Language Ideology

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