The ‘Language Deficit’ argument and beyond

Grainger, Karen; Jones, Peter E.

doi:10.1080/09500782.2012.760582

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is surely a priority, therefore, to find ways and means by which the 'objects' of our research can become active subjects in the shaping and directing of a debate from which they have most to win and lose." (Grainger and Jones, 2013, p. 98emphasis added)…”

Section: Language Deficits Collaboration and Greythorpementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2013, Grainger and Jones explored the resurgence in UK educational policy and debate of the idea that “linguistic difference amounts to linguistic, cognitive and cultural deficit” (2013, p. 96). For Grainger and Jones, aligned with many others across the decades (Cameron, 2012; Labov, 1972; Peterson, 2019; Snell, 2013; Spencer et al, 2013; Trudgill, 1975), this deficit view of linguistic difference is nothing new, being a “resurgence of the socially intolerant deficit approach to children's language and communication which had been heavily criticised and, in the eyes of many, comprehensively debunked by leading socio‐linguists in the 1960s and 1970s” (2013, p. 96). We acknowledge that these challenges to the hegemony of privileged forms of language, and struggles against the policing of standards, have a long history amongst socio‐linguists and the teachers they have worked with in such attempts at resistance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘Addressing’ language deficit: valuing children's variational repertories

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing evidence that student contributions via classroom talk (oracy) are subject to social judgements premised on cultural evaluation of accent and dialect, with particular varieties often viewed in deficit terms and pathologised, both within and beyond the classroom. We reflect on a university–community project involving researchers working to support Greythorpe Junior School (‘pseudonymised’) to address the linguistic deficit position that a school inspection report had taken in relation to the use of local varieties of English in Greythorpe. The researchers used socio‐linguistic frames (repertoire, accommodation and discourse attuning) to develop productive strategies for students and the school to take ownership of how to negotiate perspectives that diminish non‐standard accents and dialects. We provide illustrations of the workshop conversations with children and teachers to highlight the sophisticated, lived, metalinguistic understandings of children and teachers in the school, through which this perception of language deficit was ultimately renegotiated. In illustrating this case, we draw into focus the ways in which academic, institutional, socio‐linguistic knowledge is (by its descriptive nature) divorced from context and so is only of use if it can be owned by those who are facing linguistic inequalities.

show abstract

Section: Language Deficits Collaboration and Greythorpementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Addressing’ language deficit: valuing children's variational repertories

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That people make intellectual, social and moral judgements based on a speaker's language variety has been proven experimentally by a number of different methods (Campbell-Kibler 2007;Williams 1976;Edwards 1984;Lambert et al 1960;Kang and Rubin 2009). Indeed, linguistic prejudice leading to discrimination based on non-standard use of language has been documented within the education system (Seligman, Tucker, and Lambert 1972;Siegel 2010;Grainger 2011;Grainger and Jones 2013), the justice system (Rickford and King 2016), the housing market ( (Purnell, Idsardi, and Baugh 1999;Baugh 2003) and in training courses and the job market (Baratta 2018;Seggie, Smith, and Hodgins 1986)). In sum, linguistic prejudice and discrimination within a particular language is real but it has not received a fraction of the attention that the discrimation towards different languages has been afforded.…”

Section: Linguistic Discrimination Against Other Languages Vs Non-standard Varieties Of a Single Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic prejudice and discrimination in Brazilian Portuguese and beyond

O’Neill

Massini-Cagliari

2019

JLD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we make a distinction between the prejudice and discrimination towards (a) different languages and their speakers and (b) different non-standard varieties of the same language and their speakers, and argue that while the discrimination and prejudice towards (a) have been denounced by international institutions and both national and international laws are in place to guarantee the rights of speakers of different languages, the same protection has not been afforded to speakers of non-standard varieties of a language. We examine a specific case of this type of linguistic prejudice in Brazil. We discuss the effectiveness of efforts of linguists to combat linguistic prejudice based on the principle of error correction (Labov 1982) and, drawing on work by Cameron (2012) and Bourdieu (1986), suggest that linguistic prejudice cannot be disentangled from other types of prejudice and that linguists need to have a much deeper understanding of and engagement with the values attached to linguistic forms. We conclude with a number of suggestions and recommendations in order to effectively combat linguistic prejudice.

show abstract

“…Sociolinguists term this an institutionally produced 'deficit orientation' towards students; one which implicates them in a position of lack (e.g. of English language fluency) rather than capability (Grainger, 2013;Grainger & Jones, 2013).…”

Section: Critical Intercultural Language Pedagogymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, the otherness of the other is not transformed and difference erased. It is brought out for active, critical inquiry and a formulation of educational practices that can resist "deficit orientations" (Grainger, 2013;Grainger & Jones, 2013) towards students. In such ethical praxis of responsibility, students' hopes for 'at-homeness' (Lederach & Lederach, 2010) can then find expression from within the process of working towards more equitable relationships in 'just institutions'.…”

Section: Critical Intercultural Language Pedagogymentioning

confidence: 99%

2. The Ethics of Performative Approaches in Intercultural Education

Frimberger¹

2017

Going Performative in Intercultural Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ‘Language Deficit’ argument and beyond

Cited by 17 publications

References 1 publication

‘Addressing’ language deficit: valuing children's variational repertories

‘Addressing’ language deficit: valuing children's variational repertories

Linguistic prejudice and discrimination in Brazilian Portuguese and beyond

2. The Ethics of Performative Approaches in Intercultural Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About