
now moving forward, the generations that come, that are right in front
of you, is when you start your family and you have your own significant
other and you start it, then who are you teaching what you learned
three generations ahead of you? You’re teaching everything that
you’ve learned to your children, your grandchildren, and your great
grandchildren. So everything that you’re learning, knowledge is power
and taking with the, you know, everything that you got, and always
listening and learning because those are the things that you pass on
and those are the things that you’ve learned. So that’s something that
I would want to just, like, leave with you and have that something for
us because I do believe that, you know, without the next generation
who knows where our world will be. So this is the one that we have
to take care of. They’re our jewel. So those are the ones we have to
polish up every once in a while.
REFLECTION 3.7
Were you familiar with the Seventh Generation Principle before? What
type of knowledge that needs to pass on to new generations do you think
Desirée Muñoz is referring to? What do you think of the idea that the
seventh generation principle applies to everyone? How does it apply to
you? How can you integrate this principle to the framework for working
towards social justice, where would it fit within the framework?
65
While commitments to social justice are often long-standing, they also

emerge out of urgent and complex new situations. This brings to mind the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as an example where socioeconomic ineq-
uities and injustices, which are often racialized, were made even more visible
through discourses and practices of containment and lockdowns that exposed
those labeled as ‘essential workers’ and ‘first responders’ to the virus at a time
when vaccines were not yet available (Baquedano-López et al., 2020; Black,
2020). Different sectors of society were impacted by COVID lockdowns, and
a switch to online communication (via Zoom and other digital platforms) (see
Guillen et al., 2020) revealed deeper issues related to access, especially in pub-
lic education and students with limited financial resources to easily join digital
educational platforms. The pandemic also impacted the work of language and
social justice researchers and advocates in linguistically minoritized communi-
ties. The new situation also raised questions regarding the ethics of research
during the pandemic: should one continue to do research despite restrictions?
We share here one example from one of Patricia’s former students, Dr.
Vianney Gavilanes, to illustrate the formulation of ethical commitments, in this
case, under conditions of global duress, but which nonetheless helps us reflect
and re-center the goals of research for social justice and change. Gavilanes
had been conducting her dissertation research project focused on the linguis-
tic and educational experiences of English language learners who were refu-
gees, largely from Central America, in northern California when the COVID-19
pandemic started. This is an underserved population across many schools
impacted by immigration policies of relocation. Gavilanes’ project included eth-
nographic observations of teachers and students in classrooms to understand
whether, and how, students’ linguistic and academic development were being
supported in schools. In a journal article on the topic, Gavilanes asks:
What is our moral obligation to our participants as researchers during pan-

demic time? Do we risk observing too coldly or detachedly in our attempt
to record the evolving dynamics and intricacies that our participants are
experiencing? Ultimately, how can we conduct ethnographic work in the
midst of a pandemic without objectifying refugees and forced migrants as
passive objects of study? Through reflection, mindful process of under-
standing what it means to conduct research during the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic an ongoing mindful practice of reflection not only helps us to
be versatile and flexible as our research plans become upended; it also
allows us to be attentive to our surroundings including our relationships
with our participants. However, my contribution extends beyond reflexiv-
ity to a committed approach to research that enacts relations between my
research, my participants, and the communities I seek to help and protect.
(Gavilanes, 2022, p. 90, emphasis added)
66
In the end, Gavilanes decided not to continue to observe the classrooms vir-
tually, giving teachers and students space to deal with the effects of the pan-
demic without the additional presence of a researcher.
REFLECTION 3.8
Gavilanes’ decision exemplifies several elements of the ALA framework,

but particularly the connection between reflection and positionalities/
commitments. Can you describe how Gavilanes’ decisions illustrate these
components of the framework? Can you identify other tensions between
doing research for language and social justice and the broader context in
which the research is carried out?
REFLECTION 3.9
What do you see as your roles and responsibilities to address the LSJI
you have identified? Have you experienced and/or observed this LSJI?
Are you part of the groups that are directly impacted by the LSJI? Are you
speaking on behalf of that group? What tensions might arise, depending
on how you respond to these questions?
INGREDIENT #6: CRITIQUE
As you may have already recognized throughout the processes of reflection,

noticing, observation, narrative, and positionalities and commitments—there
are various ways that our own lenses, experiences, biases, and perspectives
may shape what we perceive in the world. We emphasize here that through-
out the process of inquiry it is not feasible to simply observe our surroundings
without having critical questions—and wondering if things could be different.
In this section we will discuss the processes of asking critical questions and
identifying tensions, when you identify a dissonance between what you notice/
observe and how you think the world could (or should) be. One form of critique
is going from ‘I’m wondering why things are this way’ to ‘I think the world could
be different.’ Critique necessarily involves tensions and curiosity as well, as it is
important to acknowledge debates/dialogues/counterarguments in relation to
the LSJI to see the same issue from multiple perspectives.
The more that we engage in critique the more we are simultaneously en-
gaging in inward-focused awareness-raising, about ourselves in relation to the
issues and contexts that matter to us. This type of engagement (focused on
67
‘me-cro’ and ‘micro’ levels) will be further explored in Chapter 4, moving to

meso and macro levels of social critique (Bourdieu, 1984), structural inequality,
and exploration of relevant histories in relation to the present. You will then see
how all of these steps build towards collaboratively envisioning new futures in
relation to an LSJI, discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
KEY TOOL: CRITICAL INCIDENTS

‘Critical incidents’ is a reflection tool used frequently in language
teacher education and other professional fields; educators explore
anecdotes and stories where something unexpected happened (Avin-
eri, 2017, p. 115; Bailey, 2007; Nunan & Choi, 2010; Tripp, 2012). This
‘key tool’ involves four steps: describe the incident in detail; critically
analyze how you handled it; consider what you might do in future situ-
ations; and explore what this means about one’s professional identi-
ties. In our discussion of Ingredient #1 (Reflection), you engaged in a
language socialization reflection that encouraged you to consider the
contexts and people who were relevant in your early upbringing and
more recently. Harro (2000a)13 frames these as your ‘first socializa-
tion’ and your ‘second socialization’ (‘cultural and social socialization’).
Harro (2000a) also notes that ‘critical incidents’ are central to moving
from socialization to liberation. (In Chapter 5 we will discuss the steps
to liberation, including reaching out, building community, coalescing,
creating change, and maintaining that change (Harro, 2000b).)
REFLECTION 3.10
In reflecting upon your first and second socialization, share a time when
you interacted with someone or with an idea that you did not agree with.
What did you do at the time? How did you react? How does this connect
with your positionalities and commitments?
Activity 3.5
Review your notes from the Noticing and Observation activities earlier in the
chapter. What have you noticed/observed in those contexts that you could cri-
tique (ask critical questions about)? How are these critical questions specifi-
cally connected to language (e.g., representation and recognition)? Now add
68
a column to your fieldnotes called ‘Critique,’ where you ask critical questions.
What tensions/dilemmas come up when you add these layers to your analysis?
Whereas critical incidents focus on individuals’ experiences in relation to
particular contexts, textual analysis provides methodological tools for examin-
ing the use of language to characterize stories and situations. Below is a table14
that captures four main forms of textual analysis that can unearth relationships
among language use, power, and broader social dynamics. We will discuss
critical discourse analysis (CDA) in particular below, as it provides a useful
framework for exploring practices, ideologies, and policies.
TYPE OF ANALYSIS FOCUS
Content Analysis ‘What’ is expressed (e.g., content, topics)
Discourse Analysis ‘How’ something is expressed (e.g., words,

phrases, emphasis, punctuation, hyperlinks)
Critical Discourse Analysis ‘How’ something is expressed, centrality of

power and ideology
Metaphor Analysis Comparing/Contrasting two like things (‘Source’

and ‘Target’)
KEY TOOL: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (CDA)

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 2013a; Poole, 2010;
Rojo & Van Dijk, 1997) is a methodology for examining spoken and
written discourse by identifying patterns that relate linguistic features
with power and political circumstances. Engaging in these forms of
linguistic analysis (see Shapiro, 2022) integrate multiple phases of
the ALA framework, including reflection, noticing, observation, and
critique. Lists of detailed grammatical and discursive resources can
be found in Ochs (1996),15 Ochs & Schieffelin (1989), and in Biber &
Finegan (1989). Though the CDA analyses listed below are primarily
focused on the empirical data itself, it is important to connect to all
four scales as well.
Below are three main steps involved with CDA. We encourage you
to engage with these steps in relation to the LSJI you’re interested in.
69
READER:
1. Reflect upon your positionalities, biases, and experiences in

relation to that topic
2. Consider whether/how much you can be objective and/or
subjective in relation to that topic
SOURCES:
3. Select textual sources (consider rationale for selection, pros/cons,

representativeness, generalizability, bias)
4. Research the authors, sources, and intended audiences
5. Reflect upon possible goals of the authors and sources
DISCOURSE:
6. Identify lexical choices, phrases, metaphors, prosody, semantics,

morphemes, syntax
7. Examine possible assumptions, inferences; consider possible
interpretations
9. Create a collection of examples/sources with themes, commonalities
10. Connect with issues of power and ideology
11. Build your argument
Johnson et al. engaged in a critical discourse analysis of academic re-

search literature, public news media, and institutional narratives about the ‘lan-
guage gap,’ demonstrating
how discourses that are generated within a socially insulated ‘language

gap’ research paradigm propagate a deficit orientation of linguistic mi-
nority communities, problematically validate behavior intervention pro-
grams among particular socioeconomic groups, and reify linguistic and
cultural misperceptions of traditionally marginalized groups.
(Johnson et al., 2017, p. 6)
In particular, they identified key themes: Language quality, Language deficits, and
Language and Literacy as well as three metaphors: Language as wealth, Lan-
guage as Health, and Language as Food. This in-depth analysis exposes ideol-
ogies that shape practices and policies. This form of data analysis (with an eye
towards social change) is part of the iterative process of entering into incremental
70
change and a continuous process of transformation, which can eventually include

awareness-raising, advocacy, and activism (as discussed in Chapter 5).
Earlier we offered an illustration of the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust, a w
omen-led
organization that works to restore land to Indigenous communities. The
recognition of Indigenous land is an important concern for language and social
justice activists and scholars and it is related to the LSJI case study on Indig-
enous representation that we address in this book. As the Sogorea Te’ Land
Trust’s work indicates, culture and language are key to the reclamation of In-
digenous land. We next share a vignette where Professor K. Wayne Yang offers
an example of another critical project from the Toronto-based group, Ogimaa
Mikana,16 which is transforming landscapes through actions to rename place
and in the work that Yang and Theresa Stewart-Ambo17 (Tongva/Luiseño) have
written on land acknowledgements. We invite you to reflect on the process of
critique embedded in these practices:
VIGNETTE 3.3 . Wayne Yang: Naming as Political

K
Action
Ogimaa Mikana is actually an arts activist collective, a Native arts
collect-activist group based in Toronto. They’ve done all this place
naming so they’ve taken on whole billboards that say, ‘This is the
name of this area.’ They’ve renamed street signs. They’ve done all
this…it is guerrilla art, but it’s not always guerrilla art, and it’s quite
provocative, place names…mostly Anishinaabe names. but Hayden
King is part of Ogimaa Mikana and he, among other things, convenes
the Yellowhead Institute [where] they do a lot of political activism, ….
We draw a lot, Theresa Stewart-Ambo and I, in that land acknowl-
edgements piece, from Hayden King’s writings, as well as other Ca-
nadian writers and thinkers, like Chelsea Vowel, and I think what they
say is like it’s not really about phrasing or wording. It is and it isn’t, you
know? I think this thing with language is—language is more than text.
It’s like the subtext, the context, it’s really the intentionality behind the
text. The intention or the aboutness which changes from context to
context…. I feel like land acknowledgements are—there are contexts
in which they’re very, very important still—but I, I think that whether
or not the intentionality is just to wash your hands and pretend to be
innocent because you made a land acknowledgement, or if it’s really
like, ‘Hey, you know, we’re just saying this because we want to start to
be responsible to our obligations to the peoples of this land and to this
land itself.’ I think it almost doesn’t matter how you say it. It’s what you
mean when you say it.
71
REFLECTION 3.11
Find an example of a land acknowledgement for your university or an

organization you are familiar with. What new information do you learn
about the land and/or the Indigenous people of that region? What do
you notice about the language that is used (content analysis, discourse
analysis)? What are you curious to know more about, based on the land
acknowledgement?
Activity 3.6
An Indigenous language acknowledgement

We have been discussing how the different ingredients of the ALA framework
come together around LSJIs. Indigenous land recognition, a form of noticing
embedded in critique, is becoming part of a conscious effort to raise public
awareness of Indigenous land appropriation in settler colonialism. The same
can be said about Indigenous languages in the United States that have experi-
enced erasure in favor of English-only use. In Patricia’s co-taught course on In-
digenous Language Revitalization at UC Berkeley, instructor Beth Piatote18 (Nez
Perce) leads the class into a writing exercise of an Indigenous language ac-
knowledgement. As Piatote explained, this was an activity developed by Phillip
Cash Cash from the luk’upsíimey/North Star Collective,19 which uses creative
writing for language revitalization. One purpose of this activity is to raise aware-
ness and recognize an Indigenous language spoken in the area or a language
that students are familiar with (or wanted to become familiar with). The activity
also offers opportunities to re-center Indigenous languages in the class and to
hear about an Indigenous language, and in some cases, and more importantly,
to actually hear the resonances and sounds of Indigenous languages spoken
in class. Instructions: Write a reflection, a poem, a song, a letter to an ancestor,
or any other form of written expression that you can then share with the rest of
the class (writing time ten minutes).
MOVING FROM ‘WHAT IS’ TO ‘WHAT HAS BEEN’
The ingredients and ‘key tools’ described in this chapter provide multiple per-
spectives on the ALA component of ‘What Is,’ allowing you to explore who you
72
are, the relationships you are part of, what you notice, what you observe, and
what you can critique. It also highlights the various tensions involved in these
forms of engagement. We feel it is important to highlight that you are likely
experiencing multiple levels of engagement simultaneously (individual, interper-
sonal/interactional, institutional). Also, we note that these ‘what is’ processes
are not static—as you observe things they change in dynamic ways. Through
the transitions from reflection to noticing/observation to critical incidents, you
are becoming more prepared to identify possibilities for social change, as dis-
cussed in Chapter 5.
We assume that you have had experience (or are familiar) with the edu-
cational system in the United States, navigating different school grades and
systems (primary and secondary) and higher education (college or graduate
programs). As we have been discussing in this book, despite educational pol-
icies to support inclusion of linguistic and racialized minority groups, language
access and equity continue to be central concerns in education (Cioè-Peña,
2022; Iyengar, 2014). The range of practices, beliefs, biases, and privileges,
sometimes learned early in life, but certainly reinforced through social institu-
tions such as schools, media, religion, or politics, make it possible for individ-
uals from dominant groups (typically middle-class, white, English speakers) to
minimize and misrepresent the values and beliefs of linguistically minoritized
groups. We have been discussing the ways in which English hegemony in the
U.S. educational system contributes to the segregation and marginalization of
students who speak languages other than English. Even in schools where lan-
guage programming is organized into bilingual education programs, the goal is
one of transition into English-only instruction.
SUMMARY
In this chapter we have provided opportunities to engage in various steps.

These steps will provide you with key perspectives on English dominance and
linguistic hegemony, which we will explore in more detail in Chapter 4. For ex-
ample, you may have noticed that your home/heritage language is not used in
the classrooms you are a part of. You may then be curious to examine histories
of immigration in your region. Eventually this may move you to advocate for
heritage languages in your county (as described in Chapter 5). In addition, the
noticing/observation tools including linguistic landscapes may have helped you
realize that Indigenous languages are not represented in your surroundings.
We will explore contemporary issues of Indigenous representation in relation to
historical dynamics in Chapter 4 as well.
73
RESOURCES
To learn more on discourse analytic methodologies:
• Fairclough, N. (2013b). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of lan-

guage (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. Routledge.
• Rymes, B. (2016). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection
(2nd ed.). Routledge.
For introductory and specialized material on the methods of Conversation Anal-

ysis (CA):
• Schegloff Publications Archive: https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/

schegloff/pubs/
• Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
For additional methodological tools:
• Consult the section on ‘Critical Methodological Research on Children’s Bi-

lingualism’ in Baquedano-López & Garrett (2023, pp. 130–132) for ways to
be sensitive to the ways bilingual children experience power dynamics in in-
stitutions through research approaches that engage and advance 1) ethical
commitments and a practice of refusal, 2) critical listening and relationality,
and 3) socially and purpose-driven methods.
• Fieldwork practice of writing reflective ‘observer’s comments’ (OCs) along-
side observable data, see Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative
research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.).
Pearson.
• Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnote.
(2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
For additional methodological tools on narrative:
• Mayotte, C., & Kiefer, C. (2018). Say it forward: A guide to social justice
storytelling. Haymarket Books.
• Archibald, J., Lee-Morgan, J. B. J., & De Santolo, J. (2020). Decolonizing
research: Indigenous storywork as methodology. Zed Books.
Story Circles: https://see.oregonstate.edu/sites/see.oregonstate.edu/files/story_

circles_toolkit_osu_august_2020.pdf.
74
Additional material on the nature, ethics, and politics of land acknowledgements:
• Stewart-Ambo, T., & Yang, K. W. (2021). Beyond land acknowledgment in

settler institutions. Social Text, 39(1), 21–46.
• See also a request for a moratorium on land acknowledgements to the
American Anthropological Association. Lambert, M. C., Sobo, E., Lam-
bert, V. E. (2021). Rethinking land acknowledgements. Anthropology News,
December 20: https://www.anthropology-news.org/articles/rethinking-land-
acknowledgments/.
NOTES
1. For expanded examples, see https://narrative4.com/story-exchange/.

2. https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/283/City-Demographics.
3. Personalismo is a notion that relates to the value placed on interactions with
others drawing from Latin American cultural norms and expectations. See Davis
et al. (2019).
4. See https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1525/aa.2002.104.
3.791 for a discussion of how insider and outsider ‘status’ are fluid and situated.
5. This is inspired by CIVICS SL textbook activity taught by Netta.
6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176709000972.
7. http://intercultural-learning.eu/Portfolio-Item/dive/.
8. ‘Having Reservations’ and ‘Going Native’ are two trademarked cartoons by
Bernard C. Perley.
9. Observation protocol adapted from CASJE ‘Stop Calling it Hebrew’ project:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zeg24qhPqg6AfYjio2fplDCqQ9pYLGe
CAma6STvAIo0/edit.
10. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/ochs/articles/ochs1979.pdf.
11. https://usdac.us/storycircles.
12. https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/seventh-generation-principle.
13. https://diversity.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Cycles-of-socialization-
and-liberation.pdf.
14. Adapted from Avineri (2017).
15. Several publications by E. Ochs are available on the website http://www.sscnet.
ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/ochs/publish.htm.
16. For more information on Ogimaa Mikana see https://ogimaamikana.tumblr.
com/.
17. Stewart-Ambo, T., & Yang, K. W. (2021). Beyond land acknowledgment in settler
institutions. Social Text 39(1), 21–46.
18. To learn more about Beth Piatote’s poetry and scholarship consult: https://com-
plit.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/beth-piatote.
19. To learn more about the North Star Collective see: https://fishtrap.org/north-
star-collective/.
75
REFERENCES
Archibald, J., Lee-Morgan, J. B. J., & De Santolo, J. (2020). Decolonizing research:

Indigenous storywork as methodology. Zed Books.
Avineri, N. (2017). Research methods for language teaching: Inquiry, process, and
synthesis. Palgrave.
Avineri, N., Benor, S. B., & Greninger, N. (2021). Contested Hebrew: Metalinguis-
tic communities and ethnolinguistic infusion in US Jewish complementary
schools. In N. Avineri & J. Harasta (Eds.), Metalinguistic communities: Case
studies of agency, ideology, and symbolic uses of language (pp. 27–50).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Avineri, N., & Harasta, J. (Eds.). (2021). Metalinguistic communities: Case studies of
agency, ideology, and symbolic uses of language. Springer Nature.
Bailey, C. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research. Sage Publications.
Baquedano-López, P., Del Percio, A., Pérez-Milans, M., Vigouroux, C., Chen, K., &
Wei, L. (2020). Editorial. Language, Culture and Society, 2(2), 141–148: https://
doi.org/10.1075/lcs.00026.edi.
Baquedano-López, P., & Garrett, P. (2023). On becoming bilingual: Children’s expe-
riences across homes, schools, and communities. Routledge.
Bernard, R. H. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantita-
tive approaches (4th ed.). Altamira Press.
Besnier, N. (1990). Language and affect. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 419–
451. Annual Reviews.
Biber D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical
marking of evidentiality and affect. Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study
of Discourse, 9(1), 3–124.
Black, S. (2020). Communicability, stigma, and xenophobia during the COVID-19
outbreak: ‘Common reactions’? Language, Culture and Society, 2(2), 242–251.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduc-
tion to theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). # Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and
the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist,
42(1), 4–17.
Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of
the interview in social science research. Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Harvard
University Press.
76
Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32,

1439–1465.
Bunin Benor, S., & Avineri, N. (2021). Hebrew and Yiddish in Los Angeles: Bilin-
gualism, metalinguistic communities, and ethnolinguistic infusion. In C. H. Chik
(Ed.), Multilingual La La Land (pp. 129–150). Routledge Publishers.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape and minority languages. Inter-
national Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 67–80.
Cioè-Peña, M. (2022). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s school:
Interrogating settler colonial logics in language education. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 42, 25–33.
Davis, R. E., Lee, S., Johnson, T. P., & Rothschild, S. K. (2019). Measuring the elusive
construct of personalismo among Mexican American, Puerto Rican, and Cu-
ban American adults. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 41(1), 103–121.
De Fina, A. (2019). The ethnographic interview. In K. Tusting (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of linguistic ethnography (pp. 154–167). Routledge.
Duranti, A. (1997). Universal and culture-specific properties of greetings. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 7(1), 63–97.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an inter-
active phenomenon. Cambridge University Press.
El Ayadi, N. (2022). Linguistic sound walks: Setting out ways to explore the rela-
tionship between linguistic soundscapes and experiences of social diversity.
Social & Cultural Geography, 23(2), 227–249.
Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
Fairclough, N. (2013a). Critical discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Hanford (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9–20). Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2013b). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language
(2nd ed.). Routledge.
Gavilanes, V. (2022). From ethics to refusal: Protecting migrant and refugee students
from the researcher’s gaze. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 38(1), 88–94.
Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
Goodwin, M., Cekaite, A., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In M. Sorjonen
& A. Perakyla (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 16–41). Oxford University Press.
Guillen, G., Sawin, T., & Avineri, N. (June 2020). Zooming out of the crisis: Language
and human collaboration. Foreign Language Annals, 1–9.
Harro, B. (2000a). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R.
Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for di-
versity and social justice (1st ed., pp. 45–51). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Harro, B. (2000b). The cycle of liberation. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R.
Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diver-
sity and social justice (1st ed., pp. 463–469). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Irvine, J. (1993). Registering affect: Heteroglossia in the linguistic expression of emo-
tion. In C. Lutz & L. Abu-Lughod (Eds.), Language and the politics of emotion
(pp. 126–161). Cambridge University Press.
77
Iyengar, M. (2014). Not mere abstractions: Language policies and language

ideologies in U.S. settler colonialism. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education,
and Society, 3(2), 33–59.
Johnson, E. J., Avineri, N., & Johnson, D. C. (2017). Exposing gaps in/between dis-
courses of linguistic deficits. International Multilingual Research Journal, 11(1),
5–22: https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1258185.
Kinloch, V., & San Pedro, T. (2014). The space between listening and story-
ing: Foundations for projects in humanization. In D. Paris & M. Winn (Eds.).
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and
communities (pp. 21–42). Sage.
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic
research (Vol. 1). Rowman Altamira.
Lederach, J. P. (2003). The little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of
the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Good Books.
Lutz, C., & White, G. M. (1986). The anthropology of emotions. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 15, 405–436.
Markham, A. N. (2013). Fieldwork in social media: What would Malinowski do?
Qualitative Communication Research, 2(4), 434–446.
Marsilli-Vargas, X. (2022). Genres of listening: An ethnography of psychoanalysis in
Buenos Aires. Duke University Press.
Martin-Jones, M., & da Costa Cabral, I. (2018). The critical ethnographic turn in
research on language policy and planning. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milan
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 71–92). Ox-
ford University Press.
May, S., & Caldas, B. (Eds.). (2023). Critical ethnography, language, race/ism and
education. Multilingual Matters.
Mayotte, C., & Kiefer, C. (2018). Say it forward: A guide to social justice storytelling.
Haymarket Books.
Miller, D., & Horst, H. A. (2020). The digital and the human: A prospectus for digital
anthropology. In H. A. Horst & D. Miller (Eds.), Digital anthropology (pp. 3–35).
Routledge.
Nunan, D., & Choi, J. (Eds.). (2010). Language and culture: Reflective narratives and
the emergence of identity (1st ed.). Routledge.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.),
Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–47). Academic Press.
Ochs, E. (1986). From feelings to grammar: A Samoan case study. In B. B. Schief-
felin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 251–272).
Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz &
S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–438). Cambridge
University Press.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text: Interdisciplinary
Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), 7–26.
Palmer, D., & Caldas, B. (2017) Critical ethnography. In K. King, Y-J. Lai, & S. May
(Eds.), Research methods in language and education. Encyclopedia of lan-
guage and education (3rd ed., pp. 1–12). Springer.
78
Poole, B. (2010). Commitment and criticality: Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis

evaluated. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 137–155.
Riley, K. C. (2023). Methods in linguistic anthropology: Interviews and techniques. In
J. Stanlaw (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology [on-
line resource]: https://doi-org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/10.1002/9781118786093.
iela0267.
Riley, K., Perley, B. C., & García-Sánchez, I. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Language and
social justice: Global perspectives. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Rojo, L. M., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). ‘There was a problem, and it was solved!’: Le-
gitimating the expulsion of illegal migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse.
Discourse & Society, 8(4), 523–566.
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1984). Towards an anthropology of self and feelings. In R. A.
Schweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and
emotion (pp. 137–157). Cambridge University Press.
Rymes, B. (2016). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection (2nd
ed.). Routledge.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986). Language socialization across cultures
(Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.
Schweder, R. A., & LeVine, R. A. (Eds.). (1984). Culture theory: Essays on mind, self,
and emotion. Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, S. (2022). Cultivating critical language awareness in the writing classroom.
Routledge.
Shohamy, E. G., Rafael, E. B., & Barni, M. (Eds.). (2010). Linguistic landscape in the
city. Multilingual Matters.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant observation. Waveland Press, Inc.
Stewart-Ambo, T., & Yang, K. W. (2021). Beyond land acknowledgment in settler
institutions. Social Text, 39(1), 21–46.
Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating
fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International Journal
for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 374–385.
Talmy, S. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity,
and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25–42.
Tripp, D. (2012). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement.
Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood
Publishing.
79
CHAPTER FOUR
What Has Been

Deepening the Connections
between Past and Present
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
In this chapter we examine how ideologies (belief systems connected with ways
to see the world) operate underneath everyday and ‘visible’ practices. We will
study how societal views and practices can support the dominance of certain
groups over others. We focus on two main cases that intersect with language
and social justice issues, namely recognition and representation, and which we
have been addressing in previous chapters. The two cases emphasized in this
chapter (the dominance of English and Indigenous representation) are broader
than just one LSJI and may in fact include multiple LSJIs within them, as you
will see through several discussion points, examples, and activities throughout
the chapter. The first case relates to the recognition of the almost exclusive use
of English in United States schools, which constitutes a form of linguistic he-
gemony (the power and dominance of one language over others). The second
case is related to the ways Indigenous people are represented in society (for ex-
ample, the use of mascot names in organized sports that are based on—often
demeaning—aspects of Native American culture and symbols). Through an
examination of the root causes of these issues we provide tools from our ALA
(Applied Linguistic Anthropology) framework to deepen reflection and critique
as we consider the ‘what has been’ in examples of normalized present-day
injustices. These tools include importantly where (and how) information frames
our understanding of present-day events, as well as how to draw on and select
sources to help us unearth important histories. At its core, this chapter exam-
ines how the past, and in the United States through sedimented histories and
practices of colonialism, has set up the structural conditions for present-day
realities.
80 DOI: 10.4324/9781003155164-4
W H AT H A S B E E N : D E E P E N I N G C O N N E C T I O N S
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• Apply relevant components of the ALA framework to develop a deeper re-

flecting practice that can help you examine and critique how present-day
issues of language and social justice are connected to past events or prac-
tices; that is, how using the framework can help you understand a language
and social issue and help you answer, ‘how did we get here?’
• Draw on the ALA framework to examine how particular present-day prac-
tices and realities have roots in policies and beliefs that continue to support
dominant, white, middle-class values and expectations.
• Connect multiple levels or scales of justice, from me-cro to macro, to iden-
tify how individual experiences are inextricably related to larger historical
and political events that continue to influence and shape the practices that
we take for granted and as ‘normal’ everyday experiences, that is, how
‘facts’ also shape perceptions of ‘what is’ and ‘what has been.’
GUIDING QUESTIONS
1. As you examine the topics we discuss in this chapter, what strategies can
help you identify exclusionary actions that have become ‘naturalized,’ that
is, actions presented as ‘just the way things are’?
2. Would you consider the media, for example, to have a role in shaping your
perceptions about others and social issues? What other mechanisms have
an influence on people’s perceptions of present-day or past events (es-
pecially when there are multiple perspectives on historical events)? What
is the role of social media in shaping your understanding of social issues
(which apps and why)?
3. What are some ways to assess the nature of the information that you re-
ceive about current (or past) topics and events? News stories and other
news sources are not free of bias—how do you determine the trustworthi-
ness of sources?
4. What court cases, government structures, laws, and/or propositions are
relevant to your selected LSJI?
5. Some of the examples presented in this chapter address language
education in schools. Have you or someone you know experienced an LSJI
related to language education? What are some examples of educational
practices reinforcing situations of language-related injustices (e.g., exam-
ples found at the curriculum level, at the policy level, or in public discourses
and media about education)? How might educational policies in schools/
universities/community centers create the conditions for educational in-
equities to take place (e.g., who has access to education, how funds are
81
distributed, which languages are valued, who becomes a teacher, how are
immigrant students introduced to bureaucracies in education, etc.)?
6. When the language of some groups is devalued and not seen as ‘stan-
dard,’ what histories and deeper knowledge are needed before moving to
specific interventions? In examining examples of situations where the free-
doms of people are currently impacted by uses of language that discrim-
inates or marginalizes, what histories and deeper knowledge are needed
before moving to specific interventions?
7. In relation to your chosen LSJI, how can you create a composite picture by
triangulating diverse data sources to arrive at a deeper understanding of
what is happening in the world?
We turn to the two cases we have been discussing in the book and to a set of
strategies to help you develop a deeper understanding of LSJIs related to these
cases. These two cases focus on 1) an examination of how the preference and
use of English as the dominant language in the United States and its attendant
monolingual ideologies. To expand on the cases, we offer examples on ways to
engage the ALA framework to explain the sociohistorical roots behind current
practices of Indigenous representation and English language dominance and
2) Indigenous representation and the pejorative discourses about Indigenous
individuals and groups in the United States. You will see how our iterative ALA
framework provides a lens to ‘study’ a social problem at a different scale of
social critique and offers a starting point for engaging in depth with language
and social justice work. After reading the two cases, we invite you to engage
the framework in the final section of the chapter by providing relevant sociohis-
torical context for an LSJI of concern to you.
The chapter activities offer you an opportunity to connect personal expe-
rience to larger processes embedded in a history of colonization in the United
States. Equally important is the opportunity to examine how the role of govern-
ments, policies, and laws contribute to framing the outcome of (and sometimes
enduring) colonization practices, not as particular events, but as structures (Glen,
2015; Kauanui, 2016). Even policies created to provide resources for language
learners, produce categories and labels (e.g., Limited English Proficient) that de-
fine students and provide accountability mechanisms for schools and districts to
manage financial resources,1 and may not always have appropriate ways to sup-
port or reclassify learners as proficient (Brooks, 2020). The activities in this chapter
will help you develop tools to deepen reflection on how the work of language and
social justice moves beyond the identification of oppression to a deeper practice
of reflection on how we might be implicated in structures and systems of oppres-
sion. This shift in perspective is also an addition to the me-cro and micro scales
we emphasized in Chapter 3 to the meso level of social institutions (universities,
schools, health systems, to name a few). A critical reflection on the ‘what has
82
been,’ as we propose, can help raise awareness to act on policies and discourses
that reproduce structures of inequality across multiple institutions that are inter-
connected to create structures (e.g., schooling, criminal justice, and media).
Activity 4.1
Recall the LSJI that you identified in Chapter 2. What ALA deepening question
could you identify in relation to this LSJI?
CASE 1: THE DOMINANCE OF ENGLISH
Background
The first language and social justice case we address in more depth in this
chapter is related to the dominance of one language, English, in the United
States. This form of language dominance is an example of linguistic hegemony,
which we defined in Chapter 2 as the acceptance of the dominant group’s
language through the inculcation of ways of seeing and legitimizing that lan-
guage (Wiley, 2000). The dominance of English in the United States is, in part,
supported by an accompanying ideology of monolingualism. The outcomes of
this type of language dominance have restrictive effects on other aspects of
society, and as we examine in this section, they also shape language educa-
tion, which in our public schools revolves around the use of standard English or
academic English. In this context, the use of other varieties of English are limited
as is the development of bilingualism and multilingualism.
REFLECTION 4.1
You may have come across news stories or TV programs that reference
English as the language of the United States. Yet, it is important to
consider that while some states have passed English-only legislation, that
is, the legal use of English as a common language of the workplace or
government business, we do not have an official or national language in
the United States. Have you encountered situations where you (or others)
have been expected to use only English? Recall your own educational
experiences (K-12 schools, university, or perhaps a community center):
were you expected to speak English? (Were others expected to speak
English only?) In addition to your home language, are there other
languages that you have studied? (Reflect on your language learning
experiences, why you studied those particular languages, if applicable.)
83
One major movement that has been proposing legislation to make English
the official language of the United States has been central in action that has
curtailed bilingual education programming across several states. An example
that illustrates this movement’s reach is the passing of Proposition 227 in Cali-
fornia which was passed in 1998. Couched in the campaign slogan ‘Language
for the Children,’ where ‘language’ meant English, this proposition stopped
bilingual education programs in its public schools in favor of programming
structured to rapidly transition English language learners (for whom bilingual
programs had been created in the first place) to an English-only medium of
instruction. Under the new mandate, students could only participate in bilingual
programming through waivers signed by their parents and in schools that were
committed to offering bilingual education (Gutiérrez et al., 2000). Fueled by ar-
guments from the English-Only movement on the perceived economic benefit
of a one-language policy for the country, several other states have introduced
English-only policies in the workplace, when conducting government business,
and in schools. Below you will find a list of 28 states where English is the official
language, including states Arizona and California whose borders reach Mexico.
U.S. States where English Is the Official Language:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida,

Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming
—From James Crawford’s website Issues in U.S. Language Policy

(1997–2008) http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/langleg.htm
The highly publicized 2018 case of Aaron Schlossberg, a Manhattan

lawyer, who threatened to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on
Spanish-speaking workers while he was ordering food at a local restaurant,
illustrates these points. In a recorded video that went viral on the internet,
Schlossberg was seen berating and accusing staff of speaking Spanish with
these statements: ‘Your staff is speaking Spanish to customers when they
should be speaking English… It’s America… My guess is, they’re not docu-
mented’ (CBS news, May 18, 2018). Ironically, on his professional website, this
same lawyer listed English and Spanish as languages in which he was profi-
cient. We could consider the situation as an example of an ideology of mono-
lingualism (and even xenophobic expression) tied to an expectation of where
84
English should be spoken (Manhattan and America). Further arguments can be

made from this example that illustrate the troubling politics of the English-Only
movement. For example, claims of exclusive English language use in this coun-
try erase, first, the Native American languages of the area (Lenape in the New
York area) and, second, the vast historic experience of multilingualism across
the United States. As the language incident at this Manhattan eatery illustrates,
Spanish was used (some may even say, weaponized) against Latinx workers, in
effect threatening their safety. You can view a news story and its accompanying
video in the link below:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawyer-aaron-schlossberg-pays-price-after-
video-of-tirade-goes-viral/
We will return to this example in more depth in Chapter 5, to highlight the
various actions that individuals and groups took in response to this particular
incident.
REFLECTION 4.2
Why do you think it is possible for individuals, as in the case of the

lawyer described in the example above, to demand that others speak
English in public places? In Chapter 1 we introduced the ALA framework
that incorporates a temporal dimension (what is, what has been,
what could be) to help us frame and develop a deeper critique and
engagement of work around language and social justice. We noted that
this process is scaffolded through a ‘scaling approach’ that includes
a nested engagement across (broader) macro-meso- micro-’me-cro’
(individual) scales. How could you engage across these different scales to
reflect on the issue of English language dominance or language access?
Select two levels of the scale and discuss your choices.
Activity 4.2
Watch the first 30 seconds of the YouTube video Where Are You From? by
Ken Tanaka. What are your impressions on the way English is both referenced
and used in the video? In Chapter 2 we discussed LSJIs that represent forms
of A
nti-Asian sentiments. Could you identify ways in which this video uses lan-
guage to also represent Anti-Asian and xenophobic expressions? https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=crAv5ttax2I
To complement your observations, search for scholarly articles that discuss
the role of language in the development of self, identity, belonging. List theories
that center language to identity development—what is at the heart of these
theories?
85
ENGAGING IN DEEPER CRITIQUE
Example # 1 Linguistic Hegemony

and Monolingual Ideologies
As we move towards a deeper critique of English dominance as linguistic he-
gemony it is important to understand the context that has led to situations
of linguistic injustice. The dominance of European languages, and particularly
of English, began with European colonization in the United States. First, the
missionizing projects of the Spanish monarchy in the 15th century controlled
the use of Native languages and forced the use of the Spanish language in
what is now the southwest of the United States, and later through the imposi-
tion of English in the settlements of the eastern seacoast in the 16th and 17th
centuries. Much of European expansion into the United States was achieved
through a system largely based on the capture and enslavement of Africans for
profit-bearing work in natural resources extraction and plantation systems of
colonized lands. In this legalized human trafficking project, enslaved Africans
were not allowed to speak their native languages; moreover, people from the
same African communities or regions were separated so that they could not
speak the same language—a main idea behind this policy was fear of uprising
and rebellion. During these colonial times everyone was expected to speak
English, which represents an example of linguistic domination that has endured
over the centuries and illustrates how practices of colonialism (and settler co-
lonialism) continue in present-day contexts, not just in terms of the economic
benefits to some sectors of society (white, middle class) but as forms of ideol-
ogy or states of mind that accept the status quo.
It is thus the case that in the history of the United States, Native American lan-
guages, African languages, and the languages of other settlers (i.e., those arriving
from Europe besides the English) were suppressed or erased in favor of English,
the language spoken by settlers in positions of power. Drawing on this back-
ground and discussion, consider the following questions as examples that can
guide a deeper critique of the issue of English dominance as linguistic hegemony.
The discussion in italics, following the set of questions below, represents a way
to engage a deeper critique of the issue of linguistic hegemony. The section be-
low illustrates a sample critique on the origins and effects of linguistic hegemony
which can be used as a model to engage in critique of other cases and LSJIs.
Guiding Questions (for a Deeper Critique)

What are the historical underpinnings of present-day linguistic hegemony, and
of English in particular? What are the arguments for English-only policies? In
what ways is English-only legislation potentially discriminatory? What is the
86
relationship between linguistic hegemony and monolingual ideologies? How is

migration related to this relationship? That is, from your experience and knowl-
edge, do you see English having an even broader and global dominance?
A Sample Critique: The Origins and Effects of Linguistic

Hegemony
Practices and processes of linguistic hegemony of European languages, with
their roots in colonization, have had devastating effects on languages that consti-
tute minority languages. Engaging in deeper critique of this situation at the crux
of language and social justice can reveal the ways in which linguistic hegemony
works as long as there are mechanisms to sustain it. As we highlighted in Chapter
2, language ideologies are belief systems about languages, language practices
and/or users of a language. Monolingual ideologies are belief systems that value
the use of one, dominant language in a particular context. Ideologies of mono-
lingualism (and a preference for one, dominant language) operate in situations in
spite of the fact that bi/multilingualism can be present. Similar processes are at
play in situations where languages are tied to nation-states, that is, ideologies
where nation-states are monoglot and correlate with one homogenous language
(Silverstein, 1996). Notions of ‘ideal’ speaker and ‘native’ speaker are part of
monolingual ideologies, which in the case of English in the United States point
to English as the unmarked form (seen as ‘normal,’ and unremarkable) against
which people and their use of English are labeled variously as non-native, English
language learner, English as a second language to name a few examples (Ellis,
2006). In contexts of heritage language maintenance, such as the case of Span-
ish users (Lynch, 2003), Korean users (Lo, 2009), or Yiddish-speaking immigrants
and their children (Avineri, 2012), monolingual ideologies may promote faster as-
similation into English as this may be seen as becoming part of ‘American cul-
ture.’ Further, beliefs and practices that support the notion of a ‘standard’ variety
of a language have effects on how other varieties are perceived (negatively and/
or neutrally) in relation to the valued language of the nation-state (Avineri, 2012).
Consider that almost 18 years after the elimination of bilingual education in
the state of California, Proposition 58-LEARN (Language Education, Acquisition
and Readiness Now) was passed in 2016. The language of the new legislation
commits school districts to include parental and community input to develop
bilingual programs. This new legal mandate echoes other efforts to counter
English-only practices and to support bilingualism. Across several states high
school programming now includes the recognition of bilingualism with the ‘Seal
of Biliteracy’ given to students who have successfully completed and attained
proficiency in a bilingual program at their schools. Questions have arisen about
this new program that more pointedly ask who benefits from this biliteracy rec-
ognition. We ask, is it possible that the Seal of Biliteracy could become an LSJI?
87
Activities for Deepening Critique

Choice A:
To learn more about the possible limitations of the Seal of Biliteracy, see
the blog by Professor Nelson Flores at the University of Pennsylvania and the
statement from the Dual Language Academy of the Monterey Peninsula, of
the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District. What are the points of view
being discussed and how can they be used to further the critique of language
hegemony?
1. https://educationallinguist.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/is-a-seal-of-
biliteracy-enough-to-empower-language-minoritized-students/
2. Statement from the https://dlamp.mpusd.net/apps/spotlightmessages/
3808
3. For more insights on the language of Proposition 58 read the Op-Ed by
members of the Language and Social Justice Task Group see: Avineri, N.,
Blum, S. D., Garcia-Mateus, S, & Zentella, A. C. (August 2016). Save CA
Residents from a Language Drought: Vote ‘Yes’ This Fall. Huffington Post
Blog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/american-anthropological-associa-
tion/save-ca-residents-from-a_b_11387726.html
4. And for more information on Proposition 58, consult the link to the proposed
legislation: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_58,_Non-English_
Languages_Allowed_in_Public_Education_(2016)
Choice B:
1. Search online for recent proposals to curtail bilingual education. How is
bilingual education framed? What languages are being included/excluded,
and in which contexts?
2. Compile a list from online resources that list language policies in the U.S.
Are there any trends worth noting?
Choice C:
In recent years, translanguaging has become an important theoretical
perspective to counter the limitation of thinking of bilingualism as just code-
switching between two languages (or codes). Translanguaging scholars ar-
gue that bilingualism is a much more encompassing process that draws on a
unitary language system accessed by bilinguals (de los Ríos & Seltzer, 2017;
García & Kleyn, 2016; García & Li Wei, 2017).
1. Identify scholarly work in this area that explains how long it takes to de-
velop language proficiency in a second language. How should schools
adapt to support language development and proficiency? (You might
88
consider consulting the work of Ofelia García on labels and profi-

ciency.) What are other considerations put forth in this theoretical ap-
proach? Consult a story on translanguaging and cited sources therein:
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2022/02/17/translanguaging-vs-
code-switching/.
Example # 2 Language Varieties and Racialization Processes

In Chapter 2 we offered a glossary to help you expand a vocabulary related to
language and social justice work. In this section we have been talking about
linguistic hegemony as a process that includes the acceptance of the dominant
group’s language (see also the section on ‘Background’ under Case #1 above).
This acceptance produces a number of effects, including the marginalization of
other languages and other varieties of the same language. In the United States,
there are many varieties of English spoken by many groups, for example, Black
English (in some writings this is also known as African American Vernacular En-
glish, AAVE). We illustrate some of these issues below in a sample critique cen-
tered on Anti-Blackness or the beliefs and actions that devalue and minimize
how Black people can participate in society. We invite you to engage in the ac-
tivities that can help expand on the critique of racialization processes related to
language. We also introduce the related theoretical framework of raciolinguistics
that can help you bolster arguments on the topic of language and race.
Guiding Questions (for a Deeper Critique)

Are you a speaker of another variety of English or of Black English? Have you
heard other varieties of English spoken by other racial or ethnic groups in the
United States? If so, when and where? Have you noticed any reactions towards
speakers of Black English or of other varieties of English? What do you think
may motivate those reactions? Drawing from your experiences in education,
who do you think has the responsibility of supporting bilingualism or multilin-
gualism in local communities and schools (parents, schools, districts, or the
economic sector)?
A Sample Critique: Anti-Blackness in Language Education

The hegemony of English in the United States, as we have been arguing, is also
manifested in the marginalization and segregation of not only other languages,
but also of English varieties not considered the dominant form of English or
‘Standard English’—the English of the schools, the media, and government.
This ideology refers to the expectation that standard English serves as a signifier
89
(or acts as a representation) of white middle-class status. And as such, stan-

dard English should be the language used in schools and in educated society.
This is the de facto (a Latin expression for the same meaning as ‘in fact’) variety
against which the competency of speakers of other English varieties is mea-
sured, not just in schools, but across a number of institutions ranging from job
interviews to housing market accessibility where linguistic profiling (very much
like racial profiling but highlighting language use instead) takes place (Baugh,
2003). These internalized viewpoints on ‘proficiency’ continue to influence our
educational system’s organization and instructional curricula, which minimize
the linguistic value, for example, of Black English and of speakers of Black En-
glish. Language scholar April Baker-Bell (2020, p. 11) describes this situation as
an expression of white linguistic hegemony that produces ‘Anti-Black Linguistic
Racism,’ which is a form of ‘linguistic violence, persecution, dehumanization,
and marginalization that Black Language-speakers experience in schools and
in everyday life.’ Black English speakers are imagined and often represented as
unable to speak Standard English, neither being able to speak multiple dialects
of English nor being bilingual and multilingual. Despite decades of work com-
bating the stigma placed on Black English, advancing efforts to recognize and
re-center the linguistic abilities of Black children, schools continue to limit the
bilingual and multilingual opportunities of Black students. This type of exclu-
sion, as Baker-Bell explained, is a form of academic anti-Blackness and invites
concerted efforts to disrupt and rectify this situation. The low numbers of Black
students in language fields and language learning opportunities also illustrates
a form of racial injustice, the denial rooted in expectations that Black students
are not bi/multilingual or capable of becoming bilingual (Lee, 2022).
Activities for Deepening Critique

Expanding on the above critique, consider the ways Uju Anya describes the
underrepresentation and exclusion of Black students in language fields and
courses as an issue of access in the following vignette:
VIGNETTE 4.1 U
ju Anya: ‘Examining the Systems
and Structures of Exclusion and
Marginalization of Black People
in Our Field’
So a big part of the work that I do is examining the systems and struc-
tures of exclusion and marginalization of Black people in our field. So
90
we can right those wrongs, and we can have much more meaningful
participation at the advanced levels of African Americans and other
Black people in world languages, in applied linguistics, so then we
can stay and reproduce ourselves. So it’s like we’re the ones who are
going to do the research that prioritizes our needs and our questions.
We’re the ones that are gonna have access to us, you know, to have
study populations that are meaningful to us, and make the experience
worthwhile for us to not just benefit from this field but stay and enjoy
what it can do for your career, or for your life in general, even if you
don’t end up becoming a linguist, or language teacher, or something
like that… I’m just trying to keep Black kids in our language programs
way past the required Spanish one or two, or whatever that they have
to take. You know, I think there’s a lot of potential for us in this field,
and we have a lot to contribute. And even if we can get Black students
to higher levels, it will then give them access to deeper experiences
in world languages, like study abroad experiences or just to be able
to have access to historical knowledge or knowledge of like Black
communities outside of their own, that you tend to discover when you
go up the ranks in these fields.
1. Taking Professor Anya’s vignette as a starting analytical point, consider the

statement by the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) on racial justice. What
parallels do you notice in what Professor Anya describes in the vignette
and the LSA statement? What is different? https://www.linguisticsociety.
org/news/2020/06/03/lsa-issues-statement-racial-justice.
2. Consult the Glossary of key terms in LSJ in Chapter 2. Are there particular
terms that can be useful for reflecting, developing awareness, and thinking
of collaborative action?
3. As you find ways to address and critique the ‘What Is’ (the broader
socio-political context, the history behind normalized practices) of this sit-
uation, reflect on why Black students and speakers of Black English may
experience exclusion in language programs. We suggest you review a
story that features Professor and linguist April Baker-Bell who has been
writing on ‘Linguistic Racism’ and look for explanations of why this is the
current situation for students in schools: https://www.buffalo.edu/ubnow/
stories/2021/11/baker-bell-linguistic-racism.htm.
4. An example of ways to rectify the absence of language education for Black
students can be found on the website designed and maintained by April
91
Baker-Bell and Carmen Kynard. What activities and actions related to lan-
guage and social justice does this website inspire? http://www.blacklan-
guagesyllabus.com/black-language-education.html.
5. Watch the video by linguistics professor Anne Charity Hudley Black Lan-
guages Matter. Look for both historical background and present-day infor-
mation about African languages and the dialectical varieties and Englishes
spoken by Black students and their families: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=s5xzlGHqv7w.
Connecting to Other Theories and Social Justice

Movements
In related work on language ideologies centering the relationship between lan-
guage and race, Nelson Flores and Jonathan Rosa (2015) introduced the notion
of raciolinguistic ideologies to explain the ways in which speakers, particu-
larly speakers of non-standard varieties, across institutions and in everyday ex-
changes are racialized and often perceived as being linguistically deficient. They
write: ‘[R]aciolinguistic ideologies produce racialized speaking subjects who are
constructed as linguistically deviant even when engaging in linguistic practices
positioned as normative or innovative when produced by privileged white sub-
jects’ (Flores & Rosa, 2015, p. 150).2 In the blog ‘Fighting Anti-Blackness IS
Real Linguistics,’ Nelson Flores, whose work we discussed above, re-centers
the importance of seeing language and race as inextricably related or what
Flores and Rosa have called ‘raciolinguistics’ (Flores & Rosa, 2015), and not
doing so, in particular where it concerns Black speakers and perceptions about
them, may constitute a form of anti-Blackness and linguistic supremacy. Flores
speaks in particular to the field of linguistics where the analysis of language has
not always included the sociopolitical context of language use. After reading
the blog, consider the following question: How does Flores imagine linguists
and other language scholars engaging/fighting Anti-Blackness? Nelson Flores’
blog link: https://educationallinguist.wordpress.com/2020/05/31/fighting-anti-
blackness-is-real-linguistics/.
Activity 4.3
Identify and describe different labels for language learners as expressions of
raciolinguistic ideologies (you might find helpful the work of Ana Celia Zen-
tella on the category limits imposed by the U.S. Census: https://laprensa.org/
gota-gota-el-mar-se-agota-census-and-combatting-linguistic-intolerance.
92
CASE 2: INDIGENOUS REPRESENTATION
Background
As we have discussed in previous chapters, many forms of representation can
become issues of language and social justice. This is due to the fact that rep-
resentations connect both meaning and language (through words, signs, or
images) (Hall, 1997; Saussure, 1967). Representations always function as sig-
nifiers of cultural expectations and shared meanings (e.g., they signal how the
dialects we speak might also indicate our social class). But representations and
their meanings are also sociohistorically constructed, that is, in the context of
colonization and ongoing settler colonialism, they have been mobilized to con-
struct, express, and maintain difference along intersections of race, ethnicity,
language use, class, gender, and ability to name a few. In this way, representa-
tions can be potentially related to LSJIs.
As part of our ongoing critique of the ways in which inequities can remain
uncontested and even accepted as ‘the ways things are,’ in this book we draw
on current understandings of settler colonialism as structures of control over
people and resources. In Chapter 1 we discussed processes of ongoing settler
colonialism as sustained forms of control over people, property rights of land,
people, and other material resources (Glen, 2015; Veracini, 2010; Wolfe, 2006).
Rather than seeing these as practices of the past, it is important to learn to rec-
ognize them as practices that maintain inequities in society. When confronted
with situations where one group is in control and another is marginalized, we can
ask: what power dynamics were, and may continue to be, at play? Who benefits
from these practices and why? This type of reflection engages the study of the
‘what has been’ that can ground you in the important work of identity in its socio-
historical context, asking the critical question, how am I related to the outcomes
of an LSJI? And, importantly, how can I engage in decolonizing practices? We
draw on Tuck & Yang’s (2012) important caution to not see the work (and words)
on decolonization to be simply a trope but to actively recognize non-Indigenous
complicity in practices of land appropriation and to work to center and reinstitute
Indigenous life and languages, including the repatriation/rematriation of land.
In Chapter 2 we introduced a glossary of terms related to issues of represen-
tation (e.g., erasure, power, agency, and oppression) to help you develop a vocab-
ulary for engaging in deeper critique. In the same chapter we also discussed the
problematic use of mascot names based on Native American symbols and cul-
tural objects as they are used in team sports in the United States. This is another
example of how representations can become language and social justice issues
such as the racist symbolic representation of Indigenous people and culture.
93
REFLECTION 4.3
Following up on the themes covered so far in the chapter, review the

Glossary in Chapter 2 and select two concepts that best reflect your
current understanding of how the ‘What Has Been’ is rooted in both past
and present. How do Indigenous representations fit into this temporal
frame? Why do the appropriations of Native cultures in team mascot
names continue despite efforts to stop them? Who needs to learn more
about the issue and its harmful consequences? How has this issue been
addressed in scholarly and legal work? How have Native American
communities responded to sports mascot debates?
Activity 4.4
You might be familiar with examples of the popular use of team sports mascots
in the United States. Perhaps the high school or college you have attended
used Native imagery to refer to its sports teams, or, you might have been a
spectator of sports events using such mascot names. Review the list of LSJIs
in Chapter 2 and answer the following question: How does Indigenous repre-
sentation as used in sports mascot names connect to other LSJIs? (Mindful
of not replicating harmful language and actions, it is not necessary to mention
mascot names that are demeaning of Native American peoples and cultures for
the purposes of completing this activity.)
ENGAGING IN DEEPER REFLECTION
After decades of advocacy from many sectors of society, including the Amer-
ican Anthropological Association and its Language and Social Justice Task
Group, at least two NFL teams have stopped using mascot names with refer-
ence to Native American groups (see the position statement from the American
Anthropological Association).3 The question we invite you to reflect on as you
start to engage in a deeper form of reflection, is how, in the first place, the
use of mascot names became accepted and normalized in sports culture in
the United States. A large part of what we’re examining in this chapter is how
something that might be explained as common sense is actually rooted in a
longer history of domination and exclusion, and in this case, in a history of
colonization of Indigenous people by European settlers. We outline below a
set of guiding questions and an example (in italics) of how to engage in deeper
reflection and critique using the ALA framework as a guide. We also provide a
94
sample critique that addresses the disparaging and damaging use of mascots
for sports teams with references to Native and Indigenous people. We also
connect language and social justice work to Critical Race Theory (CRT), an-
other theoretical paradigm that explicitly connects race to intersections of class,
gender, and we add, language.
Guiding Questions (for Deeper Reflection)

How am I related to the issue under examination and where do I fit within the
power dynamics exemplified in the issue of sports mascot names? What larger
power dynamics are at play? What systems of oppression are represented in
the issue of sports mascot names? How is the use of mascots with Native
American imagery part of the process of settler colonialism?
Taking a closer look at history (through scholarly readings, online blogs and
information, personal/familial/community experience), why are those power dy-
namics in place, what social processes have led to them? We invite you to
consult the Lanham (Trademark) Act of 1946,4 which offers federal protections
to trademark a word, phrase, or symbols as a marketing strategy, but which
does not take into account important cultural practices and symbols of Native
communities; moreover, proving that certain trademark uses are disparaging to
particular groups of people can be difficult, especially when trademarks have
been issued. To further examine this issue, we provide an example of how to
engage in deeper reflection on the issue of sports mascot names we have been
examining in this chapter:
Sample Deeper Reflection # 1: On the Origins of Practices

that Disparage Native Peoples
In the United States there are deep inequities that were generated by colonial-
ism. The descendants of white settlers (and even more recent white immigrants)
enjoy privileges across many areas of society (economic and social mobility,
access to education, and many even have property rights). As a group that was
invaded, and with their lands taken by force and coercion, Native Americans
remain a marginalized group contained in reservations or relocated to specific
territories and spaces. They have also been represented and depicted in history
and popular media in both exotic and disparaging ways. The use of mascot
names often draws on Native American imagery in ways that stereotype, ob-
jectify, and disparage Native peoples and communities. The extensive sports
industry and its commercial practices produce goods to be consumed (profits
from sale of apparel and event tickets for example) while, at the same time, Na-
tive peoples and cultures continue to be dehumanized through the circulation of
sports goods bearing appropriated Native American symbolism. High schools,
95
colleges and universities also participate in the culture of sports mascot names
making students complicit in the misrepresentation of Native American groups.
Sample Deeper Reflection # 2: Is This the Way to Honor

Native American Cultures and Peoples?
Social critic and anthropologist Pauline Turner Strong (2014) notes that the use
of mascot names that draws from Native American culture works ‘[l]ike the ‘sav-
age slot,’ the created space for the inferior in an ordered and civilized western
world … the mascot slot is also a way of objectifying, appropriating and sig-
naling the inferiority of Native American cultures and peoples. The mascot slot
is certainly not, despite enthusiasts’ claims to the contrary, a way of honoring
them [Native American peoples]’ (September 30, 2014). Pauline Turner Strong’s
statements summarize the root causes of what has become a normalized prac-
tice in the use of mascot names. They also point to the ways that the scientific
representation of cultural groups placed people in ‘slots’ fitting either civilized or
uncivilized categories. This raises an important and broader reflection about our
own methods and practices in Anthropology, particularly in terms of their im-
pact on the representation of Native American peoples (and other marginalized
groups) for both scholarly and wider audiences. Regarding Turner’s point about
whether mascot names ‘honor’ Native Americans, the broader anthropological
literature reminds us that indeed there have been efforts to secure permission
from Native American communities to use certain references from their culture
in organized sports. But in the absence of such dialogue and consultation, the
uses of mascot names with references to Native American peoples and culture
ultimately become slurs that disparage and degrade (Avineri & Perley, 2014).
Connecting to Other Theories and Social Justice Movements

Much of the work in language and social justice work can be connected to
other theories and frameworks that seek to address and remedy social inequal-
ities. You might be familiar with recent debates on the use and teaching of Criti-
cal Race Theory (CRT) in public schools. CRT is a theory that was developed in
the field of legal studies to study and demonstrate how racial bias is pervasive
across many social institutions, including the law. Legal scholars working within
CRT have argued that given that historical conditions of individuals are different
across intersections of race, class, and gender (what is referred more gener-
ally as intersectionality), rules, restrictions, and other legal processes produce
differential outcomes on people based on these distinguishing characteristics.
Language and social justice scholars and activists share these concerns as
present-day inequalities continue to impact people differently across intersec-
tions of race, class, and gender. The following activity can help you connect
96
both a deeper sense of reflection and critique on the history of current practices
through the lens of CRT.
Activity 4.5
What’s in the past is not in the past: Read the short essay by CNN writer Eliott
C. McLaughlin that outlines helpful ways to use a critical race theory lens to
reconsider the history of the United States. The embedded four-minute video
clip What critical race theory is really about by fellow correspondent Jason
Carroll includes a definition by Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the founders of Crit-
ical Race Theory as follows: ‘The theory is an approach to grappling with a
history of White supremacy that rejects the belief that what’s in the past is in
the past’ (McLaughlin, May 27, 2021, CNN online). We include the link to the es-
say: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/us/critical-race-theory-lens-history-crt/
index.html.
As you read McLaughlin’s essay and view the video clip, consider the
following questions:
1. What elements or events of the ‘American story’ as described by M

cLaughlin
sit at the intersection of language and social justice?
2. Were any of the elements mentioned in the essay new or framed in new
ways that help you understand settler colonialism and its structures of
inequality?
3. How is white supremacy discussed? What other events of the U.S. past
support white supremacy as benefits that are accrued over time? What has
been your daily life experience within our racialized society?
4. Take a closer look at the 11 (acts/laws/decisions) that McLaugh-
lin lists and which were first described by race scholar Zeus Leonardo
(2009) in his book Race, Whiteness, and Education as a ‘reliable por-
trait of white supremacy.’ Are you familiar with any of these acts and
events? Can you connect these acts and events to language and social
issues?
• Land was taken • Slavery was the law

• Interracial marriage was banned • Voting was restricted
• Jim Crow was accepted • Lynching was tolerated
• Immigration was biased • Education was curtailed
• Good jobs were elusive • Housing was exclusionary
As another example that can help us further understand the effects of the dis-
paraging representation of Indigenous people and why this form of oppression
persists, we share a vignette by Desirée Muñoz, one of the Ohlone Sisters.
97
The vignette addresses the erasure of Indigenous people and the importance
of reclaiming presence and knowledge. As you read the vignette, practice the
tools of deep reflection and critique connecting the ideas that we have just in-
troduced. Have you experienced moments where you have felt your presence
is either ignored or taken for granted? How did that experience make you feel?
VIGNETTE 4.2 esirée Muñoz: ‘We Are Still Here’

D
…actually having the term ‘we are still here,’ I think that that is like a
really good thing that people always say and they are adopting it more
now than when I was younger. When I was younger I used to go to a
lot of classroom presentations with my grandfather and we used to
have this box that had all these things in it, to show who we are and
what best described us as Ohlone people—as me and my sister have
our own box today that we take around to schools. But I used to tell
him, Grandpa, what is the best thing that you have in this box? What
is something that I need to have in my box and he used to tell me: ‘It’s
you. You’re the oldest authentic artifact that this box could have. And
that’s why you always come with me. You are the next generation, and
you’re as young as the people you surround yourself with. So for me
being older and me having you here, it’s teaching the people that it’s
not going anywhere.’ And so I adopted that same, ‘we are still here.’
And that’s what made me go on my career path to want to become
a teacher. I was, ‘Oh, I got this plan. I’m going to be a teacher. And
I’m going to teach fourth grade when they’re learning about all of the
missions and I’m a California mission Indian.’ I cannot wait.
REFLECTION 4.4
Why is it important for Desirée Muñoz to state ‘we are still here’? Who
does the ‘we’ refer to? Why was the fourth grade curriculum mentioned
in the vignette? How are the issues that Desirée Muñoz raises in the
vignette connected to settler colonialism? What deeper connections can
be made to the idea that ‘the past is not in the past’?
As we conclude this section, we want to underscore that discussions about lin-

guistic diversity and Indigenous representation are often tied to language rights,
and in some instances, importantly, they relate to land rights. This is the case
of Indigenous communities often displaced by the effects of colonization where
98
processes of language revitalization and reclamation must also address the

hegemony of English-only practices that have caused Indigenous languages to
become endangered and ‘dormant’ (Leonard, 2020). The accompanying trope
of Native people as ‘the disappearing Native,’ is part of a persistent use of
metaphors of death and extinction (what Perley, 2012, calls ‘zombie linguistics’)
to minimize Indigenous speakers and their languages. Language hegemonies
have also been at play, in this case, English, supplanting Native languages and
ensuring white settler futurities. Perley cautions us to not be lost in discourses
and metaphors of death and extinction (he calls this the ‘zombie apocalypse’)
and urges us to focus on shifting our perspective towards language revitaliza-
tion as a process that can decolonize such apocalyptic framings:
VIGNETTE 4.3
B ernard C. Perley: From Negation to
Possibility— Indigenous Languages and
Emergent Vitalities
At what point do we recognize that, well, if you’re going to truly
decolonize, the first step is going to be learning and using your ances-
tral language. How far are you going to go to do that? And so for me,
rather than thinking in terms of negation, let’s think about possibilities:
‘Emergent vitality’ is the term I use. And so it’s about the life of the
language. It’s an emergent process.
Perley’s points raise additional questions: how can we decenter whiteness and
expose practices of white settler futurity? At the core of settler practices one
finds the emplacement of dominant knowledge and the appropriation of prop-
erty and land. Building on this point of view, social justice efforts need to also
channel efforts to support not only the return of land, but also the return to
land. We mean by this the importance of raising awareness of land appro-
priation through centuries of dispossession and relocation of Native people.
The return to land is exemplified in efforts to teach and support land-based
pedagogies that re-center Indigenous knowledge. A number of activists, and
scholar-activists, have been working on both of these processes through land-
based social justice movements and pedagogies that often overlap with goals
to disrupt and remediate LSJIs.
Since 2003, Native Women elders have been organizing walks around the
perimeters of the great lakes to monitor and raise awareness of the toxic effects
of city pollution on lake waters. This women-led organization, Mother Earth
Water Walk, has inspired land-based pedagogical efforts that include teach-
ers and community activists who have designed lessons about the Chicago
99
wetlands buried underneath the city which teach children and youth to recog-
nize and talk about life emerging within the city, and in this way, renaming and
re-centering Indigenous knowledge and language (Bang et al., 2014). Similar to
this Chicago land-education project, the National Science Foundation’s initiative,
Knowing the Land, brings together five Oklahoma counties around Indigenous
knowledge systems in science and language to support C herokee land-based
education. One of these efforts is the support of the Cherokee Nation Medicine
Keepers, a group of elders who are fluent in the Cherokee language and work
to preserve medicinal and ecological knowledge.
In Northern California, the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust represents another ex-
ample of individuals collaborating to counteract histories of land appropriation
and extraction. This women-led land collaborative seeks the restoration and
rematriation of land to Indigenous communities. Organizers within the Sogorea
Te’ Land Trust meet with city council leaders, district officials, and participate in
demonstrations against environmental damage to the land. The group’s vision
includes not only the return to land, but also the disruption of the settler process
that led to land and language loss. As they state on their website: ‘We envision
a Bay Area in which Ohlone language and ceremony are an active, thriving part
of the cultural landscape, where Ohlone place names and history is known
and recognized and where intertribal Indigenous communities have affordable
housing, social services, cultural centers and land to live, work and pray on’:
https://sogoreate-landtrust.org.
We conclude this section with a vignette where Wayne Yang speaks about
his work with Eve Tuck who is Unangax̂ and an enrolled member of the Aleut
Community of St. Paul Island, Alaska, and is also Associate Professor at the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). Their project, the Land Re-
lationships Super Collective (http://www.landrelationships.com/), fosters mu-
tual support among its collaborators on their goal of rematriation of land. We
encourage you to consider Wayne Yang’s questions regarding ownership of
Native land and particularly how such projects of land rematriation connect to
Desirée Muñoz’s statements in vignette 4.2 on Indigenous sovereignty of land
and culture, ‘We are still here’:
VIGNETTE 4.4 . Wayne Yang: On Getting ‘Land

K
Back’ Projects
In Oakland where we actually spent a lot of time on the land and
with Sogorea Te’, I think lately some of the members of the collective
want to do more, and so Eve and I have been just responding to that.
A number of them wanted to start a youth program, so three of them
are getting land returned or land back, so we started a land back
100
project where we’re trying to share the pros and cons of different ways
of getting land back. Do you buy it? Does someone buy it for you?
Does someone give it to you? Are you leasing it? Are you just stew-
arding it but it’s owned by somebody else? What happens when the
city returns land or a municipality? What does it mean for youth and
communities to understand themselves on Indigenous land that has
been returned? How does that change things?
***
Now it is your turn to use the framework to engage in deeper reflection and
critique of an issue that may seem an ordinary and ubiquitous event, but
which has implications for how certain groups of people are or continue to
be marginalized in the United States. Drawing on the elements of the ALA
framework (what is, what has been, and what could be), identify an LSJI.
For this step, you can consult the list of social justice issues in Chapter 2.
You can also check other case studies mentioned in the book, for example,
the ‘Drop the I-Campaign’ and immigration, exclusionary discourses during
pandemics, pronoun use and transgender language activism, the category
of ‘Linguistically Isolated’ in the U.S. Census to name a few. Reflecting on the
knowledge about the LSJI you might have, use the following set of guiding
questions to facilitate your analysis and add other questions that can help
you explain the roots of the ‘what has been,’ a deeper critique of the LSJI you
are examining.
LSJI: (SELECT OR DESCRIBE FROM CHAPTER 1)
Guiding Questions
What is the LSJI you are analyzing? Why do you think it is an issue that is at the
intersection of language and social justice? Does the issue affect people’s ac-
cess to rights? Does it create contexts of inequity, marginalization, or exclusion?
Developing a Deeper Critique

Guiding questions: how has this issue been addressed in legal or scholarly
work? In what ways may I and others be participating directly or indirectly in the
inequities created by this issue? Who needs to learn more about the issue and
its harmful consequences?
101
Engaging in Deeper Reflection

Guiding questions: what power dynamics are at play? What systems of op-
pression are represented in the issue? Taking a closer look at history (through
scholarly readings, online blogs and information, personal/familial/community
experience), why are those power dynamics in place, what social processes
have led to them? How am I related to the issue under examination and where
do I fit within the power dynamics exemplified in the issue?
We invite you to continue to engage in deep critique of situations that create
social injustices and to see processes of liberation from systemic oppression
to be expressions of critical transformation. We are reminded of ideas around
the ‘Cycle of Liberation’ (Harro, 2000) discussed in Chapter 3 recognizing the
many ways we have been socialized (even unconsciously) to oppression. Here
is another iteration of the Cycle of Liberation you might find helpful as you ex-
amine your own recognition of an LSJI and the need to engage in actions to
address it.
TABLE 4.1 The Cycle of Liberation
• Waking Up: This step is the response to a critical incident that unsettles you or
creates cognitive dissonance (contradictions hard to reconcile). Here you identify
the topic/issue that becomes important to you (e.g., climate change, criminal justice
system, racism, or immigration)
• Getting Ready: Why do you care about the issue under examination? (reflect on your
individual location and connection to the issue you care about, how you are implicated
in that particular issue)
• Reaching Out: Community building and coalescence is key in this step as you
conduct research about the topic (e.g., finding resources such as nonprofits, and
material available on social media) that is relevant to social justice and social change
(Modified from Harro, 2000)
SUMMARY
In this chapter we have introduced you to key elements of our ALA framework
to deepen reflection and critique of the ‘What Has Been,’ of issues of language
and social justice, focusing on their historical and structural underpinnings.
Through a close examination of two main cases that intersect with language
and social justice issues, recognition and representation, we have offered ways
to notice, recognize, reflect, and critique normalized understanding of present-
day injustices. In Chapter 5 we focus on the ‘What Could Be,’ which offers a
102
way to center you in collaboration with others, imagining and envisioning plans
of action for social change and bridging the disconnect between what is and
what could be.
RESOURCES
1. Freedom to Talk is a short video about English language learners and the
civil rights movement: https://csaa.wested.org/resource/freedom-to-talk/.
2. The website of Professor Maneka D. Brooks who writes about a student
population of English language learners (Long-Term English Language
Learners—LTELs) who are tracked into programming that may not always
provide them with opportunities to re-enter regular education program-
ming: http://brooksphd.com/research.
3. See the Huffington Post op-ed on California’s Proposition 58 that sup-
ported multilingualism in schools: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/
save-ca-residents-from-a_b_11387726.
4. Professor Nelson Flores’s blog ‘Educational Linguist’ for topics related to
language and race: https://educationallinguist.wordpress.com/.
5. In Chapter 4 we discussed CRT as a related theoretical framework to LSJ
work. Read the work of Professor Brittany Frieson who suggests engaging
CRT to interrogate dual language bilingual programs that also serve Black
students. Here’s the reference: Frieson, B. (2022). ‘It’s like they don’t see us
at all’: A Critical Race Theory critique of dual language bilingual education
for Black children. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 47–54.
6. On the issue of using mascot names for sports teams that promote vio-
lence, consider an example of high school students’ activism to remove
a historically violent name referencing colonization: https://www.nhpr.org/
nh-news/2022-05-14/nh-hanover-high-school-new-mascot-logo-bears-
marauders.
7. We will expand more on other ingredients of the ALA framework that in-
volve working with others in Chapter 5, but you may find this source helpful
as a general overview of the sports mascots issue: https://theconversation.
com/sports-teams-are-finally-scrapping-native-american-mascots-on-
both-sides-of-the-atlantic-176083.
8. For resources and programming on Indigenous language revitalization in
collaboration between university and communities, visit the websites of the
Breath of Life Institute of the Advocates for California Indigenous Language
Survival and the Language and the California Languages Archive, which is
curated at the University of California Berkeley: https://aicls.org/breath-of-
life-institute/; https://cla.berkeley.edu/california-languages.php.
103
9. Media. The documentary Speaking in Tongues (2009) by Patchwork Films

tells the story of four students in dual immersion programs (Spanish, Canton-
ese, and Mandarin) in diverse contexts: http://speakingintonguesfilm.info/.
NOTES
1. One example is the (2000) Title VI Executive Order 13166 ‘Improving Access to
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.’
2. See also Alim et al. (2016).
3. ht tps://w w w.a m e r i c a n a nth ro.o rg /C o n n e c tW i th A A A /C o nte nt.a s px ?
ItemNumber=13107.
4. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/lanham-act.html.
REFERENCES
Alim, H. S., Rickford, J. R., & Ball, A. F. (Eds.). (2016). Raciolinguistics: How language
shapes our ideas about race. Oxford University Press.
Avineri, N. (2012). Heritage language socialization practices in secular Yiddish
educational contexts: The creation of a metalinguistic community [Doctoral
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles]. Retrieved from University of
California, Los Angeles database.
Avineri, N., & Perley, B. C. (2014, December 4). This holiday season let’s replace
disparaging slurs. HuffPost: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/in-this-holiday-
season-le_b_6262672.
Avineri, N., Blum, S. D., Garcia-Mateus, S. and Zentella, A. C. (August 2016). Save
CA Residents from a Language Drought: Vote ‘Yes’ This Fall. Huffington Post
Blog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/american-anthropological-association/
save-ca-residents-from-a_b_11387726.html.
Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Dismantling anti-black linguistic racism in English language
arts classrooms: Toward an anti-racist black language pedagogy. Theory into
Practice, 59(1), 8–21.
Bang, M., Curley, L., Kessel, A., Marin, A., & Suzukovch III, E. S. (2014). Muskrat
theories, tobacco in the streets, and living Chicago as Indigenous land. Envi-
ronmental Education Research, 20(1), 37–55.
Baugh, J. (2003). Linguistic profiling. In A. Ball, S. Makoni, G. Smitherman, & A. K.
Spears (Eds.), Black linguistics: Language, society and politics in Africa and the
Americas (pp. 155–168). Routledge.
Brooks, M. D. (2020). Transforming literacy education for long-term English learners:
Recognizing brilliance in the undervalued. Routledge.
de los Ríos, C. V., & Seltzer, K. (2017). Translanguaging, coloniality, and English
classrooms: An exploration of two bicoastal urban classrooms. Research in
the Teaching of English, 52(1), 55–76.
104
Ellis, E. (2006). Monolingualism: The unmarked case. Sociolinguistic Studies, 7(2),

173–196.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and
language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.
Frieson, B. (2022). ‘It’s like they don’t see us at all’: A Critical Race Theory critique of
dual language bilingual education for Black children. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 42, 47–54.
García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning
from classroom moments. Routledge.
Garcia, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Glen, E. (2015). Settler colonialism as structure: A framework for comparative studies
of US race and gender formation. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 1(1), 52–72.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Asato, J. (2000). ‘English for the chil-
dren’: The new literacy of the old world order, language policy and educational
reform. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1–2), 87–112.
Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying
practices. The Open University.
Harro, B. (2000). The cycle of liberation. In M. Adams, W. Blumenfeld, R. Cas-
teñeda, H. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity
and social justice (pp. 464–469). Routledge.
Kauanui, J. K. (2016). ‘A structure, not an event’: Settler colonialism and endur-
ing Indigeneity. Journal of the Cultural Studies Association, 5(1): http://
csalateral.org/issue/5-1/forum-alt-humanities-settler-colonialism-enduring-
indigeneity-kauanui/.
Lee, A. Y. (2022). ‘Free license to communicate’: Licensing Black language against
white supremacist language assessments in a PreK classroom. Research in
the Teaching of English, 57(2), 133–155.
Leonard, W. Y. (2020). Musings on Native American language reclamation and so-
ciolinguistics. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2020(263),
85–90.
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. Routledge.
Lo, A. (2009). Lessons about respect and affect in a Korean heritage language
school. Linguistics and Education, 20(3), 217–234.
Lynch, A. (2003). The relationship between second and heritage language acquisi-
tion: Notes on research and theory building. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1),
26–43.
McLaughlin, E. (2021, May 27). Critical race theory is a lens. Here are 11 ways
looking through it might refine your understanding of history. CNN: https://
www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/us/critical-race-theory-lens-history-crt/index.html.
Perley, B. C. (2012). Zombie linguistics: Experts, endangered languages and the
curse of undead voices. Anthropological Forum, 22(2), 133–149.
Saussure, F. de. (1967). Course in general linguistics. Peter Owen.
Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and meta-
phors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis & R. H. S. Macaulay (Eds.), The
105
matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306).

Westview Press.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.
Turner Strong, P. (2014, September 30). Trademarking racism: Pseudo- Indian
symbols and the business of professional sports. Anthropology Now: http://
anthronow.com/print/trademarking-racism-pseudo-indian-symbols-and-the-
business-of-professional-sports.
Veracini, L. (2010). Settler colonialism: A theoretical overview. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wiley, T. G. (2000). Language planning and policy. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Horn-
berge (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103–147). Cambridge
University Press.
Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of
Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409.
106
CHAPTER FIVE
What Could Be
Relationships, Aspirations, and
Actions
Language is implicated in social justice.

Language can be used to mobilize towards social justice.
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
As highlighted in Chapter 1, social justice is both relational and aspirational

(Avineri & Martinez, 2021). Now that you have engaged in the first steps of the
ALA framework (centering language, what is, what has been) and deepened
your knowledge of particular case studies, you are ready to collaboratively ex-
plore the social change necessary to enact your vision of social justice. You
have engaged in thoughtful critique in relation to your own positionalities and
now can move to other forms of action, including raising awareness around
personal and public issues. You will explore key examples of language and
social justice efforts, including the interrelated approaches of activism, advo-
cacy, and awareness-raising. You will analyze specific ‘what could be’ genres,
including op-eds, blog posts, and videos using the Audience Coalescence Tool
(ACT). You will then create a multi-faceted plan for a specific LSJI-related ac-
tion project, considering various levels of intervention at multiple scales (local,
regional, government, private or public domains).
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• You will be able to create an ‘ALA action question’ in relation to your chosen
LSJI
DOI: 10.4324/9781003155164-5 107

W hat C ould B e
• You will be able to articulate the distinctions and connections among

advocacy, activism, and (outward-facing) awareness-raising
• You will be able to identify two or three possible modes of sharing a message
with the audiences with whom you want to coalesce
• You will explore the tensions involved in collaboration and coalition-building
for social change
GUIDING QUESTIONS
1. Review Chapters 1–4. What are some key concepts, approaches, and ex-
amples that have stuck with you? Why?
2. What types of social change do you want to notice and document (vs.
participate in)? Why?
3. In exploring the ALA framework, what specific types of social change do
you feel are necessary for a more just world in relation to the LSJIs you are
interested in? What vision of the world are you hoping to create?
4. With whom might you need to collaborate in order to enact that vision of
social justice?
5. What specific actions can you take in relation to the LSJI you are focused on?
6. What tensions or challenges might arise in this process?
Opening Activity
What Is:
For each language topic below identify the groups of people who are included
by the language and discourse currently used.
Then identify the groups of people who are excluded by the language/dis-
course currently used.
Connect this phase with the LSJ lexicon we highlighted in Chapter 2.
What Has Been:

Identify two or three historical events, trends, and/or perspectives that are rele-
vant to understanding the current LSJI.
What Could Be:

In order to make social change in relation to this language topic what relation-
ships would need to be built? With whom?
What aspirations are there for what the world could look like, in relation to this
language topic?
What actions could you take to build towards this aspirational vision of the world?
Tensions and Questions: as you discuss these LSJIs with your classmates,
what tensions and questions arise?
108
W hat C ould B e
KEY TOOL: LSJI PLANNING TOOL
LSJI Included Excluded Historical Relations Aspirations Actions Tensions &

Events Questions
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the previous four chapters, you have engaged in an accumula-

tion of steps that included deep curiosity, inquiry, and engagement—leading to
multiple possible collective actions for social change. The ‘what is’ and ‘what
has been’ steps, especially reflection, positionalities and commitments, critical
incidents, and historicizing, can help you get ready for reaching out (see Cycle
of Liberation again below). We have also discussed the tensions between the
urgency of LSJIs and the slowing down involved in meaningful understanding
as well as sustainable social change. In this chapter we will focus on specific
steps for building relationships and identifying collective aspirations. We high-
light here the role of patience, so that you do not expect results right away.
We also return here to the role of affect; reflecting on your own emotions is a
critical part of your LSJI engagement—and the goal of connecting with others’
emotions shapes decision-making as we build towards action. Chapters 1–4
have also highlighted that ALA is a continuous process that you enter into,
which involves transformation at all levels (individual, relational, and structural).
At times the change you see or are involved with is incremental, but these
TABLE 5.1 Cycle of Liberation Redux
• Waking Up: This step is the response to a critical incident that unsettles you or
creates cognitive dissonance (contradictions hard to reconcile). Here you identify the
topic/issue that becomes important to you (e.g., climate change, criminal justice sys-
tem, racism, or immigration)
• Getting Ready: Why do you care about it? (reflect on your individual location and
connection to the issue you care about, how are you implicated in that particular issue)
• Reaching Out: Community building and coalescence is key in this step as you con-
duct research about the topic (e.g., finding resources such as nonprofits, and material
available on social media) that is relevant to social justice and social change
(Modified from Harro, 2000)
109
W hat C ould B e
dynamic processes of observation, critique, and action can move us all towards
a more just world.
By fostering meaningful dialogue we can imagine collective possibilities
with others. A large part of that is identifying the scale at which you can have
an impact—e.g., macro, meso, micro, and me-cro. And considering the time
scales (short-term, long-term) that are feasible and relevant for the social ac-
tions you are analyzing and/or engaging in yourself. Some LSJI-specific exam-
ples of advocacy and actions within particular institutional and social contexts
include: access to interpreters in health care settings, language bias training of
police officers and lawyers, Indigenous language teacher training,1 intercultural
communication workshops for social workers, and social movements that seek
to foster heritage language learning and reclaim Indigenous languages.
WHAT IS SOCIAL CHANGE?
As described in Chapter 2, it is essential to create collective ‘Terms of Engage-

ment’ for the issues and contexts you are focused on. And in Chapter 3 that
we discussed ALA inquiry, deepening, and action questions. In this chapter,
you will have the opportunity to work through a process for addressing your
‘action question.’ We have found that only through the phases of inquiry and
deepening can you identify the relevant relationships and scales for meaningful
action. As we have discussed previously, central to the vision of this book is
social change, which involves transformation at the me-cro, micro, meso, and
macro scales. Sociologists distinguish between two different theories of social
change, functionalist theory and conflict theory. In the former, social change is
seen as a natural byproduct of societal shifts over time. In the second, ‘sud-
den social change in the form of protest or revolution as both desirable and
necessary to reduce or eliminate social inequality and to address other social
ills.’2 Conflict transformation (Lederach, 2003) highlights the pervasiveness of
conflict in society and its potential for transformation at all four scales we have
discussed in the book (me-cro, micro, meso, and macro). Lederach (2003)
notes that social conflict involves opportunities to create change processes that
increase justice, which means solutions for particular issues as well as broader
systemic social change. Lederach highlights five key practices of constructive
change; the ALA components resonate deeply with these approaches: see
issues as a window, integrate multiple time frames, pose conflict energies as
dilemmas, make complexity part of the process, and hear and engage multiple
perspectives. The integration of multiple time frames involves an understand-
ing of the present (issues, patterns) and history and creating new relationships
(personal, relational, structural, cultural) to build towards the future (solutions,
relationships, and systems).
110
W hat C ould B e
There are many theories about how policy change happens, highlighting
the essential roles of coalition-building, timing, shifts in messaging, grassroots
efforts, and engagement with those with power.3 In Chapter 1 we discuss the
area of Critical University Studies as an intervention in higher education that
seeks to disrupt the normalized expectation of student individual success
where market logics create the conditions for personal debt and other inequi-
ties, especially for students of color, further isolating students from the broader
social and political contexts, in effect, from collaborating with others to change
oppressive structures (Harney & Moten, 2013).
Community psychologists Nelson & Prilleltensky (2010) highlight two differ-
ent types of solutions to a society’s problems: ameliorative (at the me-cro and
micro scales) vs. transformative (at the meso and macro scales). For example,
an ameliorative solution would be focused on ensuring that individuals experi-
encing hunger are able to get food when they need it, whereas a transformative
solution would be examining the root causes for a hunger crisis and building
coalitions to eradicate hunger in the region. However, these distinctions are not
always clear cut, since the scales interact with one another. The questions then
become: Transformative for whom? And who decides?
As we have noted previously, language change has transformative poten-
tial, in that it can be connected to broader social change. For example, when
multiple news outlets chose to stop using the word ‘illegal’ to refer to immi-
grants this helped raise awareness around human rights in the U.S. immigration
system. However, language change on its own may be insufficient for broader
social change. In this case, simply because the word ‘illegal’ is used less fre-
quently does not equate to broader immigration policies that center dignity for
individuals and families. Or for example, using someone’s preferred pronouns
does not mean that transgender people have rights in every facet of society.
In exploring your LSJIs of interest we encourage you to consider what
forms of action are feasible and relevant, and at what scales (macro, meso,
micro, me-cro)—e.g., through engagement with government (local, regional,
state, national, international policies and practices), institutions/organizations,
collectives, and individuals.
REFLECTION 5.1
Share about an intercultural interaction you have engaged in recently, in

which there were some tensions. What knowledge/skills/dispositions can
you offer for engaging with those tensions? What change could emerge
through engaging with those tensions? At what scales? How can you
move to coalescing and accompaniment with this individual/group?
111
W hat C ould B e
CHANGING RELATIONSHIPS:
THE CORE OF LASTING SOCIAL CHANGE
As we have mentioned throughout the book, in order to examine the ‘what is’
and ‘what has been’ of an LSJI it is essential to build relationships and collab-
orations with a range of different individuals and groups (Kroskrity & Meek,
2017). This process pushes us to question what knowledges (epistemologies)
are necessary for building towards this new version of the world (e.g., narra-
tive, online research, historical context). Analyzing the issue from multiple per-
spectives connects with the role of interdisciplinarity in addressing complex
social problems that we have highlighted in previous chapters. For example,
if you are interested in advocating for your school to include more languages
in on-campus events, it would be important to collaborate with your peers,
professors, staff, and administrators. In this section we will unpack the role of
collaborators and solidarity partners (who are you working with) as well as audi-
ences and publics (whom are you trying to reach). In some cases, through pro-
cesses of awareness-raising, your audiences become your collaborators—they
become part of the struggle along with you. In this chapter we will explore more
deeply how to engage in community-based advocacy for language and social
justice issues, with a grounding in civic engagement. Ultimately, we will examine
the ways that lasting social change is at its core about shifting existing power
dynamics. As we noted previously, the goal is to create ‘accompaniment’ re-
lationships (Sepúlveda, 2011; Bucholtz et al., 2016; Freire, 1970; Fals Borda,
1987). In ‘accompaniment’ there is a ‘with’ relationship cultivated, in contrast
to ‘empowerment’ dynamics where one group may feel they are working ‘for’
a group. The power dynamics shift in striking ways when working alongside a
group, as opposed to on their behalf.
One of Patricia’s recent research projects provides a meaningful example
of the power of ‘accompaniment’ models in applied linguistic anthropology,
which began as a qualitative study of academic development of Maya students
at an elementary school in northern California. These students had limited ac-
ademic and linguistic experiences at the school and they also experienced
curricular erasure of their language, heritage, and culture. As a racialized per-
son who grew up in Yucatan, Mexico, and of Indigenous background, Patricia
recognized colonial bureaucracies that curtailed Indigenous experience and
where the curricular and linguistic erasure of Indigenous students’ heritage lan-
guage at the school constituted an identifiable LSJI (similar to the case study
we have highlighted in this book on Indigenous representation). Together with
the school’s parent liaison who was Latinx, and a group of Latinx and Indig-
enous Maya parents, Patricia and her research team gathered resources and
organized to establish El Colaborativo, a university-school partnership intended
to work on raising awareness of the Maya population at the school, which at
112
W hat C ould B e
the time had a majority of Latinx students and about 25% Indigenous Maya
(Baquedano-López & Méndez, 2023). The partners of El Colaborativo planned
and designed activities and events that recognized the diversity within Indige-
nous and Latinx families at the school. Over time, El Colaborativo expanded to
include partners in Yucatan who traveled to California to offer Maya language
instruction to parents and students. One of these partners included the Lin-
guistics Program from INAH in Yucatan (the National Institute of Anthropology
and History)4 led by renowned Indigenous Maya scholar, Dr. Fidencio Briceño
Chel who offered Maya courses to parents and students as a part of an effort
to revitalize the Maya language in migration. In this way, the partnership en-
gaged multiple scales of action, from parents’ local organizing, school office
staff, university researchers and advocates, and government resources creat-
ing a transnational network to support Indigenous recognition and Indigenous
language revitalization (Baquedano-López, 2021; Baquedano-López & Garrett,
2023; Godínez & Baquedano-López, 2022).
Cultivating relationships for justice (CRJ) (Avineri & Martinez, 2021) can al-
low opportunities to undo past harms and collectively imagine more just fu-
tures.5 The centrality of relationships also involves conducting research with
and alongside communities (vs. on and about) (see Paris & Winn, 2014). These
approaches get to the heart of knowledge production for social change, and
the importance of diverse epistemologies to get there (see more on this in
Chapter 6).
As we discussed in Chapter 2, it is important to collectively create a lan-
guage and social justice lexicon for the LSJIs you are interested in; therefore,
below is a short glossary of key terms relevant to this chapter’s discussion of
‘What Could Be’:
Collaborator: An individual or group with whom you work on

a specific project/topic with a particular scope
[short-term]
Solidarity Partner: An individual or group with whom you have a shared
vision over a sustained period of time [long-term]
6
Ally: An individual or group with different positionalities
in relation to a project/topic or vision that you are
committed to, who works with you
Challenger:7 An individual, group, and/or institution with differ-
ent perspectives in relation to a project/topic or vi-
sion that you are committed to, who works against
your purposes
Audience: An individual or group to whom you are addressing
a message, via a particular genre (e.g., art installa-
tion, theater piece)
113
W hat C ould B e
Public: A collective to whom you are addressing a message,

via a particular genre (e.g., YouTube video)
TENSION BOX
For the LSJIs that are of interest to you, do you think it would be
useful for some of the collaborators to be people who have directly
experienced the inequity or exclusion? Why? Do you think it would be
useful for some of the collaborators to be people who have observed the
inequity or exclusion (but have not directly experienced it)? Why?
In the vignette excerpt below, Carla Marie Muñoz highlights the importance of
allies in moving towards the aspiration focused on the ‘earth [that] is in desper-
ate need of healing.’
VIGNETTE 5.1 C
arla Marie Muñoz: ‘We’re Definitely
Open to Having Allies Help Us in
this Fight’
And I would just say that, for us, going forward in our tribe and in what
we’re doing. Social justice is always going to be an issue. We were
treated unfairly in the beginning and we are not going to get anything
handed to us anytime soon. And it’s always going to be a fight for us
and until we’re able to live and through reciprocation with the land,
it’s always going to be an issue with us. And so the only thing that
I’ll say is if you have the ability to help communities succeed, please
do please reach out in whatever capacity to help any surrounding
communities to thrive and be better because we need more allies.
We need more people to help us fight these fights and get through
these red tapes. Because we are with our own blinders of what we’re
capable of doing. And I think that we need fresh eyes to help us tackle
some of these problems that we’re going to have in the future. So if
any community members out there want to help we’re definitely open
to having allies help us in this fight, because it isn’t gonna go away
anytime soon. And our earth is in desperate need of healing. And I
think it starts with that cultural ecological knowledge that we pass on
and that reciprocal relationship that we want to have in the future. So
any way that we can help to move those issues forward, that would be
greatly appreciated.
114
W hat C ould B e
The process of identifying collaborators and solidarity partners working along-

side one another (Avineri & Martinez, 2021) involves ongoing critical reflection
about ourselves and about the relationship itself. This also necessitates critical
empathy (DeStigter, 1999), acknowledging the goal (and impossibility) of truly
taking on another person’s perspective as they move through the world. Rel-
evant frameworks for these approaches include thick solidarity (Liu & Shange,
2018), critical allyship (Yomantas, 2020), and audience coalescence, ‘an emer-
gent coalition building process that identifies and promotes predispositions and
stances towards redressing social injustices’ (Avineri & Perley, 2019, p. 149).
Whereas audience design (see Avineri, 2020) focuses on crafting a message
for a particular group of people, audience coalescence is a negotiated process
in which all parties have the potential to shift their perspectives, visions, and
possible actions.
Netta’s dissertation (Avineri, 2012) was focused on heritage language so-
cialization in Yiddish ‘metalinguistic communities,’ groups of people who have
deep connections to the language but who do not necessarily know how to
speak it. At that time, she was focused primarily on ethnographic and de-
scriptive engagement with teachers, students, and community members in
classrooms, cultural events, and programs. She noted how these individuals
came together to learn and celebrate a language they felt both closeness to
and distance from; centering communities as the primary unit of analysis fore-
grounds the need for relationship-building, solidarity, and accompaniment.
These individuals are bound together by shared ideologies about a language
that community members may or may not be able to use. More recently, she
has explored the prescriptive potential of the framework for educational con-
texts in diasporic communities (Benor & Avineri, 2019; Benor et al., 2020). In
addition, she has learned from and with scholars around the world engaged in
ethnographic research with other ‘metalinguistic communities’ (Avineri & Hara-
sta, 2021) in minoritized, diaspora, Indigenous, sleeping, threatened, reclaimed,
and revised languages, where language can serve important instrumental
uses without necessarily serving as a medium for communication. In these
contexts, language is used as a tool for constructing belonging, challenging
forms of erasure, and mediating relations with the state, as well as for collective
identity creation, authenticity negotiation, community reflexivity, collaborative
stancetaking, and processes of documentation. More recently, this group of
scholars has been exploring the transformative potential of ‘metalinguistic fu-
turities’ (Leonard, 2021, p. 255), as ‘the ways in which metalinguistic commu-
nities exercise their agency by imagining and producing knowledge about their
own futures to realize certain outcomes.’ The iterative, reflexive, and generative
processes of building towards metalinguistic futurities among language allies,
advocates, and activists highlights a process-oriented critical collaboration that
involves in-depth reflection as well as engagement with diverse publics (Avineri
115
W hat C ould B e
& Martinez, 2021). It also involves a recognition of the ways that the past, pres-
ent, and future are all interconnected.
Coalition-building has also been central in decolonial feminist work, par-
ticularly in the work of Latinx philosopher María Lugones (2003) and her notion
of ‘world’ and ‘world-traveling’ (2003). ‘Worlds’ is a concept that entails the
experience of the social contexts in which people live, which are known when
people come together not just in alignment with particularly shared experiences
but in the quest for relationality, recognition, and justice (the meaning of ‘travel-
ing’). Worlds can also be created and they can be resisted as Mariana Ortega
(2016), another Latinx decolonial philosopher, has argued. Ortega advances the
notion of the ‘multiplicitous self’ to explain the multiple positionalities of those
whose experiences are lived liminally (experiences across borders, class, race,
gender, etc.). The multiplicitous self ‘becomes-with’ and is relational with others
affectively and experientially and in both resistance and liberation. This decolo-
nial feminist framework was also central to Patricia’s work in a university-school
partnership discussed above, which included immigrant Latinx and Indigenous
Maya parents and staff and university researchers-advocates to promote the
recognition and inclusion of Indigenous Maya language and culture at an ele-
mentary school in San Francisco. The partnership designed opportunities for
critical listening, storytelling, and testimonials for revalorizing and supporting
Maya students and language, and included a set of activities that brought par-
ents and families together in processes of intentional coalition-building to iden-
tify and counter structural and academic limitations at the school in ways that
supported local and Indigenous transnational sovereignty (Baquedano-López
& Gong, 2022; Godínez & Baquedano-López, 2022). Coalition-building from
this perspective has the potential to not only identify and decolonize research
approaches to working with communities, but also redefine community and
collaborative goals (Godínez, 2022).
TENSION BOX
For the LSJI that you are interested in, with whom might you want to
collaborate?
Are there times when silence might be important for ensuring that
particular voices are heard in relation to this LSJI?
What tensions might arise when determining whose voices should be

foregrounded?
The references below on ‘Silence’ may be relevant for exploring these

tensions:
116
W hat C ould B e
http://linguisticanthropology.org/blog/2015/04/14/an-news-silent-
meditation-speech-power-and-social-justice-by-the-committee-on-
language-social-justice/
https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/silence
https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/
amac075/6995315
CRYSTALLIZING ASPIRATIONS
As Chapters 2, 3, and 4 highlighted, it is essential to understand, examine,

and critique histories and present-day realities before building towards a new
vision8 for the LSJI that is of interest to you. Once you have engaged with
those steps and identified individuals/groups with whom you might like to
engage in collaboration (or solidarity), then you are prepared to create a col-
lective list of aspirations for the world you are building towards. An aspiration
is hope in concrete form, i.e., a version of the world that would allow for in-
creased representation, access, and equity in relation to the LSJI of interest.
It is essential to explore the issue of social change from the perspective of
scales as well, recognizing that the scope of impact could be small and build
towards larger systems. Here we encourage you to go back to the LSJI key
questions and lexicon in Chapter 2, as this process can help you determine
what you are aspiring towards (e.g., shifting language ideologies, increasing
access, countering inequity, shifting representation). More broadly, are you
interested in contributing to change in perspectives, values, norms, practices,
and/or policies?
Some key questions to consider when identifying aspirations are: How
are these identified? How do these get expressed? Who stewards these con-
versations? A critical component of these processes is dialogue, having ev-
eryone explore their experiences and perspectives without trying to convince/
persuade others. It is also important to recognize that individuals may or may
not be comfortable sharing perspectives as if they are representing the inter-
ests of an entire group of people. When building coalitions and a collective
aspiration for the future it is important to include both allies and challengers if
possible. This is critical but can also prove difficult at individual and collective
levels.
One set of methodologies that lends itself well to dialogue for transforma-
tion is action research (Bradbury et al., 2019; McNiff, 2013; Stringer & Aragón,
2020), an approach that foregrounds a deep contextual inquiry into a particular
117
W hat C ould B e
issue alongside an orientation towards meaningful social change. As Bradbury

et al. (2019) emphasize:
1. Our purpose with knowledge creation is to support our collective thriving

on this planet.
2. Our knowledge creation includes and transcends rationalist empiricism
and acknowledges our whole selves as relational beings.
3. Our knowledge creation starts ‘here,’ with stakeholders’ felt experiences
and a willingness to tackle unilateral power in a development toward mutu-
ally transforming power.
4. Our Action Research for Transformations (ART) proceeds by working
participatively with stakeholders by including multiple ways of knowing-
for-action.
5. Our knowledge creation integrates personal/reflexive, interpersonal/relational
and impersonal knowledge, thereby growing those involved and empower-
ing participants in social change to shape the social world of their aspirations.
Appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider et al., 2008; Stavros et al., 2015), ‘the coop-
erative search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around
them,’ is another approach that highlights four key phases of building towards
change: Discovery, Dream, Design, and Destiny. These various approaches
highlight the importance of understanding an issue, working collaboratively
with others to envision futures, and identifying particular actions to move to-
wards the aspirations set out by the collective.
REFLECTION 5.2
What are the scales where you can have a unique impact in relation to
the LSJI that is of interest to you (e.g., national, regional, state, district,
school, classroom, organization, home, family)?
What vision of the world are you hoping to build towards for that LSJI, in
collaboration or solidarity with others?
What questions do you want to ask your collaborators as you collectively

build towards that vision of the world?
Professional organizations are a key site for LSJI interventions, at broader

scales. The professional organizations that we have been deeply involved with
are the American Anthropological Association (especially the Language and
Social Justice Task Group), the American Association for Applied Linguis-
tics (AAAL). In her role as the inaugural AAAL Public Affairs and Engagement
118
W hat C ould B e
Committee (https://www.aaal.org/paec) Chair, Netta and her colleagues fre-

quently discussed the role of responsive vs. proactive public-facing statements
about social issues (www.aaal.org.position-statements)—e.g., those that are
responding to a particular issue or event (e.g., a new law or policy impacting
bilingual education) vs. those that are more general (e.g., about the value of
multilingualism more broadly). While these forms of public engagement are im-
portant, there are debates about how much they reach relevant audiences. In
addition, in our collective work we highlighted the importance of endorsements
(www.aaal.org/endorsements) of other professional organization statements,
which foreground the roles of collaboration, coalition-building, and amplification
of key messages. Other forms of professional engagement around these issues
include listservs and networking. Modeled after the AAA LSJ Task Group’s
listserv and after a conference session years ago, Netta started the Applied
Linguistics and Social Justice listserv as a space for collective discussion and
learning. In March 2023 it had over 330 members, all eager to engage around
issues of pedagogy, advocacy, and language. Since 2019, Netta has worked
with a number of colleagues to create the guidelines for the Applied Linguistics
Briefs (https://www.aaal.org/aaal-briefs), which are another form of communi-
cation with diverse publics around issues of social concern.
Netta and Patricia worked with colleagues over an extended period of time
to craft what eventually became the American Anthropological Association’s
statement on sports team mascot names.9 In addition, Netta and Bernard Per-
ley have written a blog post and book chapter about these issues as well. Due
to Netta’s engagement in these issues at a national scale, a high school student
reached out to her as a consultant for their mascot renaming process.10 In this
way, macro and meso scales became interconnected in relation to a particular
LSJI. It is also interesting to see how so many United States-based professional
organizations have denounced these uses of sports team mascot names, such
that countries outside of the United States are moving away from their use as
well.11 National LSJI efforts can move across smaller and broader scales.
TENSION BOX
As we highlighted in Chapter 2, LSJIs are interconnected with a range

of social issues; therefore, it is important to define and explore LSJIs
using diverse perspectives. This is related to the tensions we’d like you
to explore here. What might you do if your collaborators do not agree
with the aspirations you have in mind? How can you explain your
perspective? How can you deeply listen to others, with an eye towards
coalescence?
119
W hat C ould B e
Once you have identified your collaborators and your aspirations (and ad-
dress possible tensions) you can begin the process of planning out possible
actions, discussed in detail in the section below.
TAKING ACTION
Below are some key terms12,13,14 that are relevant when identifying what types
of specific action you would like to take in relation to your LSJI of interest.
Awareness-raising: Informing diverse audiences and publics about rele-

vant histories, present-day circumstances, perspec-
tives, and experiences [what is + what has been]
[this can lead to a consciousness for the need for
transformation]
Advocacy:15 awareness-raising + call to action on behalf of
an issue/group of people [what could be] di-
rected towards those with power16 (e.g., at a
special education meeting, engaging institu-
tions) [‘awareness-raising efforts for social change
and liberation’]
17
Activism: Sustained engagement to convince others that a par-
ticular set of actions is necessary (e.g., institutional
level policies) [what should be]
As you can see, these different forms of action are interconnected with one
another. So, for example, awareness-raising may be part of a multi-level advo-
cacy plan that builds towards social change. Audience coalescence may be the
result of years of activism. Are there other connections you can identify among
these different forms of action?
Activity 5.1
Read this news source about the United States renaming five places that used
racist slurs for a Native woman. What forms of awareness-raising, advocacy,
and activism do you think were involved in building towards this set of actions?
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/13/1148987754/the-u-s-renames-5-places-
that-used-racist-slur-for-a-native-woman
120
W hat C ould B e
REFLECTION 5.3
In Chapter 3 we highlighted K. Wayne Yang’s perspectives on land

acknowledgements. As an example of the use of language to mobilize
towards justice, we encourage you to engage in the following reflection
about land acknowledgements, using the terms defined above: In what
ways (if any) is a land acknowledgement awareness-raising? In what
ways (if any) is a land acknowledgement allyship? In what ways (if any)
is a land acknowledgement advocacy? In what ways (if any) is a land
acknowledgement activism?
AUDIENCE COALESCENCE
Once you have identified the relevant relationships and aspirations then it is
time to move towards possible action. To be effective it is important to ensure
alignment between actions and audiences; this is a relational, temporal, affec-
tive, and contextually situated process. It is not enough to engage in ‘audience
design,’ as this is unidirectional and does not involve ongoing engagement
where your audience can interact with you. Instead, your goal here is ‘audi-
ence coalescence,’ ‘an emergent coalition building process that identifies and
promotes predispositions and stances towards redressing social injustices’
(Avineri & Perley, 2019). Audience coalescence is dynamic and negotiated, a
set of multimodal strategies for engaging with diverse audiences in terms of
head and heart. It involves asking what you know about this audience as well
as what your audience already know, and would want to know and what would
persuade them. As we discussed in Chapter 3, the role of narrative (storytelling
and storylistening) is central to these forms of engagement, as is an under-
standing of the affordances and features of particular genres (Tardy & Swales,
2014). A key aspect of narrative includes considering the role of individual sto-
ries, collective stories, statistics, and cultural references that may resonate with
your audiences. In addition, it is important to select the timeliness for reaching
these audiences, ‘the special moment when it’s the opportune time to say or
do a particular thing.’18 As we highlighted in Chapter 3, it is important also to
consider the role of affect (and pathos) in building towards social change (at
individual and collective levels). Using these tools, one can analyze the use of
language, new modalities, bodies and gestures (e.g., locked arms, raised fists,
and pointed fingers19), songs (https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/
121
W hat C ould B e
Genre Venue Timeliness
Author(s) Language & Narrative Audience(s)
Call to Action
FIGURE 5.1 Audience Coalescence Tool (ACT)
social-justice-songs/) art, and other semiotic forms in reaching diverse audi-

ences and building towards social justice (see https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/
collection/art_socialjustice/). The Audience Coalescence Tool (ACT) can be
used to both analyze and plan diverse forms of action. You might consider, for
example, whether individual stories may be more compelling and/or statistics,
in terms of the audience(s) you are hoping to reach.
Activity 5.2
Below are some examples of ALA actions that Netta collaborated on with col-
leagues, in relation to particular LSJIs. Using the ‘Audience Coalescence Tool’
above, analyze how effective these different forms of engagement were and/or
could be in coalescing with their intended audiences.
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/american-anthropological-association/in-
this-holiday-season-le_b_6262672.html
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-confederate-flag-and_b_7925092
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/american-anthropological-association/
save-ca-residents-from-a_b_11387726.html
• https://www.linguisticanthropology.org/blog/2016/08/29/an-news-the-
gap-that-wont-be-filled-an-anthropolitical-critique-of-the-language-gap-
by-avineri-et-al/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj3c1WXZ9fI
Activity 5.3
‘A few years into my chef career I realized the complete absence of Indig-
enous foods.’
122
W hat C ould B e
After reading the following link (https://www.npr.org/2022/05/13/1097955036/

comic-one-sioux-chefs-attempt-to-reclaim-native-american-cuisine) where do
you see the steps of ‘What Is’ and ‘What Has Been’ in this comic? What are
Sean Sherman’s positionalities and commitments? How are language and the
comic genre used creatively here to highlight this social justice issue? What is
the ‘What Could Be’ as described here? Why do you think the book is called
Sioux Chef? Why do you think he uses the word ‘reclaim’20 (and not ‘revitalize’)?
New modalities in media, technology, and social media21 can be powerful tools
for describing, connecting with, and mobilizing for social justice, as they have
particular affordances in relation to participation, action, genre, audience, and
purpose.22 Many of us use these tools on a daily basis; they shape and are
shaped by our experiences of and relationship to the world. Through our diverse
forms of digital engagement we demonstrate not only our positionalities but our
commitments—to particular social issues and causes. Through producing new
content and also amplifying others’ stories we engage in processes of awareness-
raising, advocacy, and/or activism.23 During the COVID-19 pandemic, memes
about COVID served as a coping mechanism for some.24 In fact, Briggs (2020)
argued for new methodological approaches in linguistic and medical anthro-
pology for analyzing discursive engagement in health-related crises including
COVID-19 (Briggs, 2020). Building on Briggs and Mantini-Briggs’ (2016) notion
of ‘communicative justice,’ Handley et al. (2022) engaged in data literacy with
adult English language learners during COVID-19. As case studies of the inter-
relationships among identity, experience, representation, and media, one can
look to social movements like #BlackLivesMatter,25 #MeToo,26 and #StopAA-
PIHate.27 Below you have the opportunity to engage in analysis and critical
reflection about different forms of digital engagement, in relation to your LSJI.
Activity 5.4
Select a meme, op-ed, Tweet, Instagram post, website, or TikTok video relevant
to your LSJI. For this activity we encourage you to combine the CDA framework
(also in Chapter 3) below with the Audience Coalescence Tool above.
KEY TOOL: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (CDA)
READER:
1. Reflect upon your positionalities, biases, and experiences in rela-

tion to that topic
2. Consider whether/how much you can be objective and/or subjec-
tive in relation to that topic
123
W hat C ould B e
SOURCES:
3. Select textual sources (consider rationale for selection, pros/cons,

representativeness, generalizability, bias)
4. Research the authors, sources, and intended audiences
5. Reflect upon possible goals of the authors, and sources
DISCOURSE:
6. Identify lexical choices, phrases, metaphors

7. Examine possible assumptions, inferences; consider possible
interpretations
9. Create a collection of examples/sources with themes,
commonalities
10. Connect with issues of power and ideology
11. Build your argument
Based on your engagement with CDA and ACT, do you feel that the meme,
op-ed, Tweet, Instagram post, website, or TikTok video is effective in coalesc-
ing with their target audience? Why or why not? What might ‘success’ look
like in terms of ‘message delivery’ for advocacy (Cohen et al., 2001)? Do these
messages matter? To whom? And what are the limits of these forms of digital
engagement?
In the vignette excerpt below, Bernard Perley highlights how the cartoons
he creates (including ‘Having Reservations’ and ‘Going Native’) provide op-
portunities for perspective-taking and awareness-raising for Indigenous people
and settler populations.
VIGNETTE 5.2 B
ernard C. Perley: Cartoons for
Awareness-Raising
One of the things about the cartoons, and there’s a deliberate attempt
at trying to create a common space when indigenous peoples read
the comics, they have a particular understanding of the symbolism,
the stances, the, the dialogue. It’s based on that kind of experience
as indigenous peoples having to deal with these settler occupations
in their homelands. On the settler side, they too also recognize that,
well ok there is a kind of history that goes into this, and they can also
read the kind of semiotics of colonialism at play, but for me the real
124
W hat C ould B e
key is: how do we, on both sides, recognize the absurdities of some
of the let’s say, situations that settlers and indigenous peoples find
themselves in? … It’s always about Columbus who discovered Amer-
ica and you know all these poor savages and things like that. And so
for me it’s almost like, well if I was the native and I saw these ships
coming on the horizon, and the cartoon I drew about that is, this native
comes and talks to the chief and says, ‘There are UFOs on the hori-
zon,’ unidentified floating objects. And so it was that kind of well what,
what is arriving on our shores? So how do we work the conversation
so that it calls into question the narratives of the kind of colonial heroic
era of discovery? But if we understand the absurdities and we under-
stand the kind of harm it does to indigenous peoples, then perhaps
we can move towards a conversation that can remediate the harms of
that kind of ideology.
Here then, art serves as a critical form of language and social justice inter-
rogation, fostering conversation about social justice issues (though in general)
through unique semiotic means.
In the vignette excerpt below, Rachel Showstack highlights the role of audi-
ence coalescence in moving to policy change at meso and macro levels.
VIGNETTE 5.3 R
achel Showstack: ‘Addressing the
Barriers that Healthcare Facilities Face
in Providing Qualified Interpreters’
We also are working on it from a legislative point of view. We know
that even though there is federal legislation that requires that health-
care institutions that receive federal funds provide qualified inter-
preters for any patient who needs language assistance… that isn’t
happening in Kansas, consistently. And we started to work with a
state legislator named Sue Sangiovese. She and her team developed
a bill after a long series of conversations about it. A bill that would
basically enforce federal regulations, including the Affordable Care
Act…we’ve run into some challenges with that. So we realized that
we also need to address the issue from the perspective of making it
more—addressing the barriers that healthcare facilities face in pro-
viding qualified interpreters consistently when some of those barriers
include problems with—there are a lot of different ways that they’re
reimbursed depending on what type of patient it is. And so kind of
125
W hat C ould B e
examining that reimbursement process and figuring out a way to make

it feasible financially for healthcare institutions to provide qualified
interpreters for all patients who need language assistance, and then
also addressing the issue of less common languages, such as indig-
enous languages that are spoken more and more in Kansas and it’s
sometimes it’s hard to find interpreters for certain languages.
Activity 5.5
Based on Bernard C. Perley’s and Rachel Showstack’s vignettes above, what
are you curious to know more about? What do you find inspiring?
‘What Could Be’ Examples

In this section, we will explore a few specific ‘What Could Be’ examples, to see
how all the previous steps can build towards relations, aspirations, and actions.
We hope these examples serve as inspiration for the last part of this chapter,
where you create your own LSJI action project. The examples are English-only
policies and the ‘language gap,’ which follow on from discussions in previous
chapters.
Example #1: Examining and Addressing

English-Only Ideologies and Practices
As we have highlighted in previous chapters, a core debate in the language
disciplines (or fields that center around language study and research) is whether
linguists and language educators should simply engage in ‘description’ of lan-
guage they observe in the real world or practice ‘prescription’ in terms of how
language ‘should’ be used. At the center of these debates are issues of bias,
objectivity, language ideologies, and power—who gets to decide what is best
for language learners. We have been discussing in previous chapters how his-
tories of oppression and privilege have created conditions that marginalize and
exclude non-dominant populations, and particularly immigrant or minoritized
language learners. In the activity below you can see how language learning
and language use are mapped onto the larger issue of racial segregation, and
particularly to the English-Only movement.
To gain some perspectives on the interconnections between the ‘What Is’
and ‘What Has Been’ of this issue, please visit the ‘UnidosUS’ website and watch
126
W hat C ould B e
the video by author Julissa Arce: https://www.unidosus.org/blog/2021/09/29/

racial-segregation-of-latino-students-continues-with-english-only-laws/.
1. What are some of the facts that Arce provides around English-only policies
and racial segregation? What was your own language learning experience
in schools? How does your own experience using language relate to the
segregation that Arce talks about? What were your language learning expe-
riences outside schools? What are some examples of explicit and implicit
assimilation into English?
2. Discuss some of the ways that language injustices may be rooted in ac-
cepted or unproblematized conventions of language use. For example, in
the U.S. English dominates many spheres of social life but other varieties of
English receive marginal attention. Why is English the dominant language of
the U.S.? What is the status today of Native languages that were in place
before English was spoken in the U.S.?
3. Why is it the case that speaking English (and certainly, the variety recog-
nized as Standard English—of TV news media, government, legal, and ac-
ademic uses) has become a high-stakes investment for social acceptance
and economic opportunity in the United States?
In moving from the ‘What Is’ and ‘What Has Been’ to the ‘What Could Be,’
below we have a few examples of English-only engagement at various
scales - all of which were the result of diverse relationships, aspirations, and
actions.
You may remember the example discussed in Chapter 4, in which an indi-
vidual in New York (a lawyer) demanded that staff and patrons speak English at
a restaurant. Below you will note that the mobilization to neutralize the potential
immigration authority threats include:
1. Social media recording and viral dissemination

2. Disciplinary complaints that were filed to the New York state’s court system
by U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr:
https://www.latinorebels.com/2018/05/18/rep-espaillat-and-bronx-
borough-president-file-grievance-against-nyc-lawyer-who-got-pissed-
about-people-speaking-spanish/
3. The termination of this individual’s law firm office’s lease in the same area
4. Protests and cultural performances outside his legal office in support of
cultural and linguistic diversity
Select one of the ‘What Could Be’ actions above and research it more deeply.
What relationships, aspirations, and actions were involved in addressing this
particular incident?
127
W hat C ould B e
At a broader scale, alternative legislation that counters the English-Only

movement has been advanced by the civil rights organization the League of
United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) promoting instead, ‘English Plus,’
to encourage cities and states to list official second languages to support
a more linguistically competent society. The goals are to appeal to national
interest with the idea that all members of society can have full access to
multilingualism (see http://lulac.org/advocacy/issues/english_vs_spansih/
index.html.
In 1986, the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) issued a statement op-
posing English-only policies and practices: ‘Be it therefore resolved that the
Society make known its opposition to such “English-only” measures, on the
grounds that they are based on misconceptions about the role of a common
language in establishing political unity, and that they are inconsistent with
basic American traditions of linguistic tolerance. As scholars with a profes-
sional interest in language, we affirm that the English language in America
is not threatened. All evidence suggests that recent immigrants are over-
whelmingly aware of the social and economic advantages of becoming profi-
cient in English, and require no additional compulsion to learn the language.
American unity has never rested primarily on unity of language, but rather
on common political and social ideals. History shows that a common lan-
guage cannot be imposed by force of law, and that attempts to do so usually
create divisiveness and disunity’: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/
resolution-english-only.
• Conduct an online search of professional organizations that center around

language and examine any statements that they have published about
language use (e.g., position on English-only, bilingualism, etc). How are
the ALA framework steps connected to the various statements? E xamples
of professional language education professional associations include:
American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), TESOL International
Association (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages), National
Association for Bilingual Education (NABE)
• Are there other statements against English-only policies that are driven by
civil rights organizations or other institutions? What points do they cover?
This example was designed to highlight the diverse ways that individuals
can build relationships, collectively create aspirations, and build towards
action at a range of scales relevant to an LSJI. The second example will
demonstrate a similar set of points, using a key example from the edu-
cational sphere that is intimately connected to family, home, community,
schooling, race, and class.
128
W hat C ould B e
Example #2: ‘Language Gap’

Ideologies, Practices, and Policies
As we noted in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4, the framing of learning ‘gaps’ in educa-
tional discourse and policy has been used to indicate deficits when minoritized
students’ practices and behaviors are perceived to not be in alignment with nor-
mative expectations, especially within standardized classroom instruction and
curricula28 (Avineri et al., 2015). In recent years, these problematic deficit dis-
courses and ideologies have centered around the notion of a ‘language gap’ to
characterize young children’s language competencies from poor and working-
class immigrant backgrounds.29 Backed by comparative research based on a
small sample of participating families, longstanding deficit-based assumptions
about non-white, middle-class families provided a rationale for explaining un-
equal academic outcomes. According to one of these studies, young children
from working-class and poor families had a ‘thirty million word gap’ compared
to middle-class children by the time they first entered school (see expanded
discussion of this study in Johnson & Zentella, 2017). In this case, perceptions
about academic and language development were mapped onto class, race, and
immigrant status, placing the onus of language competency on families experi-
encing economic disadvantages. A great deal of attention to connections across
deficit framings of minoritized and racialized families focused on debunking the
original (and subsequent) studies and the interventions that were developed to
experiment on young multilingual children and their families (Avineri et al., 2015;
Blum et al., 2015; Johnson, 2019). Such interventions required children to wear
‘talk pedometers’ to record the number of words spoken to the child by adults in
their households. Responses to the language gap metrics just discussed by lin-
guistic anthropologists and language and social justice advocates pointed to the
limited theoretical scope of studies around language development, particularly
among bilingual and multilingual children, and to the intrusive and dangerous na-
ture of surveillance technologies in the home. These processes, while perhaps
well intentioned from the perspective of the practitioners, in effect monitor and
racialize the language use of particular speakers and communities in problem-
atic ways—in other words, linguistic monitoring of low-income families under the
‘language gap’ as deficit framework.
Within the Language and Social Justice Task Group and beyond we have ad-
dressed the problematic ‘language gap’ discourses through blog posts, youtube
videos, journal special issues, articles, interviews, and book chapters—as well as
teacher training and other forms of engagement within local contexts. Interest-
ingly, we have encountered some tensions in this work, as those who support the
‘language gap’ notion may see their engagement as well-intentioned opportuni-
ties to advocate for students who may be encountering difficulties in schooling.
129
W hat C ould B e
Our framing has been focused on countering deficit ideologies of minoritized

children’s language use, valuing students’ home and community language prac-
tices, and recognizing systemic oppression in the institution of schooling. We
have found it important to deeply understand the various perspectives on this set
of issues, to then coalesce around impactful ways forward.
The City of Providence in Rhode Island has launched an early childhood
program that monitors disadvantaged (mostly immigrant) families’ use of
language to diminish a 30 million ‘word’ gap between low-income and high-
income households. The City of Providence website summarizes the program
as follows: ‘Providence Talks helps parents talk more to their children at the
time when language development is most critical, according to brain develop-
ment science. In both the pilot and during city-wide expansion, the program
uses a new technology from the LENA Research Foundation that measures
the number of words that children are hearing and the amount of parent-child
interactions that are taking place in the home’: https://www.providenceri.gov/
providence-talks-expands-serve-750-families-next-year/.
Based on the information provided above and also through additional re-
search, identify some of the following information: what research supports the
Providence Talks initiative? When was the research conducted? What were
the findings? How is the language gap measured? Are there other places with
‘language gap’ initiatives? What other programs (in the past or present) re-
semble the approach of the current language gap initiative used in Rhode
Island? Delving deeper into the City of Providence program to address the
language gap, are there other partners and policy organisms that support the
City of Providence’s initiative on the language gap? How are these resources
organized?
Some of the collective actions that have been taken, based on deep rela-
tionships and aspirations, include:
• Writing research and short essays that counter the study’s findings with
research that highlights the robust evidence of multilingual and immigrant
families (see Johnson, 2019)
• YouTube video about Journal of Linguistic Anthropology Forum: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj3c1WXZ9fI&t=29s
• Blog posts: ‘Making millions off of the 30-million word gap’ by educational lin-
guist Nelson Flores: https://educationallinguist.wordpress.com/2018/05/31/
making-millions-off-of-the-30-million-word-gap/
• Replication studies: Douglas E. Sperry, Linda L. Sperry, & Peggy L. Miller
(2019). Reexamining the Verbal Environments of Children from Different
Socioeconomic Backgrounds. Child Development, 90, 1303–1318.
• TikTok videos: University of California, San Diego professor Alicia Muñoz Sán-
chez created a course assignment in which her students created critiques of
130
W hat C ould B e
the Hart & Risley (1995) article, including their own stories and specific prob-
lems they identified in the methodologies and approaches of the original study.
You have now seen the diverse ways that LSJIs can be addressed, through ex-
amples in this chapter and also through the vignettes, case studies, reflections,
and activities throughout the book. Now we encourage you to consider what
else from your perspectives and the information you have gathered can help
identify relevant LSJIs across diverse contexts, allowing you to examine those
LSJIs and those individuals/groups who are impacted by it. You can reflect
on the tensions and intentions throughout these steps involved in the analysis
of issues where language and social justice intersect. You are able to gather
information that explains any historical antecedents of the issues being exam-
ined and how they continue to impact (for example) education, health care, or
criminal justice (e.g., internet searchers, relevant websites, policy documents,
or library resources). You can identify possible interventions to call attention to
the issues being examined and potentially include a plan to work with those
who are impacted by the issue, drawing on intellectual and cultural community
resources. How might you go about generating interest around the LSJI you
have selected? What are some possible and preliminary actions that from your
experience and knowledge can be engaged to address these issues? What
might be a longer-term engagement of social justice action towards interrupt-
ing these inequities? Now we turn to your LSJI action project, where you can
bring all these pieces together in relation to an LSJI that matters to you. You
can apply the ALA framework to illustrate possible strategies and actions aimed
at identifying, addressing, and ameliorating language-related injustices. How
can you collaboratively undertake a process to address aspects of that social
issue? In particular, you can explore how to use language to mobilize for justice,
through its strategic use to coalesce with particular audiences.
YOUR LSJI ACTION PLAN OR PROJECT
Throughout the book, we have invited you to identify, engage in deeper study, and
begin to strategize around the development of your own case study around lan-
guage and social justice that interests you. We have encouraged you to examine
the origins of the issue or practice that has led to the situation you would like to
address, that is, to determine (preliminarily) who is involved and who is affected.
As you have researched this issue, you have asked yourself why should you and
others be involved in addressing and interrupting the impacts of that issue and
to begin to brainstorm ways to raise awareness for collective action. At this point
in your process you have all the tools you need to identify an LSJI that you want
to explore further, consider what you might do (in collaboration with others) to
131
W hat C ould B e
raise awareness and/or advocate for an LSJI that matters to you. You might be
interested in (for example) joining local action, starting and joining a social justice
campaign, writing an op-ed, writing a letter to your local museum encouraging
them to use different language to describe immigrant histories, going to a local
city council meeting to advocate for a law banning hate speech, dialoguing with
school board members planning to cut funding/resources for bilingual and mul-
tilingual students, creating an infographic (shared via social media) about the
ways that endangered languages are connected to our understanding of local
land, plants, and the ecosystem. We share below some frameworks that you can
engage with as you create your LSJI action plan or project.30
Here we return to the table you learned about in Chapter 2, which can help
to shape your thinking and planning as you move forward into action.
Below is a tool that will be helpful in collecting some of the key insights you
have gained throughout your ALA engagement process:
WHAT IS
ALA Inquiry Question
Reflection
Noticing
Observation
Narrative
Positionalities & Commitments
Critique
Sources
WHAT HAS BEEN
ALA Deepening Question
Reflection
Noticing
Observation
Narrative
Positionalities & Commitments
Critique
Sources
132
W h at C o u l d B e
WHAT COULD BE
ALA Action Question
Relationships
Aspirations
Actions
AWARENESS-RAISING OR ADVOCACY PLANS31,32
When you create an awareness-raising or advocacy plan you can engage with
the following steps:
A. Collective definition of the LSJI
B. Identify the specific goals of the advocacy
C. Raise awareness and keep awareness (listening & learning)
D. Explore different positionalities in relation to the issue
E. Engage with key resources (for yourself, more people, who is already doing
this work and amplify it, histories)
F. Identify goals
G. Determine what is feasible change at that scale
H. Explore tensions: Part of a group/not part of a group (dilemmas), observe/
understand vs. experience, speaking with vs. speaking for, be prepared
for those advocating against you (be prepared for disagreements), don’t
necessarily have solutions
I. Connect topics with your positionalities to identify your ‘Why’
J. Select the appropriate modalities and contexts for your audience(s)
K. Build Argument and Share Information (nuances, counterarguments)
L. Include a ‘Call to Action’ (for advocacy)
LSJI ACTION PROJECT33
For this LSJI action plan or project, you will select an LSJI that you care about
(e.g., access to health care, environment, student loan debt, digital divide, hous-
ing insecurity, education, racial inequality, economic inequality, food insecurity,
immigration, discrimination, marginalization). You will have the opportunity to
connect the issue to the local community, to local governance, and to broader
institutions and structures. You will use a range of tools to raise awareness
about, promote, or engage in social change efforts focused on this social issue
(e.g., social media, education, protest, fundraising, legislative proposal, voter
133
W hat C ould B e
registration, organizing, art, letters to government officials). You will voice your
own or the collective opinion of a group of your peers in relation to this topic.
You will gain practice in engaging with civic processes that exist in our society
to make a difference and promote grassroots social change.
Preparation
1. Select the LSJI you’d like to focus on (e.g., discourses around housing
insecurity, minoritized students’ language use in schools, access to Indig-
enous languages in the health care system, language around gender and
transgender issues, linguistic discrimination).
2. Explore your identities and positionalities in relation to this LSJI.
3. Does this social issue require legislative, cultural, economic, or political
change (university, local, state, federal)? How can you find out more about
this (e.g., online research, speak with family/friends)?
4. What constitutional, policy, and/or media issues are reflected in this social
issue? How can you find out more about this (e.g., online research, speak
with family/friends)?
5. What opportunities exist locally, in the region, or online that you can use to
engage on behalf of the issue you have selected (e.g., online City Council
meeting, phone banking, sending out flyers, creating social media cam-
paign, virtual volunteering)?
6. Do your previous (academic, community-based, professional) experiences
connect in some way with your action project? How?
7. How will you find out more about the topic?
8. What action can you take in relation to this social issue?
Awareness-Raising and Advocacy Examples include:

1. An online awareness-raising campaign
2. Start an online petition or fundraising campaign
3. Contact local, state, or federal lawmakers about your social issue
4. Attend city council or Board of Supervisors online meetings
5. Organize an online art/poetry/theater/music creative space about the so-
cial issue
6. Become a journalist and find a story connected with the issue (interview
key players) and write a story or an op-ed for lawmakers, in the university
newspaper, or in local media outlets
7. Distribute key information to relevant groups about the social issue
8. Mass letter writing drive
9. Create or connect with a discussion group/organization focused on the
social issue
134
W hat C ould B e
10. Get involved with a political campaign of your choice

11. Take part in voter registration drives to get people to vote
As we highlighted with the Audience Coalescence Tool (ACT) it is important to

consider what information is relevant and of interest to particular audiences.
This may include definitions of the issue, relevant data, institutions and struc-
tures that are significant for the issue, stories from individuals impacted by the
issue, stories from individuals not directly impacted by the issue. You can plan
out the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the action (e.g., flier, visual,
hashtags). You might also amplify the work of others, by pointing to existing
solutions focused on that LSJI. In creating a particular product it is also import-
ant to explore the ethics of sharing others’ stories, as highlighted in the following
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dpIAPPm66I.
After creating your awareness-raising or advocacy project, we encour-
age you to engage with your fellow classmates around the following: why
you selected the LSJI, how the process went (successes/challenges, results),
and your takeaways from the overall experience. What did you learn about
awareness-raising advocacy? What did you learn about the role of language in
awareness-raising and advocacy? What advice would you give to another stu-
dent interested in LSJI awareness-raising or advocacy? Do you feel that actions
are better taken at grassroots scales? At the level of nonprofit organizations?
At the governmental level? Why? What are the possibilities and limits we each
have in terms of reaching particular audiences?
TENSION BOX
Think of an example that you are aware of where language has been
changed in some way. What are the reasons for this change? Do you
agree with these changes? Why or why not?
Here is an interesting article that highlights some of this complexity:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/04/equity-
language-guides-sierra-club-banned-words/673085/
SUMMARY
In this chapter you learned about specific terms and approaches for awareness-
raising, advocacy, and activism, as well as key examples—all moving you to
create your own plan or project focused on the LSJI you are interested in. You
have cultivated your abilities to reflect on what is necessary to know in order to
act. As discussed previously, it is important to engage deeply in the tensions
135
W hat C ould B e
and intentions involved in this work, in terms of who you are, your context, eth-
ics, roles, and relationships—especially when you approach these issues with a
critical stance, solutions-oriented, and a social justice orientation. We also want
to highlight the tension between urgency and slowing down—especially when
engaging in work that is public-facing, including amplifying others’ voices. We
can each do something to effect change in relation to the LSJIs we care about,
but there are also limits when working within specific time frames. This is why it
is so important to engage long-term around these social issues, through com-
munity partnerships, networks, interdependence, and building bridges.
RESOURCES
https://cla.csulb.edu/departments/linguistics/category/events/
http://www.bonner.org/summer-institute-on-teaching-social-action
https://www.theopedproject.org/resources
https://sites.uw.edu/multilingualux/language-justice-resources/
https://www.natividad.com/about/language-access-services/
https://www.alcesuvoz.com/
https://www.languageonthemove.com/ingrid-piller/
https://www.makamham.com/cafeohlone
http://www.landrelationships.com/
https://impactjustice.org/innovation/research-action-center/
https://thelanguageproject.co/
https://vocalfriespod.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@MikeMena
https://www.pcori.org/research/about-our-research/patient-centered-
outcomes-research
https://www.equityliteracy.org/equity-literacy
ADVOCACY RESOURCES
Joint National Committee for Languages: Language Advocacy Days 2022:

https://www.languagepolicy.org/lad
TESOL 2022 Advocacy & Policy Summit: https://www.tesol.org/
advance-the-field/tesol-advocacy-workshop/tesol-2022-advocacy-policy-
summit-schedule
AAAL Position Statements: https://www.aaal.org/position-statements
National Council for the Social Studies: Advocacy Planning: Your 10-
Step Plan: https://www.socialstudies.org/advocacy/advocacy-planning-your-
10-step-plan-0
136
W hat C ould B e
Community Tool Box: Developing a plan for advocacy: https://ctb.ku.edu/

en/table-of-contents/advocacy/advocacy-principles/advocacy-plan/main
NACAC: Developing an advocacy plan: https://nacac.org/resource/
developing-an-advocacy-plan/
West Virginia University: Types of Advocacy: https://cedwvu.org/resources/
types-of-advocacy/
Nourish California: Advocacy: https://nourishca.org/our-work/what-we-do/
advocacy/
Lead with Languages: Language Advocacy: https://www.leadwithlan-
guages.org/language-advocacy/contact-your-legislators/
US Department of Education Blog: Teachers as Advocates and Leaders
of the Profession: https://blog.ed.gov/2022/09/teachers-as-advocates-and-
leaders-of-the-profession/
Bolder Advocacy: Alliance for Justice (definitions, resources, events/
trainings): https://bolderadvocacy.org/advocacy-defined/
FutureEd Advocacy Labs: The Science of Advocacy: https://live-fe-
future-ed.pantheonsite.io/category/advocacylabs/
US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants: Policy & Advocacy: https://
refugees.org/policy-and-advocacy/
Youth.gov Civic engagement: https://youth.gov/youth-topics/civic-
engagement-and-volunteering
https://www.routledge.com/CHANGE-A-Guide-to-Teaching-Social-
-Action/Myers-Lipton/p/book/9781032146089
www.TeachingSocialAction.org
Twitter 101 and Twitter for California Advocacy: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=_N7llMy_cnc
NOTES
1. https://aildi.arizona.edu/.
2. https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/20 –1-understanding-s ocial-
change/.
3. h t t p s: // w w w.t a m a r a c kc o m m u n i t y.c a / l a te s t /p a t hw ay s -to - c h a n g e -
six-theories-about-how-policy-change-happens.
4. The INAH is part of the Mexican federal government charged with the preserva-
tion of cultural heritage.
5. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_relational_work_of_systems_change.
6. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/advocacy-principles/
recognize-allies/main.
7. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/advocacy-principles/
identify-opponents/main.
137
W hat C ould B e
8. https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/collective-visioning-and-design-
conversations-change-culture-f2f99f808d57.
9. https://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-aaa/files/production/public/FileDownloads/
pdfs/issues/press/upload/Sports-Mascot-Resolution-Release-Final.pdf.
10. https://w w w.nhpr.org/nh-news/2022– 05 –14/nh-hanover-high-school-
new-mascot-logo-bears-marauders.
11. https://theconversation.com/sports-teams-are-finally-scrapping-native-
american-mascots-on-both-sides-of-the-atlantic-176083.
12. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ally-advocate-activist-understanding-who-we-
world-honorio-ragazzo/.
13. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/
presentation/wcms_160294.pdf.
14. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/methods-for-policy-research-2e/.
15. https://cedwvu.org/resources/types-of-advocacy/.
16. Netta appreciates Middlebury Institute of International Studies colleague Kent
Glenzer’s conceptualization of advocacy as ‘Asking someone in power to make
a decision that they otherwise wouldn’t make.’
17. Flores, N. (2017). Developing a materialist anti-racist approach to language
activism. Multilingua, 36(5), 565–570.
18. https://boords.com/ethos-pathos-logos/what-is-kairos.
19. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/01/sport/afl-jamarra-ugle-hagan-anti-racism-
gesture-spt-intl/index.html.
20. Consult: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wesley-Leonard/publication/
320174001_Producing_language_reclamation_by_decolonising_’language’/
links/5c748977a6fdcc47159bf44f/Producing-language-reclamation-by-
decolonising-language.pdf.
21. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/direct-action/electronic-
advocacy/main.
22. http://eprints.rclis.org/42714/.
23. For an interesting debates around the notion of ‘slacktivism’ consult: https://
www.citizenlab.co/blog/civic-engagement/slacktivism/.
24. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00857-8.
25. https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/BLM.
26. https://news.virginia.edu/content/metoo-why-social-media-campaign-has-
taken-hold.
27. https://stopaapihate.org/our-work/.
28. In this published Forum, see Teresa McCarty’s commentary (McCarty, 2015).
29. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/05/17/1098524454/the-case-
for-revolutionizing-child-care-in-america.
30. https://soundout.org/2015/02/03/student-led-advocacy-success-stories/.
31. This activity is adapted from Netta’s Language Teaching for Social Justice Fall
2022 course.
32. https://w w w.socialstudies.org/advocacy/advocacy-planning-your-10-
step-plan-0.
138
W hat C ould B e
https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/advocacy-principles/
advocacy-plan/main.
https://nacac.org/resource/developing-an-advocacy-plan/.
33. Guidelines adapted from Netta’s CSUMB ‘Promise and Reality of the American
Dream’ critical civics/service-learning course and ‘Hunger and Homelessness’
course.
REFERENCES
Avineri, N. R. (2012). Heritage language socialization practices in secular Yiddish

educational contexts: The creation of a metalinguistic community (Publication
No. 3510407) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles]. Pro-
Quest Dissertations Publishing.
Avineri, N. (2020). Audience (and audience design). In J. Stanlaw (Ed.), International
encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology (pp. 1–5). Wiley Blackwell Publishers.
Avineri, N., & Harasta, J. (2021). Introduction: Exploring agency, ideology, and
semiotics of language across communities. In N. Avineri & J. Harasta (Eds.),
Metalinguistic communities: Case studies of agency, ideology, and symbolic
uses of language (pp. 1–26). Palgrave Macmillan.
Avineri, N., Johnson, E. J., Brice-Heath, S., McCarty, T., Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T.,
Blum, S., Zentella, A. C., Rosa, J. D., Flores, N., Alim, H. S., & Paris, D. (2015).
Invited forum: Bridging the ‘language gap.’ Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,
25(1), 66–86.
Avineri, N., & Perley, B. C. (2019). Mascots, name calling, and racial slurs: Seeking
social justice through audience coalescence. In N. Avineri, L. R. Graham, E. J.
Johnson, R. C. Riner, & J. Rosa (Eds.), Language and social justice in practice
(pp. 147–156). Routledge.
Baquedano-López, P. (2021). Learning with immigrant indigenous parents in school
and community. Theory into Practice, 60(1), 51–61.
Baquedano-López, P., & Garrett, P. (2023). On becoming bilingual: Children’s
experiences across homes, schools, and communities. Routledge.
Baquedano-López, P., & Gong, N. (2022). Indigenous mobilities in diaspora:
Literacies of spatial tense. In A. Norlund Shaswar & J. Rosén (Eds.), Literacy
in the age of mobility: Literacy practices of adult and adolescent migrants (pp.
25–49). Palgrave Macmillan.
Baquedano-López, P., & Méndez, C. S. (2023). Stewards of the language: Liminality
and transnational sovereignty. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 2023(279), 41–69: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2022-0040.
Benor, S., B., & Avineri, N. (2019). Beyond language proficiency: Fostering metalin-
guistic communities in Jewish educational settings. In J. A. Levisohn & A. Y.
Kelman (Eds.), Beyond Jewish identity (pp. 167–192). Academic Studies Press.
139
W hat C ould B e
Benor, S. B., Avineri, N., & Greninger, N. (2020). Let’s stop calling it ‘Hebrew
School’: Rationales, goals, and practices of Hebrew education in part-time
Jewish schools. Consortium for Applied Studies in Jewish Education.
Blum, S., D., Fagen, L., & Riley, K. C. (2015, April 13). The middle class (thinks
it) knows best: Daring to intervene in disadvantaged households. HuffPost:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-middle-class-thinks-i_b_6653932.
Bradbury, H., Waddell, S., O’Brien, K., Apgar, M., Teehankee, B., & Fazey, I. (2019).
A call to action research for transformations: The times demand it. Action
Research, 17(1), 3–10.
Briggs, C. L. (2020). Beyond the linguistic/medical anthropology divide: Retooling
anthropology to face COVID-19. Medical Anthropology, 39(7), 563–572.
Briggs, C. L., & Mantini-Briggs, C. (2016). Tell me why my children died: Rabies,
indigenous knowledge, and communicative justice. Duke University Press.
Bucholtz, M., Casillas, D. I., & Lee, J. S. (2016). Beyond empowerment: Accompa-
niment and sociolinguistic justice in a youth research program. In R. Lawson &
D. Sayers (Eds.), Sociolinguistic research (pp. 25–44). Routledge.
Cohen, D., De la Vega, R., & Watson, G. (2001). Advocacy for social justice: A global
action and reflection guide. Kumarian Press.
Cooperrider, D. L., Stavros, J. M., & Whitney, D. (2008). The appreciative inquiry
handbook: For leaders of change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
DeStigter, T. (1999). Public displays of affection: Political community through critical
empathy. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(3), 235–244.
Fals Borda, O. (1987). The application of participatory action-research in Latin
America. International Sociology, 2(4), 329–347.
Flores, N. (2017). Developing a materialist anti-racist approach to language activ-
ism. Multilingua, 36(5), 565–570.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press.
Godínez, R. (2022). Mexicana/Latina campesinas cultivating knowledge: A
collective agricultural land-based education in Central Washington State in the
homelands of Yakama Nation [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley.
Godínez, R., & Baquedano-López, P. (2022) Mother pedagogies of migration:
Multiplicitous identities and pedagogies. Journal of Diaspora, Indigeneity and
Minority Education, 16(3), 185–199.
Handley, M. A., Santos, M. G., & Bastías, M. J. (2022). Working with data in adult
English classrooms: Lessons learned about communicative justice during the
COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 20(1), 696.
Harney, S., & Moten, F. (2013). The undercommons: Fugitive planning and black
study. Minor Compositions.
Harro, B. (2000). The cycle of liberation. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda,
H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social
justice (1st ed., pp. 463–469). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of
young American children. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
140
W hat C ould B e
Johnson, E.J. (2019). A critical interrogation of the ‘language gap.’ In N. Avineri, L. R.

Graham, E. J. Johnson, R. Riner, & J. Rosa. (Eds.), Language and social justice
in practice (pp. 97–101). Routledge.
Johnson, E. J., & Zentella, A. C. (2017). Introducing the language gap. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 11(1), 1–4.
Kroskrity, P. V., & Meek, B. A. (Eds.). (2017). Engaging Native American publics:
Linguistic Anthropology in a collaborative key. Taylor & Francis.
Lederach, J. P. (2003). The little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of
the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Good Books.
Leonard, W. (2021). Afterword: Reclamation and metalinguistic communities. In N.
Avineri & J. Harasta (Eds.), Metalinguistic communities: Case studies of agency,
ideology, and symbolic uses of language (pp. 249–255). Palgrave Macmillan.
Liu, R., & Shange, S. (2018). Toward thick solidarity: Theorizing empathy in social
justice movements. Radical History Review, 2018(131), 189–198.
Lugones, M. (2003). Pilgrimages/peregrinajes: Theorizing coalition against multiple
oppressions. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
McCarty, T. (2015). How the logic of gap discourse perpetuates education inequali-
ties: A view from the ethnography of language policy. In N. Avineri, E. Johnson,
S. Brice Heath, T. McCarty, E. Ochs, T. Kremer-Sadlik, S. Blum, A. C. Zentella,
J. Rosa, N. Flores, D. Paris, & H. S. Alim, Invited forum: Bridging the ‘language
gap.’ Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25(1), 70–72.
McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge.
Nelson, G. B., & Prilleltensky, I. (2010). Community psychology: In pursuit of libera-
tion and well-being. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ortega, M. (2016). In-between: Latina feminist phenomenology, multiplicity, and the
self. SUNY Press.
Paris, D. & Winn, M. (Eds). (2014). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative
inquiry with youth and communities. Sage.
Sepúlveda III, E. (2011). Toward a pedagogy of acompañamiento: Mexican migrant
youth writing from the underside of modernity. Harvard Educational Review,
81(3), 550–573.
Sperry, D. E., Sperry, L., & Miller, P. L. (2019). Reexamining the verbal environments
of children from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Child Development, 90,
1303–1318.
Stavros, J., Godwin, L., & Cooperrider, D. (2015). Appreciative inquiry: Organization
development and the strengths revolution. In W. Rothwell, R. Sullivan, & J.
Stavros (Eds.), Practicing organization development: A guide to leading change
and transformation (4th ed., pp. 96–116). Wiley.
Stringer, E. T., & Aragón, A. O. (2020). Action research. Sage Publications.
Tardy, C. M., & Swales, J. M. (2014). Genre analysis. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron
(Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 165–188). De Gruyter Mouton.
Yomantas, E. L. (2020). Decolonizing knowledge and fostering critical allyship. In L.
Parson & C. C. Ozaki (Eds.), Teaching and learning for social justice and equity
in higher education (pp. 303–328). Palgrave Macmillan.
141
CHAPTER SIX
Now What
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
In this concluding chapter we synthesize the previous chapters and provide

opportunities forward in applied linguistic anthropology and social justice.
Throughout the book we have laid out the ALA framework and guiding princi-
ples, mobilizing them to examine particular language and social justice issues
(LSJIs). Mindful of the ways in which the constructs, tools, and methods of the
language disciplines have led to both justice and injustice, our process has
been illustrative and open-ended, and in this way sensitive to diverse situations,
contexts, and circumstances. As noted in previous chapters, our goal has been
to center language in terms of understanding and of action in a movement
towards social justice and change. This means remaining attentive to the dy-
namic of access and full and equal participation in society while recognizing
that there are multiple histories and ongoing experiences of oppression, given
histories of colonization in the United States and that we can be positioned to
coalesce around practices and aspirations for both resistance and liberation.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
In this chapter you will:
• Reflect on key ideas of the What Is, What Has Been, What Could Be of the
ALA framework
• Reflect on your own process and experience engaging the various phases
of the ALA framework, exploring how your own language social justice
142 DOI: 10.4324/9781003155164-6

N ow W hat
process and project have developed over the course of this semester or
quarter
• Reflect on what you learned from the different reflections, activities, and
tensions throughout the book
GUIDING QUESTIONS
1. How did the case studies help you develop a broader understanding of an
LSJI and ways to interrupt oppressive practices?
2. Which material in the vignettes resonated with you? Why?
3. How has your project developed over the course of this term (quarter or
semester), following the different components of the model?
4. Taking a broader perspective on the framework, which steps or ingredients
have been most helpful for you as you develop your plan for addressing a
language and social justice issue?
5. Consider the topics and issues that are important to you, how specifically
will you move forward?
Activity 6.1
Describe what you have learned about yourself and about your LSJI you have
identified through your ALA process? Share a specific experience or story that
has resonated with you during your ALA process. Which of the LSJ lexicon
terms have been most important in your ALA process?
What advice would you give to a student just beginning their ALA process?
REFLECTION 6.1
Which component of the ALA framework (What Is, What Has Been,
What Could Be) has provided you with new ideas and momentum to
engage in language and social justice work? How has this particular
component influenced your own process and plan of action?
MODEL REDUX
Our work together in this book started with a recognition of community shared
principles on how to foster respectful dialogue within the learning spaces
in which we participate, to collectively create our ‘terms of engagement.’ We
located the work of social justice and language as part of, and contribution to,
143
N ow W hat
Critical University Studies as a broader frame to interrogate issues of power and

dominance within higher education and extend the work of an applied linguistic
anthropology as theoretical, ethical, and methodological intervention to issues
of language and social justice. Our approach in the book has been one that
is open to your own inquiry and action process, that is, to your language and
social praxis, always susceptible to change depending on situation, resources,
and goals. In this sense, there is always something new to integrate into a book,
while keeping true to its genre, and our hope is that this book serves as the start
of a pathway, furthering your ideas and work, a form of ‘think and read with’ type
of work. While the book has focused primarily on contexts in the United States,
the ALA framework can be used and adapted across contexts and certainly to
analyze issues from a more global perspective as there are shared histories of
colonization responding to European expansion in the 15th century and beyond.
Throughout the book’s chapters we have invited you to build a lexicon to
help you in your understanding and ways to connect how language is impli-
cated in social justice issues. And while we have provided a list of terms and
LSJIs, we consider these a starting point in the important work of changing
oppressive systems that create injustices in which language is central. Our goal
has been to provide questions and tools that can generate your own questions
and tools. We designed the book into broadly three areas and components of
the ALA framework (What Is, What Has Been, and What Could Be) to address
them in turn with more depth.
We also highlight here how these phases may happen in a particular order—
and also that they may be integrated and connected in meaningful ways. So,
for example, you might engage in noticing and critique simultaneously. Or you
might think deeply about your positionalities in relation to a historical event in
your locale. Or you might be looking towards an ‘action question’ while observ-
ing contexts around you. At this point of the process we encourage you to think
deeply about the meaningful interconnections across these phases of the ALA
framework.
TABLE 6.1 Essential Components of the ALA Framework
What Is The framework offers ways to explore the ‘what is.’ Through
applied linguistic anthropological studies and methodologies that
(Chapters 1, 2, 3)
engage reflection, noticing, observation, narrative, positionalities
and commitments, and critique of real-world examples in language
and social justice-oriented work. These tools of analysis allow for
movement across the scales from ‘me-cro’ (individual) to ‘micro’ (in-
terpersonal), what can also be understood as ‘above the s urface’ to
begin exploration of the complex dynamics involved in LSJIs that
are relevant to you.
144
N ow W hat
What Has Been The focus of analysis centers on ideologies and sociohistorical
dynamics that underpin everyday practices of individuals and

(Chapters 2, 3, 4)
institutions that sustain dynamics of power in society. The tools of
the framework help deepen reflection and critique of normalized
present-day injustices. At its core, this component of the frame-
work examines how the past, through sedimented histories and
practices of colonialism, has set up the structural conditions for
present-day realities.
What Could Be and This phase of the framework allows you to continue to identify and
Now What work with collaborators, what we have been explaining as relational
and aspirational work, and to design a plan of action for social
(Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6)
change. The process of creating a multi-faceted plan for addressing
a specific LSJI reflects collaborative engagements at various levels
of intervention and scales (local, regional, government, private or
public domains). Examples of these language and social justice ef-
forts include the interrelated approaches of activism, advocacy, and
audience coalescence.
REFLECTION 6.2
What additional steps (beyond what is, what has been, and what could
be) did you engage in or plan to engage in your own project addressing
LSJIs? What would you add to the ALA framework? What can be
improved/changed/modified?
THE MOVEMENT IS FORWARD, BUT NOT LINEAR
Across the chapters of the book we have been noting the iterative nature of
the ALA framework for the study and practice of language and social justice.
We named the key three ‘temporal moments’ of the framework as questions—
What Is; What Has Been; What Could Be, and Now What—to allow for theoret-
ical and methodological exploration and expansion. Sometimes an issue may
require multiple iterations of the ‘What Is’ to really understand the surface struc-
tures of LSJIs and delve deeper into methods to understand the ‘What Has
Been.’ Working with others requires the return to the ‘What Is’ and ‘What Has
Been’ in order to gather resources and skills to address, disrupt, and change
oppressive conditions, moving away from dominant power (what we have been
discussing at the meso and macro levels). Similar to Stuart (2019) we see the
importance of sustaining power for social change that is rooted in collaboration
145
N ow W hat
to dismantle Power-Over others and working towards sustaining social and

collaborative power from the me-cro to the macro level. In this view, the me-cro
scale allows for nurturing Power-Within, the examination of meso and macro
structures reveals forms of dominance of Power-Over others. And collabora-
tive and forward-looking work at the meso level can sustain Power-with and
Power-to a forward looking.1
We integrate into this discussion the views of the scholars and activists we
interviewed for the vignettes in this book, as they have each had long-standing
commitments to social justice and histories of collaborations to change struc-
tures of oppression. At the end of their interviews, they were asked to share
their thoughts on what students reading this book should know about engaging
in work that is focused on social justice. Their responses point to the impor-
tance of not having a unidirectional approach to language and social justice,
but to engage in a continuous iteration of strategies through solidarity and a
focus on the future.2 As you read each excerpt below we encourage you to take
note of what advice resonates with you and why. What might you take with you
during your ongoing ALA process?
VIGNETTE 6.1 W
hat Should Students Who Read this
Book know About Engaging in Work that
is Focused on Social Justice?
Uju Anya [Students] should know that languages are at the

center of that, and language should be at the center
of the work that they engage in for social justice.
And they should also understand that the linguistic
injustices, there is no way to be race-neutral about
linguistic injustice. So there’s no way to approach
language issues of social justice from a supposedly
race-neutral standpoint. Race neutrality does not
exist, number one, and you know, we see no color
approach, we used to call it color blind, but we un-
derstand that’s ableist language. More accurately,
it’s color evasiveness. So color-evasive approaches
to justice that do not openly and affirmatively ac-
knowledge race and also grapple with racism, it’s
not social justice work.
146
N ow W hat
Carla Marie Okay, so I will start as my example of wanting to

Muñoz, Ohlone build a Tule [boat made with tule grass] and the
Sisters difficulties that that brought. First of all, without
having any access to the land and being so far from
it, it was first like, how are we going to be able to go
to this place to first access resources. Second, take
care of that resource so that the tule will dry prop-
erly and we’re able to make a boat, make the boat,
and then launch the boat. And those things kind
of seem simple, but when you’re talking about 586
miles in between here and there, that causes a lot
of difficulty. And also, when you’re proposing a new
project like building a boat that may be not some-
thing that we always did in the past with our tribe,
that it’s something new that we’re implementing, the
first step was to bring it to the council and ask them
is this appropriate for us to be involved in? Is this
something that we want to bring to our youth and to
the families? And it just happened to be at the time
that we were making this tule boat—that was the
time that there started being all the incarceration of
all the kids and the separation of families that were
crossing the border. So it almost coincided with
that issue that we were bringing families together
in doing an activity together. Because we’re about
community in our family and promoting that within
ourselves. So that was a social issue that was
happening at the time when it just so happened to
be rooted with what we were doing.
Bernard C. For me the message is to be forward looking. The
Perley other important aspect here though is that we can
talk about being positive all day long but we also
recognize that it’s not going to be easy. And so it’s
going to require patience, and it’s going to require
commitment, and, most important, it’s going to have
to be a vision. How do we, together, create a vision
that is about possible futures? … Yeah, and this
goes back to the five points [of language and social
justice framework]. There is that kind of sense that
you’ve got these five points as a process. And so
(Continued)
147
N ow W hat
that’s certainly a fallback position to recognize the

five points as a nice framework to guide them, but as
I said earlier, it doesn’t have to be point by point in
that particular sequence. As much as it is, all of them
together is a process. And so the process is going to
require that kind of uh adjustment to: ‘Well ok, this is
my positionality, I had this conversation, that didn’t
work out, then I have to do this.’ So for me it’s that,
again, it’s that kind of commitment to a particular
vision and how do you have those conversations
to create the kinds of coalitions that can influence
change? And the other thing is that we’re going to be
in for a lot of disappointments but we have to keep at
it. I’ve been fighting for years to get the Washington
Football Team to change its name. And so eventu-
ally, enough conversations actually forced the owner
to acquiesce to that kind of criticism. And that’s the
kind of audience coalescence. There were enough
of these conversations out there to actually have this
important change. So the students that are taking,
reading this text, if they can draw from the text par-
ticular advocacies they are committed to, then they
can have those conversations. It’s the daily process,
with the larger vision in mind. And so there are going
to be good days and there are going to be bad days,
but they have to have that commitment to say, ‘Well I
need to keep working.’
Rachel I would want students to know that—I want stu-
Showstack dents to feel empowered that they can really make
a difference. And I hope the book can convey that.
But... and also this is the kind of work that you can’t
do on your own. And so it’s really all about creating
teams and … I think you have to continue to ask
questions and, and build partnerships….Listening
is one of the most important parts of this work. And
creating safe spaces for the individuals experienc-
ing linguistic injustices to share their experiences
and perspectives. To be open to the perspectives
of stakeholders, you can’t plan a project on your
148
N ow W hat
own and you have to always be open to changes in

plans to best address the problem of concern …
that’s one impact that I’d like to have on the
field and also understanding the importance of
listening—both listening to people’s stories, lis-
tening to testimonials, and creating spaces where
that kind of listening can happen. But then also like
making sure that people are listened to, in health-
care interactions and in different types of contexts,
making sure that people’s voices are respected and
heard is a lot of what we’re advocating for.
K. Wayne I feel we have to teach people the tools we have.
Yang For me at one point that was Afrocentrism, and
maybe it still, hasn’t fully left. But there are tools
from Afrocentrism, and then people have problema-
tized Afrocentrism as, as we understood it then,
in many ways. But I think we had to teach those
tools and then we also have to be open to the idea
that all our tools are wrong, like both are true at the
same time. I think that’s the difference between
saying, ‘This is what has helped me and it may help
you, but we also know it will be obsolete, and that
you have to create something else or remember
something else.’ … And what I love about that is
how they had to pick up these tools, these social
justice tools and be part of these movements, and
they also had to give them up and move on to
different tools and different movements. And I think
that that is for me the most important thing is, it’s
like Octavia Butler’s characters say, ‘Change is the
only constant or change is God, God is Change’ …
I think that’s the most important thing, and I think
out of this book, that’s what I would like people to
understand, there aren’t tools and frameworks that
we simply then teach everybody. We can teach
those to people ’cause they seem kind of helpful,
but the other lesson we have to teach with them
is they’re all gonna be wrong. They’re all going to
expire in their usefulness or they’re gonna hit a wall
or a limit. I really love pronouns for that reason. It’s
(Continued)
149
N ow W hat
like, for a while there were only like two pronouns

and then there were three, but there were really
only three, you were very much policed around
these three. And then, now everyone’s making up
their own pronouns and they didn’t get that until
later, ‘That actually works for me.’ So I feel like lan-
guage, social justice language is like that.
REFLECTION 6.3
Reading through the various responses from scholars and activists, what
do you consider important to take away from this book? What resonates
the most with your own ideas and work in language and social justice?
If you already have a plan of action in place, what are the steps from the
ALA framework and the ideas from these scholars and activists that make
the most sense to you to further engage in your work?
A NOTE TO STUDENTS
This book is designed to assist you in your engagement and praxis in the area
of language and social justice, primarily within applied linguistic anthropology
(ALA), but relevant to other language disciplines. We have provided throughout
the book references to two cases (LSJIs) at the intersection of language and
social justice, the dominance of one language over others (e.g., recognition
of English in U.S. schools) and the (mis)representation of Indigenous experi-
ences, cultures, and languages (e.g., the use of sports mascot names with ref-
erences to Indigenous values). There are more cases to be engaged, for sure!
In our discussion of these two cases we included processes of collaboration of
scholars and advocates/activists working/engaging language and social justice
approaches to illustrate how to identify, reflect, critique, raise awareness, and
act in an iterative and collaborative fashion. We have scaffolded this process
with opportunities to reflect on the issues at hand and through activities that
can initiate, support, or extend ways to address LSJIs. We have also included
opportunities for you to consider topics and issues that are important to you, to
reflect on how you can move forward, encouraging you to document your steps
as you continue your work.
It may be the case that you are already part of a group committed to work-
ing on a particular LSJI in a community setting. But if this is not the case,
150
N ow W hat
one possible avenue for gathering information and starting collaborative proj-
ects that have language and social justice at their core is to search within your
campus and university. In Chapter 1 we centered the goals of language and
social justice also within the growing field of Critical University Studies (CUS).
As we noted, CUS aims at addressing conditions of inequity within the uni-
versity, including some of the LSJIs discussed in this book, for example, the
dominance of one variety of English as the language of instruction (except in
foreign language departments), gendered and ableist language biases in aca-
demic writing, the production and control of knowledge (who gets to publish—
on what topics and on which publication venues). In some instances, the very
demographic contexts of learning themselves create LSJIs, at the intersection
of power, professor and student roles, and instructional content.
As a doctoral student at UCLA, Patricia co-founded with other students
the Discourse Identity and Representation Collective (DIRE)3 as a student as-
sociation to visibilize the work of applied linguists and linguistic anthropologists
of color by creating courses that included their work and inviting other junior
scholars of color to campus. Such efforts, along with the long-term commit-
ments to decenter whiteness and settler colonialism within universities must
continue. We mentioned another collaboration among faculty and students at
UC Berkeley in the establishment of an academic doctoral program in Indig-
enous Language Revitalization, the first in the University of California system,
designed for students working with/within communities committed to the re-
valorization of Indigenous languages and cultures,4 a step that counters the
erasure of Indigenous experience and commitments to Native languages at the
university. The point here is to stress that the work of language and social jus-
tice may sometimes start in the immediate spaces of your college, positioning
you to advance transformative change. As Patel notes, building on the work of
Harney and Moten who we referenced in Chapter 1,
One of the first things Harney and Moten do is invite readers to under-
stand the needs of higher education that stand counter to study as a form
of struggle. In one example, they impress upon readers that the university
desperately needs scholars who take a critical stance in their scholarship,
scholars who write about power.
(Patel, 2021, p. 131)
In the context of language and social justice, your work and scholarship, the
collaborations you nurture with others to address injustices, are examples of
study as struggle and transformation.
In 2010 and 2011, Netta worked with fellow graduate student colleagues
to mobilize around a set of language and social justice issues focused on ac-
cent, education, and bias. In looking back at the collaborative endeavors they
151
N ow W hat
all undertook, she sees how the themes of multimodality, partnership, civic
engagement, narrative, and action were present in their work years ago! In
April 2010 the Wall Street Journal published an article (Jordan, 2010), which
alleged that the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) had instructed school
districts in their state to remove English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers
who spoke ‘ungrammatical’ and ‘heavily accented’ English from their class-
rooms. According to the article, schools were directed to remove these veteran
teachers who ‘don’t speak English well enough’ to ensure that students with
limited English proficiency were being taught by those who spoke the language
‘flawlessly’ (Anya et al., 2011, p. 157). In response, faculty at a range of univer-
sities (e.g., University of Arizona, Stanford) responded with public statements
about the problematic frames and deficit ideologies informing these policies
and practices. At the urging of our department chair Dr. Olga Yokoyama, we
organized a
conference in which scholars, community members, administrators,

students, teachers, and teacher educators could dialogue about second
language learning, language teaching, language assessment, and related
linguistic and social issues. This inspired us to create a public forum where
research could be offered as counterevidence to the ADE’s directives,
within a space that encouraged constructive and collaborative dialogue
on making equitable language policies based on sound research with par-
ticipants from diverse fields, interests, and professional backgrounds...The
2010 UCLA Department of Applied Linguistics Public Conference, entitled
‘Linguistic Diversity in American Classrooms: Perspectives on Grammar,
Accent, and Fluency,’ brought together a total of 14 expert presenters,
17 panelists, and 143 registered attendees from the U.S., Canada, and
Mexico.
(Anya et al., 2011, pp. 158–159)
One of our key guiding questions for collective action related to the conference
was ‘How can academics use their research, scholarship, and action to ef-
fect positive change in broader communities?’ (Anya et al., 2011, p. 159). The
conference itself provided a unique and engaging forum for critical dialogue,
cultivation of praxis, and collective action. In addition, we brought these dia-
logues forward in a range of multimodal ways, including a special issue that
featured multiple presenters from the conference (Anya et al., 2011) in which
we emphasized key themes of ‘language is more than a system of signs and
symbols’ and ‘accents are co-constructed by hearers and speakers in interac-
tion.’ We also created a YouTube channel to share the presentations with those
beyond the conference itself (https://www.youtube.com/user/uclalingdiversity).
Interestingly, this iterative cycle—identifying a key language and social justice
152
N ow W hat
issue around which to mobilize, identifying key collaborators, building relation-

ships for awareness-raising and advocacy, and taking specific actions mirrors
in inspiring ways the ALA framework that we highlight in the book. In addition,
this approach demonstrates the dynamic nature of community-based work,
described in more detail in Netta’s ‘engagement life cycle’ (‘narratives exploring
the ways in which engagement shifts and adjusts over the course of an individ-
ual’s work with and within communities’ (Avineri & Ahlers, 2023, p. 548). Below,
Uju Anya describes the importance of the public orientation of the conference,
in discussing the ideas relevant to a particular context and group of people.
VIGNETTE 6.2 Uju Anya: ‘We Invited the Community’

So the idea of this public conference was that conferences are usually
so exclusive and you have to pay registration and all these things and
it’s usually, you know, rarified people talking to other rarified people
from rarefied institutions and not really involving the community in
any meaningful way, supposedly while they’re discussing questions
that are immediately relevant to the community. So this is, we made
it a public conference. We invited the community. It was supposed to
be a conversation between, you know, people who had a stake in it,
stakeholders.
REFLECTION 6.4
In reading through Patricia’s case study (DIRE Collective) and Netta’s

case study (2010 Linguistic Diversity Conference) what elements of the
ALA framework can you identify? What are the contexts where you
can meaningfully explore the LSJIs you are interested in (e.g., home,
community, classroom, university)? With whom might you create these
spaces, if they don’t exist already? What conversations might you begin
with the people who share your vision for language and social justice?
REFLECTION 6.5
Examine the article by Fridy (2023) featuring Professor Hilaria Cruz

a Chatino (Oaxacan Indigenous language) native speaker, and her
linguistics course on Endangered Languages at the University of
Louisville, Kentucky. The article uses vignettes from students in the
153
N ow W hat
course as reflections on a variety of languages from Kentucky. How are

these effective examples of educator and student actions for justice?
In what ways are they awareness-raising and/or advocacy? In what
ways do the various vignettes illustrate LSJIs and offer ways to address
LSJIs within the context of university study/struggle? https://loupolitical.
org/2023/03/30/dwindling-voices-endangered-languages-in-our-
communities-and-around-the-world/
A NOTE TO EDUCATORS
As we wrote the book we viewed the educators as our partners in bringing

the reflections, activities, and tensions to life through discussion, dialogue,
and conversation with students. The framework is a jumping off point for rich
exploration of the issues facing particular individuals, groups, and contexts.
In our individual and collaborative work focused on cultivating educators, ap-
plied linguists, and community engagement professionals we have found it
essential to highlight the interconnected components of critical reflection as
action [praxis]. We encourage educators to ask themselves these key ques-
tions in developing their ALA pedagogies, modeling for students the centrality
of critical reflection:
1. Who am I? What do I believe?

2. Where is my context (macro, meso, micro, me-cro)?
3. What are my goals?
4. Who are my trusted colleagues?
5. What can I do?
For educators committed to cultivating your own ‘ALA pedagogies’ we encour-

age the following:
1. Decenter the faculty member’s expertise

2. Facilitate students’ connections with one another and with communities
3. Integrate students’ identities, experiences, positionalities and majors
4. Broaden the range of perspectives relevant to an issue (e.g., arts, narrative,
youth, research)
5. Complement students’ deeper engagement within particular disciplines
with interdisciplinary approaches
6. Engage in community-based research, project-based approaches, and
qualitative research methods (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups)
154
N ow W hat
7. Integrate sustained work with community partner organizations, critical

community engagement, and guest speakers
8. Create collaborative learning spaces in unique modes (e.g., learning circles)
Below is a list of key knowledge, skills, and dispositions that you can focus on
in your ALA pedagogies:
Accompaniment Attention Commu- Curiosity & Critical

Collaboration, – Tension nication & Inquiry Empathy
Partnership, – Intention Dialogue for
Solidarity Social Change
Ethics Epistemologi- Humility Justice as Macro

cal flexibility relational & – Meso
aspirational – Micro
– Me-cro
Storytelling & Navigating Participant- Positionalities Praxis

Critical processes & observation & commit-
Listening dynamics ments
As noted previously, when bringing together diverse viewpoints it is important

to recognize key conflicts in order to coalesce around common intentions and
goals. These interdisciplinary exchanges can foster students’ critical abilities
to address the world’s most complex problems. We recognize that engaging
in ALA pedagogies involves tensions, in terms of assumptions, communica-
tion, expectations, histories, norms, perceptions, power, reasons, relationships,
responsibilities, roles, understandings, and values. This is why we have em-
phasized the reflections, activities, iterative processes, and collaboration for
meaningful engagement with the textbook content.
Another key set of questions for the educators engaging with this book are:
1. Who do you want to be as a language and social justice-oriented educator?

2. Whom do you want to learn from/with?
3. What have you learned through the book that you can connect with your
professional practice?
4. Where/when can you use what you have learned? At what scales?
5. Why do certain frameworks/ideas/approaches/activities resonate with you?
6. How will you move forward in your communities of practice (bridging so-
cialization with liberation)?
We highlight here that the conversations that will be fostered through the book’s
reflections and activities will involve dialogue and tensions, as (for example)
explorations of one’s positionalities can also position other students. The role
155
N ow W hat
of the educator is essential in curating these experiences alongside students.

This is also why reflections should be engaged with in diverse modalities (e.g.,
individual, collective, small group, anonymous, confidential) depending on the
nature of the prompts. Our intention and hope is that educators find this book
helpful in accomplishing the guiding work that introduces, models, and en-
courages engagement of theories, methods, and tools to support students’
nuanced understanding that issues at the intersection of language and social
justice can be addressed and countered for a more just society. On a more
practical level, we have offered the possibility of using the book contents and
chapters in a quarter or semester. It is for this reason that we return to the two
case studies that thread through the chapters as this dynamic framing permits
both an extension and a return to particular content and the ingredients of the
ALA model. We are mindful of the tensions of working within the temporality of a
quarter or a semester in the context of long-term engagement of collaborations
and, particularly, in the context of work with communities. The chapters offer
ways to think through the issues we highlight in them, but ultimately, they invite
your thinking and guide of what could be.
As we conclude the last chapter of the book we also reflect on our own
process and engagement of questions of language and social justice. We were
both educated in public, land-grant universities for our graduate education and
we continue to do our work on unceded Indigenous territories.
A NOTE ABOUT CITATION PRACTICES IN THE BOOK
As noted throughout the book, we believe that in order to address complex

social issues it is imperative to learn from a range of perspectives, ones that
are inclusive and encompassing epistemologies (forms of knowledge). As
highlighted previously, interdisciplinarity integrates a broadening of episte-
mologies and ways of knowing. This ethos has shaped our citation practices
and choices in specific ways, as well as our integration of vignettes from
scholars, practitioners, and community activists. We wanted you to complete
reading this book before we were explicit about our citation practices to en-
gage a retrospective, perhaps more comprehensive view of our process. We
have intentionally turned to the work of minoritized scholars, on occasions
indicating Indigenous and Native nations affiliations (frequently from scholars’
own self-descriptions on their written work or on their websites). We note
too the important work towards the recognition of Black women’s work in
the academy and the arts and the social movements that elevates their work
(for example, #CiteBlackWomen) in ways that resonate with Audre Lorde’s
words on breaking imposed silences or ‘the transformation of silence into
156
N ow W hat
language and action’ (Lorde, 2007, p. 28), connecting to our discussion, and
tensions regarding silence and voice in Chapter 5. We encourage you to work
towards reframing the way we acknowledge Black women, Indigenous schol-
ars, elders, and other knowledge keepers in your work with communities and
groups.
IT’S UP TO US
Both Netta and Patricia have engaged in iterative reflection about our back-
grounds, positionalities, commitments, and current actions (e.g., language
teacher education, critical service-learning, research methods courses, Indige-
nous language revitalization, community-based research, schooling). For both
of us, there are ongoing tensions about time scales, in terms of working within
quarters/semesters vs. longer-term engagements and partnerships for social
change. We have been trained in ethnographic methods and are focused on
moving towards action. Our intention has been to call attention to the multiple
ways our work as applied linguistic anthropologists can extend to commitments
to social justice. We can each take seriously the idea of this book as a reflection
journal to oneself, as the book being an opportunity for reflection, activity, ten-
sion, and action. Key interests have been generated by the process of writing
the book, in terms of affect, the generative tensions, and the ALA pedagogies
involved in these forms of engagement. As highlighted throughout the book,
this ongoing work is multimodal (e.g., YouTube videos, journal articles, special
issues, blog posts), interconnected, and intertextual—and this is how we en-
vision the book being used—through in-depth discussion through vignettes,
citations, classroom dialogues, and community engagement. It can be both
energizing and difficult to exist at multiple time scales at once,5 but important
for us all to engage at these different levels. As we conclude the writing of this
book, we recognize where we each are in terms of sociopolitical and historical
context,6 and the ongoing collective efforts to counteract histories and presents
of oppression and marginalization. We find it hopeful to consider our individual
and collective agency to shift these hegemonic structures, especially as stu-
dents read our words and the key examples from the book, interpreting them
for other contexts and situations into the future. We see the role of language
and narrative as central in creating spaces of true dialogue where interdisci-
plinary perspectives (epistemological diversity) can be surfaced, tensions can
be explored, and intentions can be collectively created—at multiple scales (of
justice). These processes involve epistemological flexibility and critical empathy
to move ourselves and one another to a more just world. It’s up to us, so let’s
get to work.
157
N ow W hat
RESOURCES
On citation practices:
• MacLeod, L., (2021). ‘More Than Personal Communication: Templates

for Citing Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers’. KULA: Knowl-
edge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 5(1): https://doi.
org/10.18357/kula.135.
• Younging, G. (2018). Elements of Indigenous Style: A Guide for Writing By
and About Indigenous Peoples. Brush Education.
• Mihesuah, D. A. (2005). So You Want to Write About American Indians?
University of Nebraska Press.
• The Cite Black Women Collective: https://www.citeblackwomencollective.
org/.
NOTES
1. https://sustainingcommunity.wordpress.com/2019/02/01/4-types-of-power/.
2. The longer list of questions for our interviewees in Chapter 1.
3. The DIRE Collective included members who eventually became part of the AAA
Language and Social Justice Task Group, including Patricia and Adrienne Lo
who is Associate Professor at Waterloo University, Canada.
4. ht tps://guide.be r ke ley.e du /graduate/de gre e -programs / indige nous-
language-revitalization/.
5. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23658383/longtermism-long-view-
william-macaskill-effective-altruism-climate-change-future-generations.
6. https://www.axios.com/2023/03/28/california-assembly-latino-accent-marks.
REFERENCES
Anya, O., Avineri, N., Mason Carris, L., & Valencia, V. (2011). Language, identities,
and accents: Perspectives from the 2010 Linguistic Diversity Conference. In-
troduction to O. Anya, N. Avineri, L. Mason Carris, & V. Valencia (Eds.), Social
Issues in Applied Linguistics: Linguistic Diversity in Classrooms and Beyond.
[Special Issue]. Issues in Applied Linguistics 18(2), 157–169.
Avineri, N., & Ahlers, J. (2023). Engaged linguistic anthropology. In A. Duranti, R.
George, & R. Conley Riner (Eds.), A new companion to linguistic anthropology
(pp. 542–559). Wiley Blackwell Publishers.
Fridy, E. (2023, March 30). Dwindling voices: Endangered languages in our commu-
nities and around the world. Louisville Political Review.
158
N ow W hat
Jordan, M. (2010). Arizona grades teachers on fluency. The Wall Street Journal
(April 30): https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405274870357250457521
3883276427528
Lorde, A. (2007). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Penguin.
MacLeod, L. (2021). More than personal communication: Templates for citing Indig-
enous Elders and Knowledge Keepers. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemi-
nation, and Preservation Studies, 5(1), 1–6.
Mihesuah, D. A. (2005). So you want to write about American Indians? University of
Nebraska Press.
Patel, L. (2021). No study without struggle: Confronting settler colonialism in higher
education. Beacon Press.
Stuart, G. (2019, February 1). 4 types of power: What are power over; power with;
power to and power within? Sustaining Community. https://sustainingcommu-
nity.wordpress.com/2019/02/01/4-types-of-power/
Younging, G. (2018). Elements of Indigenous style: A guide for writing by and about
Indigenous Peoples. Brush Education.
159
Index
Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables and Italic page numbers refer to figures.
AAVE see Black English 80–82, 85, 94, 101–103, 107–108,

access 5, 8–9, 21, 30–31, 34–38, 112, 128, 131, 142–145, 150, 153
42–45, 47 appreciative inquiry 8, 118
accompaniment 111–112, 115, 155 Arizona Department of Education 152
action research 8, 50–51, 117–118 audience coalescence 115, 121, 122,
activism 30, 33, 71, 101, 107–108, 123, 145, 148
120–121, 123, 135, 145 Avineri, N. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16,
advocacy 9, 17, 21, 30, 39, 41–43, 71, 17, 29, 38, 39, 43, 44, 50, 51, 54, 55,
94, 107–108, 110, 112, 119–121, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 87, 88, 96,
123–124, 133–136, 145, 107, 113, 115, 121, 129, 153
153–154 awareness-raising 11, 67, 108, 112,
agency 4–5, 30, 63, 93, 115, 157 120–121, 124, 133–135, 153, 154
ally 113, 115, 121
American Anthropological Association 16, Baker-Bell, A. 6, 90, 91, 92
40, 58 Baquedano-López, P. 5, 8, 66, 74, 113,
American Association for Applied 116
Linguistics 19, 118, 128 bias 5, 12, 13, 30, 53, 67, 70, 73, 81, 96,
analysis: critical discourse 69–70, 123, 124, 126, 151
123–124; textual 69 bilingual 4, 36, 39, 41, 73, 83–84, 87–90,
anthropology 12–13, 21, 29, 54, 56, 58, 128, 132; see also multilingual
96, 123 Black English 89–91
Anya, Uju 15, 21, 33, 45, 64, 90–91, 148, Bradbury, H. 117, 118
153 Briggs, C. L. 5, 61, 123
applied linguistic anthropology 1, 10, 12,
15, 17, 19, 21, 112, 142, 144, 150; Caldas, B. 7, 13, 50
framework 10–11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, challenger 113, 117
28, 30, 46, 50, 51, 62, 63, 67, 69, 72, civil rights 9–10, 30, 41, 128
161
INDEX
collaborator 30, 112–114, 118, 119, 145 Harasta, J. 44, 63, 115
colonialism 19, 72, 86, 93, 95, 97, 98, Harney, S. 8, 111, 151
151 Harro, B. 52, 68, 102, 109
commitment 10, 11, 17, 46, 51, 63–64, healthcare 20, 34, 37, 125–126, 149
66–68, 109, 123, 144, 146–148, hegemony 31, 99; linguistic 32, 73, 80,
151, 157 83, 86–87, 89, 90
community: -based 8, 20, 112, 134, 153, Heller, M. 13
154, 157; engagement 8, 154, 155, heritage language 20, 31, 36, 73, 87, 110,
157; leaders 8, 18; members 20, 114, 112, 115; socialization 38, 43–44, 64
115, 152; partners 8, 20 human rights 5, 9–10, 15, 31, 40, 111
criminal justice 83, 131; system 38, 42
critical incident 102, 109 identity 9, 14, 31, 44, 50, 52, 85, 93, 123
Critical Race Theory 21, 95–97 illegal 17, 54, 111
critical university studies 1, 7, 8, 111, 142, indexicality 31
151 Indigenous: land 6, 31, 71, 72, 101;
critique 11, 12, 14, 50–51, 58, 67–68, language 4, 9, 10, 29, 34, 38, 43, 72,
71–73, 81, 86–91, 101–102, 132, 73, 99, 103, 110, 113, 126, 134, 151,
144–145 153, 157; representation 17, 71, 73,
cultural capital 30 80, 82, 93–94, 98; revitalization 72, 99,
cycle of liberation 102, 109 113, 151, 157
injustice 4, 5, 12, 17, 29, 64, 66, 80, 81,
decolonization 20, 31, 93 86, 90, 102, 115, 121, 127, 131, 142,
digital engagement 123 144–146, 148, 151
DIRE Collective 153 interculturality 6, 7
discrimination 9, 31, 45–46 intersectionality 31, 52, 55, 96
diversity 31, 113; linguistic 98, 127, interview 18, 61–62
152–153
Duranti, A. 12, 55, 56, 158 Johnson, E. J. 39, 70, 129, 120
El Colaborativo 112–113 land acknowledgement 19, 71–72, 121

empowerment 31, 112 land back 100–101
English-only 41, 42, 72, 73, 83–87, 99, language and social justice issues
126–128 35–38
equality 31 language and social justice lexicon
equity 5, 9, 15, 17, 21, 31, 34, 36, 37, 43, 28–32
73, 117 Language and Social Justice Task Group
erasure 31, 72, 98, 112, 151 16, 38, 39, 41, 88, 94, 118, 129
language dominance 82–83, 85
Flores, N. 29, 88, 92, 130 language education 4, 36, 45, 64, 81, 89,
Freire, P. 5, 7, 10, 112 128
language endangerment 29, 31
García, O. 88, 89 language gap 17, 36, 38–39, 55, 70, 126,
gendered language 38, 43, 151 129, 130
Glen, E. 82, 93 language ideologies 31, 36, 87, 92, 126
Godínez, R. 8, 113, 116 language policy 31, 84
Goodwin, C. 54, 56 language rights 9–10, 31, 98
Grande, S. 8 language socialization 5, 31, 68
162
INDEX
language varieties 89 Perley, B. C. 21, 34, 58–59, 96, 99, 115,

League of United Latin American Citizens 119, 121, 124–125, 147–148
128 Picower, B. 5
LeCompte, M. D. 54 positionality 14, 32, 52, 55, 63–64, 148
Lederach, J. P. 52, 110 power 3, 8, 11, 13, 29, 32, 45, 69, 93,
Leonard, W. Y. 14, 29, 99, 115 95, 102, 112, 118, 124, 126, 145–146,
Leonardo, Z. 97 151, 155
linguicism 32 praxis 1, 6–8, 10, 17, 21, 144, 150, 152,
Linguistic Diversity Conference 153 154–155
linguistic landscape 51, 59 privilege 5, 7, 21, 32, 73, 95, 126
linguistic profiling 32, 90
Linguistic Society of America 41, question: action 50–51, 107, 110, 133;
91, 128 deepening 50–51, 83, 132; inquiry
literacies 32 50–51, 132
Lugones, M. 116
racialization 32, 42, 89
marginalization 5–7, 9, 21, 29, 32, 43, 46, racism 38–39, 45–46, 90–91, 146
73, 89–90, 157 recognition 3, 11, 35, 45, 53, 54, 71–72,
markedness 32 80, 87, 102, 113, 116, 143
Maya 112–113, 116 reflection 7, 11, 14, 17, 46, 50, 51–53, 55,
metalinguistic communities 44, 66, 68, 82, 94–96, 102, 121, 132, 144;
63–64, 115 activity 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, 44, 52, 53, 57,
minoritization 32 60, 64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 83, 85, 94, 98,
Mitchell, T. 8 111, 118, 121, 143, 145, 150, 153
monolingual 82, 84, 86–87 reflexive turn 1, 12, 13, 23, 52
Moten, F. 8, 111, 151 reflexivity 14, 17, 32, 54, 63, 115
multilingual 39, 41, 53, 90, representation 3, 32, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45,
129, 132 62, 71, 80, 82, 90, 93–94, 96, 117,
multimodal 3, 57, 121, 152, 157 150
Muñoz, C. M. 19, 33–34, 114, 147 Rosa, J. 29, 38, 46, 56, 92
Muñoz, D. 19, 65, 96, 98, 100 Rosaldo, M. 54
narrative 11, 51, 61, 121, 122, 132, 144, Schensul, J. 54

152, 153, 157 semiotic rights 9, 32, 38
noticing 11, 30, 46, 49, 51, 53–55, 58, semiotics 32, 124
62, 68, 132, 144 service-learning 8, 20, 139, 157
Showstack, Rachel 20, 34, 37, 53,
observation 10, 11, 12–14, 45, 51, 53–56, 125–126, 148–149
60–61, 73, 85, 110, 132, 144, 155 social change 2, 10, 11, 22, 38, 50, 55,
Ochs, E. 52, 54, 62, 69 70, 102, 108, 109, 110–113, 120,
Ohlone Sisters 18, 64, 97, 147 133–134, 145, 155, 157
oppression 9, 32, 43, 54, 82, 97, 102, social media 4, 38, 42, 56, 81, 123, 127,
126, 130, 146, 157 132
Ortega, M. 116 socialization 32, 52, 68, 155
Sogorea Te’ Land Trust 60, 71, 100
Patel, L. 151 sports mascots 38–41, 94–95
pedagogy 6–7, 47, 119 Spradley, J. P. 55, 61
163
INDEX
structure 31, 33, 51–52, 82–83, 90–91, translanguaging 32, 88–89

97, 111, 133, 135, 145–146, 157 Turner Strong, P. 96
study 8, 20, 82, 131, 154
subjectivity 14, 32, 53 X 3, 4
xenophobia 32, 46, 84, 85
tension 14–15, 17, 57, 60, 67, 108–109,
111, 129, 131, 133, 136, 154–157; Yang, K. Wayne 20, 35, 71, 100–101,
box 44, 53, 114, 116, 119, 135 149–150
terms of engagement 1, 2, 3, 22, 28, 29,
110, 143 Zentella, A. C. 42, 88, 92, 129
164

An Introduction To Language and Social Justice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction To Language and Social Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‘Rooted in a profound commitment to engaged scholarship, Avineri and

Baquedano-López’s An Introduction to Language and Social Justice is a path-

This innovative, interdisciplinary course textbook is designed to provide the who,

Netta Avineri is a Professor of Language Teacher Education and Intercultural

Patricia Baquedano-López is an Associate Professor of Education at the Uni-

Netta Avineri and

1. Applied Linguistic Anthropology and Social Justice 1

2. Centering Language: A Lexicon for Language

3. What Is: Applied Linguistic Anthropological

4. What Has Been: Deepening the Connections

5. What Could Be: Relationships, Aspirations,

6. Now What 142

5.1 Audience Coalescence Tool (ACT) 122

1.1 Applied Linguistic Anthropology Framework 11

The world is changing constantly, from environmental changes to political

Language is implicated in social justice.

Our main argument in the book is that language is integral to an under-

anthropological point of view. We frame and return throughout the book to

­ iddlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey and California State

Patricia: I grew up in Ichcantiho (Mérida), Yucatan, in the southeast re-

WHY THIS BOOK NOW?

she engaged through multiple workshops, presentations, and conversations

• Provide a working definition of social justice

1. What is social justice?

Discussions of language and social justice can generate dialogue and

• Assume positive intent

In some of Patricia’s classes students select a rotating system of ‘classroom

underscore the importance of collaboration, inclusivity, and growth as a class-

In this book we use a broad definition of language to include oral, written,

DEFINING SOCIAL JUSTICE: RELATIONAL

In this book, we define social justice as working collaboratively with others

HOW ARE LANGUAGE AND

Our main argument in this book is that language is integral to an understanding

We here highlight how social justice is a living and breathing practice,

A LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE PRAXIS: BUILDING

As we work towards an expanded understanding and definitions of language

used to refer to practices that seek to transform K-12, community-based, and

LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

rewards practices and ideologies of individual student success, when in fact,

CONNECTIONS AMONG LINGUISTIC RIGHTS,

• The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/

• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Indigenous Languages Plan:

• The Guidance regarding Title 6 for ‘Limited English Proficient’ Persons:

• The International Mother Language Day and Decade of Indigenous Lan-

We now introduce the Applied Linguistic Anthropology (ALA) framework (first

steps can be returned to at different phases of one’s process, deepened,

TABLE 1.1 Applied Linguistic Anthropology Framework

• What Is (Chapter 2): Identifying a social justice issue, Centering language

• What Is (Chapter 3): Reflection, Noticing, Observation, Narrative, Positionalities and

injustices—in order to then collectively imagine a suitable response. This in-

APPLIED LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY:

Linguistic anthropology (Duranti, 1997; Duranti et al., 2023) is a subfield of an-

Do you think it is necessary to examine a social issue objectively/

[A] critical stance applies also to ourselves: we use our understandings

We have found it important to identify and surface the tensions (Britzman,

In the vignette below, Dr. Uju Anya integrates a discussion of objectiv-

My work in general, my research is critical research. So my research

TABLE 1.2 Engaged Linguistic Anthropology

• And finally, now what—what are the implications of this research?

(Adapted from Avineri & Ahlers, 2023, p. 555)

SOCIETY FOR LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY (SLA)

which involved co-facilitating processes for language-related advocacy and ac-

KEY FEATURES IN THE BOOK

6. Now What 142

iddlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey and California State

Therefore, multi- faceted approaches to social action campaigns can