The Weaponizing of Language in the Classroom and Beyond Edited by Kisha C. Bryan and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera Bryan, K., & Pentón Herrera, L. J. (2024). An introduction to the weaponizing of language in the classroom and beyond. In K. Bryan, & L. J. Pentón Herrera (Eds.), The weaponizing of language in the classroom and beyond (pp. 1-11). De Gruyter. Kisha C. Bryan and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera Chapter 1 An introduction to the weaponizing of language in the classroom and beyond Abstract: In this opening chapter, we establish the groundwork for the edited volume by delving into the intricate interplay between language, discourse, and societal change. Here, we underscore the dual nature of language, recognizing its potential both as a force for positive transformation and as a vehicle for harm and marginalization in the classroom and beyond. Utilizing linguistic theories and discourse analysis as our lens, we illustrate how the choices made in the process of communication possess the power to shape perceptions and foster dialogues, impacting social interactions while also potentially perpetuating harm against marginalized individuals and groups. Moreover, we provide a clear definition of language weaponization, or the weaponizing of language, framing our discussions within the parameters of applied linguistics and social sciences. We end the chapter by recording the origins of this edited volume, which provides a backdrop for introducing the subsequent chapters. Keywords: weaponizing of language, language weaponization, language and harm, boarding schools 1 Introduction to the weaponization of language Language1 is present in every single part of our lives. From thoughts to street signs, and spoken or written messages, language is the vehicle our brain uses to understand its surroundings and make sense of the world. In the field of linguistics, language has been described as a technology packaging “knowledge in radically different ways, facilitating certain means of conceptualizing, naming, and discussing the world” (Harrison, 2010, p. 59). As language learners and speakers,  Throughout this manuscript and edited volume, we use the word ‘language’ to refer to all forms of language including verbal and nonverbal, rhetoric, discourse, signs/writing, as well as the language used in media and other outlets, to name a few. Kisha C. Bryan, Tennessee State University Luis Javier Pentón Herrera, Akademia Ekonomiczno-Humanistyczna w Warszawie https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110799521-001 2 Kisha C. Bryan and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera we understand that words carry meaning. When we learn a language, whether it is our first (L1) or additional language (L2), we attach emotions, imagery, and memories to the vocabulary we acquire. For example, if we hear the phrase “pure love,” we may quickly think of someone dear to us, an image representing pure love, or a story that has continuously been portrayed as such (e.g., Romeo and Juliet). Certainly, language is directly connected to human emotions, and the words we use have the power to affect how we act, feel, and understand our existence (Lindquist et al., 2015). Language, as a mechanism with the power to influence the emotions and actions of humans, has been a topic of interest for many years, especially in the social sciences. The past and present works of scholars concerned with justice and equity shed light on how language and discourse are used to promote conflict and discrimination in our societies. For example, in their book, Young et al. (2018), describe political fear as a type of discourse used to gain support by exploiting people’s emotions and anxieties. Political fear is often used by those in positions of power (e.g., “build the wall”) to capitalize on danger and dangerous situations and influence people’s actions through fear. The result is that those affected by political fear replicate this type of discourse through the process of contagion. Discourses such as political fear demonstrate the power that language has in our societies to evoke reactions, garner support in favor of the person/people leading the narrative, and influence how others think and act. By looking at human history, we can learn that language and discourse can be used to both empower or dehumanize groups of people in societies. For centuries, civilizations around the world have witnessed how language is used to exert ethnic dominance while depriving some groups of positive human qualities and opportunities. McConnell-Ginet (2020) shares various examples in her book about the consequences of using language to dehumanize others. From the “genocidal language games” (McConnell-Ginet, 2020, p. 138) of the 1994 Rwandan massacre, to the vilification of those of Japanese descent during World War II-era in the United States, linguistic patterns of dehumanization (i.e., slurs, labels, hate speech, etc.) often emerge as early indicators of escalations of conflict and harm. Further, in a recent article, Pentón Herrera (2022) asserts that throughout history, language has been used to justify the dehumanization of others in three simple steps: (1) beginning the process of dehumanization by assigning labels to groups, (2) solidifying a culture of dehumanization by solidifying a culture that these groups are something (i.e., not human) rather than someone (i.e., human), and (3) engaging in physical harm by hurting and eradicating those groups of people who were dehumanized. In every major event of ethnic domination and racism, we can find language being used as the precursor to physical harm and violence (McConnell–Ginet, 2020; Pentón Herrera, 2022). An example of this is found in apartheid South Africa Chapter 1 An introduction to the weaponizing of language in the classroom and beyond 3 (1948–1990s), where language played a major role in the enforcement of white supremacist policies favoring racial segregation. The laws passed during this period restricted the quality and opportunities of Black people in nearly every social sector, including education, health, and community spaces. In addition, signs were planted throughout the country to set racial boundaries (e.g., Whites area, or For use by white persons, etc.) and to solidify racist fears and attitudes about ‘native’ people, as shown in Figure 1.1. Eventually, linguistic racism and dehumanization paved the way for overt acts of violence to repress, oppress, torture, and kill Black people in South Africa. Pre-apartheid events, which are reminiscent of other race-based segregation events around the world, such as in the United States (De Costa et al., 2022; Weber, 2015), remind us that language is vital to the dissemination of racist, dehumanizing, and divisive ideologies that create societal conflicts, and influence the minds and actions of people (Clyne, 1995; Wenden, 1995). Figure 1.1: Sign in South Africa during Apartheid (1948–1990s). Note: Image retrieved from History.com (https://www.history.com/topics/africa/apartheid#&gid= ci0245618b100025ab&pid=photo-gallery-apartheid-getty-2664162) In the same way, language is used in societies to privilege or harm groups, it is also used in educational institutions at every level. Schools are microcosms of our societies and, as such, the discourse allowed and used in communities naturally 4 Kisha C. Bryan and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera percolates into educational settings. Language weaponization in educational contexts occurs when the majority of the population allows the use of discourse with the purpose of dehumanizing a group of people in the community. Thus, language weaponization in education occurs organically in societies where discourse is already being used to reproduce dehumanization and harm toward groups of people deemed undesired. History shows that language weaponization in education has traditionally resulted in policies and/or practices favoring the monolingualism of the ruling class and, in some cases, forbidding or deeming as less important the language(s) of diverse populations and Indigenous Peoples. One of the most well-recorded reminders of language weaponization in educational contexts is the internment or boarding schools for Indigenous Peoples. These practices of forced colonization in educational settings occurred all around the world, including the Americas, Australia (Perpitch, 2018; Welch, 1988), New Zealand, Scandinavia, Russian Federation, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (Smith, 2009). In most, if not all, of these historical events of internment/boarding schools, a similar pattern occurred: Indigenous children were forcefully taken away from their parents to be colonized into the morality of the ruling group, usually the white man and the white culture (Smith, 2009; Welch, 1988). Missionaries (e.g., Catholics, Christians, Lutherans) indoctrinated children into forced Christianity (i.e., forced evangelization), punished the use of Indigenous languages inside of school, and imposed the colonial language, perpetuating a monolingual mindset and promoting the erasure of Indigenous cultures, traditions, and languages (Lomawaima, 1994; Smith, 2009). It has been recorded that Indigenous children at these schools were often used as display or living exhibits to the white public (Fear-Segal, 2010), and were also victims of physical and sexual abuse. Many Indigenous children around the world died in internment/boarding schools due to poor sanitary and physical conditions (Dawson, 2012; Smith, 2009). Figure 1.2 shows an image of Catholic nuns and Mapuche children in a historical event known as “La campaña al desierto” (Campaign to the Desert), in which the Argentine military sought to establish dominance over the Patagonian Desert and its Indigenous Peoples, the Mapuche. The figure has written on it: “¿Dónde estás nuestrxs desaparecidxs de ‘La Campaña al Desierto?’ Nunca más van a ocultar este genocidio.” (Where are our missing from ‘The Campaign to the Desert?’ They [the colonizers] will never hide this genocide again). Figure 1.3 shows an image of the Qu’Appelle Indian Residential School, in Saskatchewan, Canada, circa 1885, where Indigenous parents camped outside of the gates of the school to visit their children since they were forbidden by law to remove their children from the school. Chapter 1 An introduction to the weaponizing of language in the classroom and beyond 5 Figure 1.2: Mapuche children in forceful evangelization. Note: Image retrieved from Mapuchememe: (https://www.facebook.com/mapumemes/photos/a. 113723863579879/119154933036772/?type=3&theater) 2 What do we mean by language weaponization? The field of applied linguistics has been interested in exploring the effects of language all around the world. From this interest, different fields, such as critical discourse studies (CDS), language ideologies, linguistic racism, and more recently, raciolinguistics, have emerged to explore how language can be used to benefit or harm individuals and societies. Each of these fields, however, approaches the conversation of language, social justice, and inequality in society from different, albeit 6 Kisha C. Bryan and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera Figure 1.3: Indigenous parents camping outside of the gates of Qu’Appelle Indian Residential School. Note: Image retrieved from Library and Archives Canada: (https://data2.archives.ca/ap/a/ a182246.jpg) related, standpoints. For example, the field of critical discourse studies has largely focused on “the substantively linguistic and discursive nature of social relations of power in contemporary societies” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997, p. 272). As such, scholars in the field of CDS have looked at how discourse controls, influences, and shapes contemporary society (Krzyżanowski & Forchtner, 2016). On the other hand, the field of language ideologies has been interested in conceptualizations about discursive practices in specific cultures and contexts. More specifically, scholars in the field of language ideologies have been interested in exploring the role of language in moral interests, political discourses, and the connection between language and inequality (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994). In this edited volume, we use the term language weaponization—or the weaponization of language—to describe the process in which words, discourse, and language in any form have been used/are being used to inflict harm on others (Bryan & Gerald, 2020; Pascale, 2019; Rafael, 2016). In this definition, the term harm is of vital importance because it refers to how minoritized individuals, as well as their cultures and languages, are affected by ideologies and practices that normalize inequity and injustice in their environments. Further, we are interested in advancing the knowledge of how language weaponization affects the well-being of individuals and communities (i.e., people’s quality of life, health, and happiness, opportunities), perpetuating inequality and injustice in society. Chapter 1 An introduction to the weaponizing of language in the classroom and beyond 7 This definition arises from our awareness that language is a human-made social and political object (Otheguy et al., 2015), and factor (Wenden, 1995), that has been used to (re)position the prestige, prominence, and realities of groups of people and events in society. From this standpoint, language can also be viewed as a form of currency benefiting those in positions of power leading the narrative, and influencing the minds and lives of the community. 3 Origins and overview of this volume The idea for this project emerged from a 2021 collaborative panel presented at the TESOL International Association organized by Dr. Anita Bright, Dr. Anastasia J. Khawaja, and Ms. Liana Smith. In this panel titled Weaponizing language: Making counternarratives the new narratives for the marginalized, each of the panelists explored the ramifications of language use and narratives in societies around the world. From this initial collaboration, a second collaboration was organized by Dr. Anita Bright for the 2021 Language Education for Social Justice Conference in Applied Language Studies in Finland. This colloquium, titled Words as weapons in the US and Palestine: Towards restoration and reconciliation, explored the weaponization of language in the US and Palestinian contexts, calling for a reversal of damaging narratives, and for a dismantling of systematic, hierarchical oppressions which control language. After these initial panels, we (Kisha and Luis) proposed to continue this conversation in a different space, resulting in this edited volume. The chapters included in this edited volume were carefully selected after we disseminated a Call for Proposals welcoming abstracts from scholars from around the world interested in exploring the weaponizing of language in education and beyond. As such, the authors and contributions included in this edited volume broadly represent the fields of applied linguistics and language education, and explore the weaponization of language in education in the contexts of Benin, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, Kenya, Botswana, and the United States. Thus, the geocultural coverage of this edited book primarily includes the United States (including Puerto Rico), the Caribbean (Trinidad and Tobago), Asia (Taiwan), and Africa (Kenya, Benin, and Botswana), with a primary focus on English, including Trinidadian English Creole and African-American Vernacular English, Spanish languages, Haitian Creole, French, and the languages of Benin, Botswana, and Kenya. Inspired by our previous work on language weaponization (see Pentón Herrera & Bryan, 2022), we expand our conversation on the use of languages as weapons in this edited volume. Our purpose with this edited book is to provide an 8 Kisha C. Bryan and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera international scholarly platform where we can continue advancing the knowledge of how language has been—and continues to be—weaponized in societies, and foment its relationship to social justice. Furthermore, in this edited volume, we hope to explore the growing conversation of how language use and weaponization directly affect (both positively and negatively) the well-being of individuals —a topic still limited in scholarly conversations. For this chapter, Chapter 1, our goal is to provide a broad overview of language weaponization so as to set the stage for this volume that spans geographical contexts. In Chapter 2, Abu Saleh Mohammad Rafi employs an autobiographical approach to examine the ways that Bangladeshi English departments promote Anglo-normative practices by weaponizing the English language. He further highlights the ways in which teachers and students in Bangladesh are affected by the linguistic, cultural, and ideological dimensions of weaponization. Utilizing a collaborative autoethnographic approach, Ming-Hsuan Wu, Ching-Ching Lin, MingYao Hsiung, and Po-Hui Min explore in Chapter 3 the rollout of Taiwan’s Bilingual 2030 Policy and the neoliberalist discourse that has been weaponized to mobilize public support for or against the policy. The authors discuss how they have navigated and resisted the discourses of neoliberal educational reform, describing how they create opportunities for student empowerment that successfully challenges and rejects oppressive and weaponized language policies and/or educational reform. In Chapter 4, Kisha C. Bryan, Susan Githua, Daphne Germain, Raouf Mama, and Renee Figuera discuss the legacy of colonization and racism from West Africa to the United States to the islands of the Caribbean, reflecting on the linguistic, social, economic, and cultural price that Blacks across the African diaspora have paid. They critique the role of racism, colonization, and standard language ideologies in their personal, social, and professional lives in the United States, Kenya, Benin, and Trinidad. Chapter 4 concludes with a discussion of the common characteristics of linguistic violence across the diaspora and a call to action for policymakers, educational and civil rights leaders. Xinyue Zuo and Denise Ives highlight the interpretive nature of discourse in Chapter 5. Through a pragmatic perspective, they examine the speech acts of an instructor’s utterance “that’s easy!” and students’ interpretations and responses, alongside the interrelations between language, identity, and power. They show the importance of raising higher education practitioners’ awareness of pragmatic competence and microaggression, and identifying feasible solutions to minimize communication conflicts. An interrogation of how interventions against homophobic slurs in Puerto Rico are thought of and understood by gay teachers is the focus of Chapter 6. In this chapter, Gabriel Acevedo employs a dual critical discourse analysis-narrative framework to highlight and critique discourses that show gay Puerto Rican teachers’ understanding of their relationship with Pato y Chapter 1 An introduction to the weaponizing of language in the classroom and beyond 9 and Maricón (i.e., homophobic slurs in Spanish), their expressed interventions, and their lack thereof. He highlights both the experiences of addressing homophobic language and the permissive attitudes that assault gay students’ and teachers’ identities to go unchecked. In Chapter 7, Andersen Chebanne and Kemmonya Monaka share the situation that has led to the predominance and weaponization of Setswana in the Botswanan context. This chapter takes the view that the actions of the state (i.e., the elevation of English and Setswana above minoritized Indigenous languages) are a form of weaponization as they are undemocratic, oppressive, and violate the language and cultural rights of a sizable portion of the population. Ethnic groups whose languages are marginalized quickly get assimilated, leading to acute language and ethnic endangerment across Botswana. In Chapter 8, Jason Kemp explores language weaponization in U.S. classrooms in which Spanish is the language of communication. He argues that ideologies and practices that frame students and their Spanish as deficient or broken are harmful, and they ignore the rich cultural knowledge and linguistic practices Spanish-speaking Latinx students bring to the classroom. After providing a history of linguistic violence in U.S. schools, Kemp concludes that educators at all levels of instruction should strive to reduce harm by employing humanizing pedagogies that uplift students’ languaging practices. Continuing with the U.S. context, Burcu Ates and Benita Brooks, contend that book banning is a form of language weaponization in Chapter 9. They utilize critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995) to examine how supporters of banned books have used Pascale’s (2019) four interlocking components of weaponized language to have books removed from school libraries and curricula to serve their own personal, social, and political agendas. Ates and Brooks provide implications for students, school staff, teacher education programs, and community partners to continue the fight against book banning. In Chapter 10, Sandra Descourtis addresses the perceptions and use of slang (e.g., verlan and argot) by undergraduate students in the U.S. who are learning French. Online surveys and interviews reveal that students’ perceptions of French slang are influenced by their primary language and by French language clichés. The findings of the study suggest that although students feel it important to learn formal and informal varieties of French, standard language ideologies, perpetuated by society, institutions, and media, have served as weapons to stigmatize French slang users and discourage learners from acquiring those less formal, but equally important French language varieties. In the final chapter, Chapter 11, Juan A. Ríos Vega argues that the language of weaponization in teacher education programs results in pre-service and in-service teachers not being as prepared to teach students of color, especially English language learners (ELLs). As such, the author encourages teacher educators, pre-and in-service teachers, and school ad- 10 Kisha C. Bryan and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera ministrators to treat students of color as cultural and linguistic assets in the classroom. Ríos Vega concludes that chapter with his reflection on education as “an ethic of love.” References Bryan, Kisha C., & J. P. B. Gerald. 2020. The weaponization of English. Language Magazine, 1–8. https://www.languagemagazine.com/2020/08/17/the-weaponization-of-english/ Clyne, Michael. 1995. Establishing linguistic markers of racist discourse. In Christina Schäffner & Anita L. Wenden (eds.), Language and peace, 111–118. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. De Costa, Peter I., Lee Her & Vashti Lee. 2022. Weaponizing and de-weaponizing antiracist discourse: Some things for language educators to consider. International Journal of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education 2. 98–107. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijlcle.v2iMay.34393 Dawson, Alexander S. 2012. Histories and memories of the Indian Boarding schools in Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Latin American Perspectives 39(5). 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0094582X12447274 Fairclough, Norman &Ruth Wodak. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In Teun A. Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as a social interaction, 258–284. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Fear-Segal, Jacqueline. 2010. Institutional death and ceremonial healing far from home: The Carlisle Indian school cemetery. Museum Anthropology 33(2). 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1379. 2010.01093.x Harrison, K. David. 2010. The last speakers. The quest to save the world’s most endangered languages. Washington D.C.: National Geographic. Krzyżanowski, Michał, & Berhard Forchtner. 2016. Theories and concepts in critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society 27(3). 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630900 Lomawaima, K. Tsianina. 1994. They called it prairie light. The story of Chilocco Indian school. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Lindquist, Kristen A., Jennifer K. MacCormack, & Holly Shablack. 2015. The role of language in emotion: Predictions from psychological construction. Frontiers in Psychology 6(444). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00444 McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2020. Words matter. Meaning and power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Otheguy, Ricardo, Ofelia García, & Wallis Reid. 2015. Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing names languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6(3). 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014 Pascale, Celine-Marie. 2019. The weaponization of language: Discourses of rising right-wing authoritarianism. Current Sociology Review 67(6). 898–917. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0011392119869963 Pentón Herrera, Luis Javier. 2022. Is the language you teach racist? Reflections and considerations for English and Spanish (teacher) educators. International Journal of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education 2. 58–70. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijlcle.v2iMay.34390 Chapter 1 An introduction to the weaponizing of language in the classroom and beyond 11 Pentón Herrera, Luis Javier & Kisha C. Bryan. 2022. Language weaponization in society and education: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education 2. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijlcle.v2iMay.34380 Perpitch, Nicolas. 2018. A journey into ‘hell on Earth’. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/201805-26/moore-river-aboriginal-settlement-journey-into-hell-on-earth/9790658?nw=0 Rafael, Vicente L. 2016. Motherless tongues: The insurgency of language amid wars of translation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Smith, Andrea. 2009. Indigenous Peoples and boarding schools: A comparative study. Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Weber, Jean-Jacques. 2015. Language racism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Welch, A. R. 1988. Aboriginal education as internal colonialism: The schooling of an Indigenous minority in Australia. Comparative Education 24(2). 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0305006880240205 Wenden, Anita L. 1995. Critical language education. In Christina Schäffner & Anita L. Wenden (eds.), Language and peace, 211–227. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Woolard, Kathryn, A., & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1994. Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23. 55–82. Young, Lynne, Michael Fitzgerald & Saira Fitzgerald. 2018. The power of language: How discourse influences society (2nd ed.). UK: Equinox Publishing.