Bringing Race into Second Language Acquisition

Bringing Race Into Second Language Acquisition NELSON FLORES1 and JONATHAN ROSA2 University of Pennsylvania, Educational Linguistics Division, Graduate School of Education, 3700 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104 Email: nflores@upenn.edu 2 Stanford University, Graduate School of Education, Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305 Email: jdrosa@stanford.edu 1 RECENTLY, SEVERAL NEWS ARTICLES WERE published celebrating the bilingualism of Princess Charlotte, the young daughter of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. A headline from Independent noted, “Princess Charlotte is already bilingual at age two,” with the author insisting that this was “a skill most people cannot claim” and that she “can’t help but feel inferior” (Ritschel, 2018). In a similar vein, a headline from Harper’s Bazaar reported “Princess Charlotte may have just started nursery but can already speak two languages” (Fowler, 2018). As scholars who study the intersections of language, race, and social class we cannot help but be struck by the vast differences in the ways that the bilingualism of Princess Charlotte has been discussed versus the ways that it is typically discussed when associated with lowincome students from racialized backgrounds. In our experience as U.S. educators, we have typically heard low-income bilingual students from racialized backgrounds framed as “English learners” (ELs) who pose a challenge for public schools. This also appears to be the case in the United Kingdom, with a Guardian article reporting that English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) children are typically placed in intensive English interventions classes focused on basic communication skills before being integrated with their classmates (Morrison, 2014). Based on this remedial framing, the increasing number of low-income bilingual students from racialized backgrounds is typically met with alarm The Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019) DOI: 10.1111/modl.12523 0026-7902/19/145–151 $1.50/0  C National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations rather than celebration. Far from being represented as bilingual children who give successful reporters an inferiority complex, as is the case with Princess Charlotte, these students are framed as a problem requiring a policy solution. This narrative has become so normalized in policy debates that it almost seems absurd to question its reality. Yet, there is nothing inevitable about this policy framing. Instead, it reflects a particular genre of difference—one that frames particular forms of linguistic diversity as an inherent and increasing problem that must be solved (Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006). Framing linguistic diversity as an inherent problem overlooks the fact that there are alternative circulating narratives pertaining to linguistic diversity that exist in contemporary societies. As Ortega (2019, this issue) alludes to in her commentary, contexts of elite multilingualism, as is the case for Princess Charlotte, become spaces in which linguistic diversity is positively valorized. We concur with Ortega’s point that research in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) would greatly benefit from a more comprehensive focus on minoritized multilingualism that, at least in the English-speaking world, tends to be framed around discussions of ELs and EALs. Building on her argument, our assertion is that engaging with work that focuses on race and racialization, in particular, can provide insights that call into question many of the key concepts in the field. In the rest of this commentary we examine what centering the experiences of racialized communities within the field of SLA might look like. Engagement with the subfields of applied linguistics focused on bilingual education pedagogy and practice in immigrant and indigenous communities provides an important first step in this effort. Work that seeks to center the perspectives 146 of minoritized multilingualism in these subfields dates back to at least the 1970s. Typically, this minoritized multilingualism has been understood through the heuristic of subtractive versus additive forms of language learning. Lambert (1975) proposed the term subtractive bilingualism to describe the language attrition experienced by minoritized communities living in a society where their home language did not have official recognition. He contrasted subtractive bilingualism with additive bilingualism that typically characterized contexts of elite multilingualism where children learned an additional language with no threat to their home languages. As an advocate for minoritized communities, he promoted bilingual education programs that would ensure that minoritized children had access to additive bilingualism where they learned the dominant language while maintaining their home language. While sympathetic to the goals of additive bilingualism, we have raised questions about the ways that additive bilingualism as a theory of social transformation fails to account for the impact of racialization processes in the United States and around the world. In particular, we argue that additive bilingualism fails to account for the raciolinguistic ideologies that connect the language practices of racialized communities with deficient linguistic models of personhood such that language practices that would be unmarked or even celebrated if used by affluent white speakers are marked as inappropriate and in need of correcting when used by low-income students from racialized backgrounds (Flores & Rosa, 2015). The case of Princess Charlotte versus low-income students from racialized backgrounds entering nursery school provides a perfect illustration of one such raciolinguistic ideology. In the case of Princess Charlotte, her bilingualism was seen as inherently valuable and something worth celebrating. In the case of the majority of low-income bilingual students from racialized backgrounds entering nursery school, their bilingualism is typically seen as a challenge that must be overcome. The ostensibly same linguistic practice (in this case bilingualism) is framed in vastly disparate ways based on the social status of the speaker. From a raciolinguistic perspective it is, therefore, insufficient to promote additive bilingualism without also recognizing that regardless of how additive the bilingualism of low-income students from racialized backgrounds may be, their linguistic expertise has not been valued in the same way as that of those developing their expertise in contexts of elite multilingualism and, without broader institutional transformation, will The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019 continue to be framed as a problem that needs remediation. The Douglas Fir Group (2016) framework offers a point of entry into beginning to theorize this raciolinguistic perspective. The framework acknowledges that “depending on their ascribed race, ethnicity, gender, or social class, some L2 learners may find that the opportunities they have access to for language learning and for participation in their communities are limited or constrained by the ways in which they are positioned by others, while other L2 learners may find their opportunities to be abundant and unbounded” (p. 32). Here, the framework recognizes the ways that one’s social status within the broader society can promote or hinder one’s participation in the language classroom. Yet, we have some concerns with the solution proposed to promote more equitable participation. Specifically, the framework suggests the solution is for L2 learners “to refashion their relationships with others by taking on alternative identities—for instance, by moving from being considered ‘low-value’ immigrant laborers to being valued colleagues” (p. 33). Our concern with this solution is twofold. First, it places the onus on racialized people to undo their own oppression while presupposing that their efforts to inhabit new identity positions will be recognized as such by the listener. Second, it also takes for granted that the incorporation of racialized populations into mainstream institutions as “valued colleagues” will inherently promote more equity. Yet, as with many projects of inclusion, it might inadvertently reproduce the fundamental societal structures in which such stigmatization is anchored rather than unsettling them. In particular, in the context of a liberal multicultural politics of recognition, the establishment of marginalized populations’ legitimacy within existing societal orders as “valued colleagues” is precisely the modality through which hierarchies of power are reproduced (Povinelli, 2002). These “valued colleagues” can be framed as “exceptional” and “not like the others” who continue to be framed as “low value” and perhaps even deserving of this “low value” because of lack of effort or motivation. We are not suggesting an absolute dichotomy between institutional inclusion as “valued colleagues” and societal transformation— indeed the two can potentially co-articulate. However, our concern is that too often the former is equated with the latter in ways that reify existing power structures (Ahmed, 2012). With this in mind, we propose a shift from focusing SLA research on the language practices of the racialized speaking subject toward the uptake Nelson Flores and Jonathan Rosa of the white listening subject. This shift from the speaker to the listener aligns well with Ortega’s call for a “radical performative ideology of language [that] suggests that meaning-making can often be seen in the interstices between speaker intentions and the responses of interlocutors” (p. 30). Ortega’s crucial point resonates deeply with Inoue’s (2006) theorization of the listening subject as a historically, politically, and economically constituted situated subject position that can produce stigmatizing perceptions of marked populations’ language practices. A raciolinguistic perspective builds from these insights by considering how language users’ intentions may be over-determined as inappropriate or inadequate by their interlocutors because of their racialized position. This provides more context for Larsen–Freeman’s (2019, this issue) contention that “there is, in fact, no linguistic basis for distinguishing a linguistic innovation from an error” (p. 72). While Larsen–Freeman emphasizes the important role a speaker might play in disrupting understanding of what constitutes an error, a raciolinguistic perspective emphasizes the fact that in a society shaped by racialized hierarchies, the language practices of racialized speakers are much more likely to be framed as errors rather than innovations. Much in the way that Fanon (1952) long ago asserted “the fact of blackness” (p. 109, the title of Chapter 5) as the racialized subject’s ontological predicament of being made to exist in advance of one’s self—of being always already constituted as Other and deficient—we must interrogate the ways in which perceptions of linguistic differences and deficiencies are rooted in these racialized dynamics. As Larsen–Freeman incisively notes, many such linguistic perceptions are conclusions in search of evidence rather than straightforward reflections of racialized populations’ practices. This point was made poignantly by Lu (1994) who contrasted the ways that deviations from conventions are analyzed in published texts used in composition classrooms with the ways that deviations from conventions are typically taken up by composition teachers when evaluating the work of their students. These differences are even more stark for racialized students whose language practices are more heavily policed than those of their white counterparts. Importantly, this is true for both bilingual and monolingual students, including many African American students who are over-determined as linguistically deficient even when engaging in language practices that would likely be deemed quite normative if used by white speaking subjects (Alim, 2007). Indeed, this phe- 147 nomenon is also true for many racialized teachers of English, even those who would typically be considered native speakers of English, who often experience racist microaggressions that question their nativeness and seek to monitor and police their language practices (Ramjattan, 2017). It is our contention that these raciolinguistic ideologies cannot be undone solely through efforts to incorporate racialized populations into mainstream institutions as “valued colleagues.” Instead, they can only be undone through structural change that dismantles the white supremacy that lies at the foundation of these institutions, thereby allowing agents of these institutions to inhabit new listening subject positions that resist raciolinguistic policing (Flores, Lewis, & Phuong, 2018). Our focus on the need for structural change has often made us suspicious of cognitive framings of language that have predominated the field of SLA. This is because, at least in the case of the United States, cognitive framings of bilingualism served to de-politicize struggles for bilingual education by shifting the focus away from political struggle toward fixing the supposed deficiencies of racialized bilingual students (Flores, 2016). That said, embodied cognition offers a point of entry for theorizing the role of raciolinguistic ideologies in shaping cognitive processes. According to Ellis (2019, this issue), embodied cognition posits that “much of cognition is shaped by this body we inhabit,” which is shaped by “the assumptions about the world that become built into the organism as a result of repeated experience” (p. 41). From a raciolinguistic perspective, one repeated experience that shapes the cognitive processes of all people is the legacy of colonialism that continues to inform contemporary ways of thinking and knowing. Indeed, raciolinguistic ideologies have played an integral role in dehumanizing racialized communities since the early days of European colonialism. While these ideologies have been reconfigured throughout the centuries, the underlying framing has remained the same—there is something inherently deficient about the language practices of racialized communities that make them inferior to the unmarked white norm (Rosa & Flores, 2017). In this sense, we approach embodiment as a deceptive phenomenon rooted in a metaphysics of presence that positions bodies and their perceived practices as self-evident rather than phenomena constituted by historical formations of power. Building on feminist of color theorizations of enfleshment and embodiment, we conceptualize the body as a site where the human is demarcated in systematically exclusionary ways 148 along lines of race and gender on the one hand (Spillers, 1987; Weheliye, 2014; Wynter, 2003), and as a location for the enactment of counterhegemonic forms of theory in the flesh, embodied knowledge, and modes of shapeshifting that challenge conventional assumptions about knowing and being on the other (Cox, 2015; Moraga & Anzaldúa, 1983). The point here is that attention to embodiment is not a straightforward way in which to overcome the limitations of apolitical cognitive approaches within SLA. While the body is certainly a site of politics, it is crucial to attend to the ways in which particular bodies are positioned in relation to perceived linguistic practices. Combining these theorizations of the body with the concept of embodied cognition, it is our contention that raciolinguistic ideologies have become what Hall (2019, this issue) refers to as conventionalized meanings that are understood to be objective facts when, in reality, they are a product of European colonialism and its continuing legacy in the present. These conventionalized meanings lead to the emergence of particular affordances for white speaking subjects that are not afforded to racialized speaking subjects. Specifically, white speaking subjects are afforded the opportunity to engage in language practices that are unmarked or even celebrated while racialized speaking subjects are policed for engaging in similar language practices. Importantly, these raciolinguistic ideologies are not the sole product of individuals who hold racist ideas. Instead, they are products of a long history of colonial discourses that have become entrenched in mainstream institutions and must be negotiated by people as they navigate these institutions and their interpersonal relationships within them. This point is consistent with the view of agency promoted by the Douglas Fir Group (2016) that conceptualizes it as relational and emergent and not inhering in any one individual. Merging Larsen–Freeman’s (2019, this issue) point that “agency is influenced by the past, engagement with the present, and orientation to the future” (p. 66) with a raciolinguistic perspective, we propose raciolinguistic chronotopes (Rosa, 2016) as a point of entry for examining the intersection of language, race, and colonialism in shaping agency. Recent scholarship in linguistic anthropology and related fields has reinvigorated the Bakhtinian notion of “chronotope” or timespace (Bakhtin, 1981; also Agha, 2007; Silverstein, 2005), inspiring researchers to investigate event configurations linking imagined pasts, presents, and futures, as well as spatial heres, theres, and The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019 elsewheres (Bauman & Briggs, 2003; Dick, 2010; Lo & Kim, 2011). Importantly, a raciolinguistic perspective demonstrates how race can organize the imagination of particular language practices in relation to specific times and places. Flores et al. (2018) use a case study of a U.S. bilingual school serving a primarily low-income Latinx student population as a point of entry for theorizing agency from this perspective. They analyze the ways that a chronotope of resistance that positions Spanish as part of the past, present, and future of the Latinx community allowed for the emergence of language practices in the school that normalize bilingualism. In contrast, they also illustrate the ways that a chronotope of anxiety that imagined a future where the students would experience raciolinguistic policing led teachers to engage in their own policing of the students’ language practices. Importantly, neither the normalization of bilingualism nor the policing of students’ language practices emerged from the individual attitudes of teachers. Instead, they were both products of a long history of political struggle and oppression that made the emergence of particular language practices possible. They concluded that efforts to affirm the language practices of racialized students must be situated within broader political struggles that can lead to new institutional listening positions for teachers to inhabit that will afford more possibilities for normalizing bilingualism. In this way, as Hall (2019, this issue) suggests, agency is not understood in terms of agents of free will but as sedimented social knowledge that can be transformed over time. These insights regarding the contested nature of agency can be brought to bear on approaches to the enactment of identity in experiences of language learning. This is evident in LaScotte & Tarone’s (2019, this issue) analysis of the ways “the speaker agentively shifts from one internalized ‘voice’ or social identity to another” (p. 96). LaScotte and Tarone note that “voices that are associated with particular people can be vividly remembered as sociolinguistic features that express more than just words but also identities associated with distinct personalities, bundled into constellations of words, intonations, nonverbals, emotions, opinions, and biases” (p. 98). They draw on the Bakhtinian notion of heteroglossia to understand how the English learners in their study produced more ‘fluency’ and grammatical ‘accuracy’ when narratively invoking characters other than themselves. LaScotte and Tarone make the powerful point that these kinds of heteroglossic language practices are not typically included in assessments of the proficiency of students designated as Nelson Flores and Jonathan Rosa language learners, thereby obscuring these learners’ abilities. However, we must take seriously Bakhtin’s key insight that heteroglossia is not simply a characteristic of some language use perceived as particularly dexterous or complex, but rather a fundamental characteristic of all language use. Thus, we might ask how particular linguistic features become enregistered as signs of fluency, accuracy, and complexity when all language use is inherently heteroglossic. Specifically, the notion of raciolinguistic enregisterment challenges us to understand how race has played a key role in bundling together linguistic features as sets associated with particular models of personhood, such that we expect a person identified in a particular way to produce those features or we come to assign identities based on the perception of those features (Rosa, 2018). These processes can have important implications for SLA research. Indeed, while we join Ellis in suggesting that we must develop new transdisciplinary perspectives on processes of language learning, we are wary of the ways that positivist approaches to transcription and the promotion of ‘big data’ associated with longitudinal study position language as a phenomenon that can be perceived, represented, and analyzed in objective ways. Whether we take into account the politics of transcription (Bucholtz, 2000) or the ways in which big data purport to create new insights while reproducing existing narratives (Reyes, 2014), it is important to continually interrogate how particular language practices are ideologically constructed as signs of particular identities with particular institutional consequences. This points to a bigger question for SLA and indeed the entire field of applied linguistics— namely how the field has been and continues to be complicit in the production of raciolinguistic ideologies. The Douglas Fir Group (2016) alludes to this point in its acknowledgment that many of the concepts in the field are “encumbered by deficit ideologies” (p. 21) and the challenges that the group confronted in engaging with the existing literature without reproducing these deficit ideologies. In a similar vein, Ortega’s acknowledgment of what she terms the “monolingual bias” that has favored contexts of elite multilingualism over contexts of minoritized multilingualism provides further evidence of the culpability of the field in marginalizing racialized communities. We wholeheartedly support efforts by the Douglas Fir Group to challenge deficitoriented terminology as well as Ortega’s call for more research focused on contexts of minori- 149 tized multilingualism. We would add the need for more research on African Americans and other racialized students who are often positioned as monolingual and whose racialized position undoubtedly affects their second language learning though there is little research to date examining the unique circumstances of these populations (Anya, 2016). Yet, a raciolinguistic perspective pushes us to move beyond issues of terminology and research focus to reflect on the SLA listening subject. For example, the Douglas Fir Group’s (2016) statement relies on discussions of “richer” and “more complex” in their description of particular language practices: “The greater the number and diversity of contexts and interactions within and across social interactions that L2 learners gain and are given access to and are motivated to participate in, the richer and more linguistically diverse their evolving semiotic resources will be” (p. 27). The Group elaborates on this point later suggesting that “The more extensive, complex, and multilingual the contexts of interaction become over time, and the more enduring learners’ participation is in them, the more complex and enduring their multilingual repertoires will be” (p. 29). This begs the question, how is complexity being conceptualized? Who is determining what is more or less complex? How is richer being conceptualized? Who is determining what is richer? These are important questions to consider in light of the fact that since the early days of European colonialism the language practices of racialized communities were considered less complex and less rich and have been continually framed as such through deficit-oriented discourses including the supposed 30-million-word gap that suggests low-income children of color come from homes that are verbally deprived (Hart & Risley, 1995). Indeed, even reliance on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory must be questioned since, as Ellis notes, this theory was integral to the formation of Head Start in 1965. While it certainly had positive effects on the primarily low-income students from racialized backgrounds and their families who participated in it, Head Start was developed through deficit frameworks associated with a so-called “culture of poverty.” The notion of a “culture of poverty” emerged from the assumption that the root of social inequalities was in supposed cultural and linguistic deficiencies of racialized communities of color rather than the structural barriers confronting these communities after generations of racial oppression (Pearl, 1997). We are not suggesting that this requires an 150 abandonment of Bronfenbrenner’s framework, but rather that this historical legacy must be confronted and accounted for in any contemporary efforts to utilize the framework to promote racial equity. As scholars who focus our research on the intersections of language and race in education, we are inspired by the Douglas Fir Group’s move toward bringing a transdisciplinary perspective to issues of language learning. We believe that such a perspective allows the opportunity to bring viewpoints into the field that have previously been at best ignored and at worst actively resisted. While we recognize that insights from scholarship on race and racialization may not always sit well with conventional approaches to second language acquisition, we are confident that grappling with the tensions between these points of view will lead to productive conversations and new insights regarding how best to position SLA as a field working to promote equity and challenge institutionalized racism. We are excited about the ways in which the ongoing work of the Douglas Fir Group can contribute to broader political projects geared toward dismantling these structures of oppression. REFERENCES Agha, A. (2007). Recombinant selves in mass mediated spacetime. Language & Communication, 27, 320– 335. Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Alim, H. S. (2007). Critical hip-hop language pedagogies: Combat, consciousness, and the cultural politics of communication. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6, 161–176. Anya, U. (2016). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking blackness in Brazil. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Bakhtin, M. (1981). Forms of time and of the chronotope in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), C. Emerson & M. Holquist (trans.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 84–258). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. (2003). Voices of modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1439–1465. Cox, A. (2015). Shapeshifters: Black girls and the choreography of citizenship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Dick, H. (2010). Imagined lives and modernist chronotopes in Mexican nonmigrant discourse. American Ethnologist, 37, 275–290. The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019 Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100 (Supplement 2016), 19–47. Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 39–60. Fanon, F. (1952). Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove Press. Flores, N., (2016). A tale of two visions: Hegemonic whiteness and bilingual education. Educational Policy, 30, 13–38. Flores, N., Lewis, M., & Phuong, J. (2018). Raciolinguistic chronotopes and the education of Latinx students: Resistance and anxiety in a bilingual school. Language and Communication, 62, 15–25. Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 149– 171. Fowler, D. (2018). Princess Charlotte may have just started nursery school but can already speak two languages. Harper’s Bazaar. Accessed 9 July 2018 at https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/ culture-news/a15153245/princess-charlotte-bilin gual-spanish-nursery-nanny/ Gutiérrez, K., & Orellana, M. (2006). The “problem” of English learners: Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 502– 507. Hall, J. K. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to a usage-based understanding of language: Expanding the transdisciplinary framework. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 80–94. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful difference in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company. Inoue, M. (2006). Vicarious language: Gender and linguistic modernity in Japan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lambert, W. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students (pp. 55–83). Toronto: O.I.S.E. Larsen–Freeman, D. (2019). On language learner agency: A Complex Dynamic Systems Theory perspective. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 61–79. LaScotte, D., & Tarone, E. (2019). Heteroglossia and constructed dialogue in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 95–112. Lo, A., & Kim, A. (2011). Manufacturing citizenship: Metapragmatic framings of language competencies in media images of mixed race men in South Korea. Discourse & Society, 22, 440–457. Lu, M. (1994). Professing multiculturalism: The politics of style in the contact zone. College Composition and Communication, 45, 442–458. Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (Eds.). (1983). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color. New York: Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press. Nelson Flores and Jonathan Rosa Morrison, N. (2014). How schools are breaking down the language barrier for EAL students. Accessed 9 July 2018 at https://www.theguardian.com/ teacher-network/teacherblog/2014/mar/05/tea ching-eal-foreign-languages-students-integrationschoolsteaching-eal-foreign-languages-studentsintegration-schools Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 23–38. Pearl, A. (1997). Cultural and accumulated environmental deficit models. In R. Valencia (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. 132–159). Milton Park, UK: Routledge Falmer. Povinelli, E. (2002). The cunning of recognition: Indigenous alterities and the making of Australian multiculturalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ramjattan, V. (2017). Racist nativist microagressions and the professional resistance of racialized English language teachers in Toronto. Race, Ethnicity and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13613324.2017.1377171 Reyes, A. (2014). Linguistic anthropology in 2013: Super-new-big. American Anthropologist, 116, 366– 378. 151 Ritschel, C. (2018). Princess Charlotte is already bilingual at age two. Independent. Accessed 9 July 2018 at https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/prin cess-charlotte-bilingual-spanish-speaking-age-twoa8156511.html Rosa, J. (2016). Racializing language, regimenting Latinas/os: Chronotope, social tense, and American raciolinguistic futures. Language and Communication, 46, 106–117. Rosa, J. (2018). Looking like a language, sounding like a race: Raciolinguistic ideologies and the learning of Latinidad. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling language and race: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46, 621–647. Silverstein, M. (2005). Axes of evals: Token versus type interdiscursivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15, 6–22. Spillers, H. (1987). Mama’s baby, papa’s maybe: An American grammar book. Diacritics, 17, 64–81. Weheliye, A. (2014). Habeas viscus: Racializing assemblages, biopolitics, and black feminist theories of the human. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation—An argument. CR: The New Centennial Review, 3, 257–337.