In US primary and secondary education, language policies have recently been purported to have been changing towards accepting and supporting diversity and multilingualism (e.g., Bond, M. Navigating language policy in state education agencies: English learner reclassification in WIDA states. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2020; Callahan and Hopkins, Journal of School Leadership 27(5):755–766, 2017; Chang-Bacon, Language Policy 21(1):25–46, 2021; Heineke and Davin, Educational Policy 34(4): 619–643, 2020; Fitzsimmons-Doolan, Language Policy 18(2):169–189, 2018; Wright, W. E., & Ricento, T. Language policy and education in the USA. In Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 383–400). Springer International Publishing, 2017). However, the discourse features of the language policies and the metaphors used in them tell a different story. The aim of this research is to investigate the meanings created by the discourse and metaphors used in current educational language policy documents specifically examining the ideologies present in policy documents concerning multilingual/culturally and linguistically diverse students and how these ideologies are manifested in text. With the application of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Blommaert and Bulcaen, Annual Review of Anthropology 29(1), 447–466, 2000; Locke, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7(2, Pt.1), 125–134, 1967) and Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) (Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, 2003), the current study investigates US federal (ESSA with guidelines), state (a mid-Western state educational agency’s acts), and local (a mid-Western school district) language policies and how they construe and frame educational reality for multilingual students. Results showcase that the language of recent versions of US federal, state, and local educational policies (2015–2022) still reflects English-dominant ideology and positions bilingualism, not even multilingualism as a disadvantage via such metaphors as bilingualism as problem, bilingualism as danger, language as limitation, language as prison, and language as disability. The study advocates for changes in language policies, including the introduction of terms like “multilingual students” and “culturally and linguistically diverse students,” aiming to further transform attitudes, foster a positive representation, promote language-as-resource orientation, and ultimately increase the academic success of multilingual students within the education system.

Multilingualism: Language Policies and Education

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Alexandra Serbinovskaya

摘要

In US primary and secondary education, language policies have recently been purported to have been changing towards accepting and supporting diversity and multilingualism (e.g., Bond, M. Navigating language policy in state education agencies: English learner reclassification in WIDA states. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2020; Callahan and Hopkins, Journal of School Leadership 27(5):755–766, 2017; Chang-Bacon, Language Policy 21(1):25–46, 2021; Heineke and Davin, Educational Policy 34(4): 619–643, 2020; Fitzsimmons-Doolan, Language Policy 18(2):169–189, 2018; Wright, W. E., & Ricento, T. Language policy and education in the USA. In Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 383–400). Springer International Publishing, 2017). However, the discourse features of the language policies and the metaphors used in them tell a different story. The aim of this research is to investigate the meanings created by the discourse and metaphors used in current educational language policy documents specifically examining the ideologies present in policy documents concerning multilingual/culturally and linguistically diverse students and how these ideologies are manifested in text. With the application of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Blommaert and Bulcaen, Annual Review of Anthropology 29(1), 447–466, 2000; Locke, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7(2, Pt.1), 125–134, 1967) and Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) (Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, 2003), the current study investigates US federal (ESSA with guidelines), state (a mid-Western state educational agency’s acts), and local (a mid-Western school district) language policies and how they construe and frame educational reality for multilingual students. Results showcase that the language of recent versions of US federal, state, and local educational policies (2015–2022) still reflects English-dominant ideology and positions bilingualism, not even multilingualism as a disadvantage via such metaphors as bilingualism as problem, bilingualism as danger, language as limitation, language as prison, and language as disability. The study advocates for changes in language policies, including the introduction of terms like “multilingual students” and “culturally and linguistically diverse students,” aiming to further transform attitudes, foster a positive representation, promote language-as-resource orientation, and ultimately increase the academic success of multilingual students within the education system.