Mark C Lewis

A major assumption of critical applied linguistics has been that changing the language attitudes of individual teachers will lead to the development of more linguistically responsive classrooms. Yet, despite decades of such efforts, linguistically responsive classrooms remain the exception rather than the norm. As an explanation for this lack of progress, we propose a raciolinguistic chronotope perspective that brings attention to the broader socio-historical processes that shape the institutional listening subject position teachers inhabit in relation to their students. We apply this raciolinguistic chronotope perspective to classroom interactions collected as part of a multi-year ethnographic study of a bilingual charter school. We end with implications of this raciolinguistic chronotope perspective for re-conceptualizing interventions focused on developing linguistically responsive classrooms. A major project of critical applied linguistics has been to work with teachers to challenge dominant language ideologies in the hope that changes in teachers' attitudes toward minoritized language practices would lead to changes in their teaching practices (Charity-. Yet, despite decades of such work with teachers, the types of linguistically responsive classrooms critical applied linguists seek to promote continue to be the exception rather than the norm. In this article we offer an explanation for why critical applied linguists have not had the systematic impact on mainstream schooling that many of us had hoped for. In particular, we challenge a major assumption at the core of this workdthat changing the language attitudes of individual teachers will lead to the fundamental transformation of schooling. Specifically, we point to the ways that raciolinguistic ideologies (Flores and Rosa, 2015) that circulate in the broader society connect racialized communities with particular linguistic models of personhood (Wortham et al., 2009) that describe them as linguistically deficient and in need of remediation because of supposed verbal deprivation (Bereiter and Engelmann, 1966), a word gap (Hart and Risley, 1995), or other linguistic deficiencies (Valencia, 2010). This model of personhood shapes how the language practices of these communities are heard and taken up by their interlocutors. In schools this can come in the form of teachers correcting racialized students for engaging in language practices that are unmarked when used by white students (Alim, 2007), schools treating the bilin-gualism of racialized students as a liability that needs remediation while treating the bilingualism of white students as an asset (Valdés, 1997), or teachers celebrating rhetorical styles that deviate from conventions for published white authors while

Sociolinguists have always been leaders in advocating for the legitimacy of all language practices. Recently, sociolinguists have begun to question whether frameworks that have historically been used as part of this advocacy are adequate for describing the language practices that have emerged as part of contemporary globalization. Some scholars have proposed super-diversity as an umbrella term to unite the project of developing a new sociolinguistics of globalization. Though we are sympathetic to the goals of developing new tools for sociolinguistic inquiry, we point to three limitations of the super-diversity literature: (a) its ahistorical outlook; (b) its lack of attention to neoliberalism; and (c) its inadvertent reification of normative assumptions about language. We suggest the concept of sociopolitical emergence as an approach to sociolinguistic research that adopts insights offered by the super-diversity literature while explicitly addressing these limitations. To illustrate this approach, we consider the case of a hypersegregated Spanish/English dual-language charter school in Philadelphia. This case study begins by situating the school within the history of Latinos in the United States and Philadelphia as well as within the contemporary neoliberal political economy. We then analyze emergent linguistic practices and emergent linguistic categories that have been produced within this historical and contemporary context in ways that resist the reification of normative assumptions about language.