Reconceptualizing the Language of Ideas: ‘A Disciplinary Perspective’
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v24i5.7000Keywords:
higher education, academic language, language of ideas, disciplinary approach, linguistic resources, conversational languageAbstract
It is a widespread view that ‘academic language’ is the most significant dimension of language. This aspect of language is widely used for academic purposes that contrast with the conversational language spoken outside of the classrooms. The ultimate focus on the linguistic features of academic syllabi overlooks the role everyday forms of conversational language play in academic work and how learners of marginalized backgrounds are capable of using their existing linguistic resources to navigate tasks within the classrooms. The paper intends to shift the focus from academic texts to the language of ideas used to navigate in disciplinary works, such as how the ideas and content can be expressed in various ways, and the linguistic resources learners of unprivileged backgrounds use to engage in the tasks.
References
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48. doi: 10.2307/3588359
Bunch, G.C. (2014). The language of ideas and the language of display: Reconceptualizing academic language. Linguistically Diverse Classrooms, International Multilingual Multicultural Research Journal, 8(1), 70–86.
Bunch, G.C., Abram, P.L., Lotan, R.A., & Valdés, G. (2001). Beyond sheltered instruction: Rethinking conditions for academic language development. TESOL Journal, 10(2/3), 28–33.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. doi: 10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
Moje, E.B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.
Valdés, G. (1999). Nonnative English speakers: Language bigotry in English mainstream classrooms. ADFL Bulletin, 31(1), 43–48.
Valdés, G. (2000). Bilingualism and language use among Mexican Americans. In S.L. McKay, & S.-L. Wong (Eds.), New immigrants in the United States (pp. 99–136). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Valdés, G. (2004). Between support and marginalization: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2&3), 102–132.
Valdés, G., & Geoffrion-Vinci, M. (1998). Chicano Spanish: The problem of the ‘underdeveloped’ code in bilingual repertoires. Modern Language Journal, 82(iv), 473–501.
Valdés, G., Bunch, G.C., Snow, C.E., & Lee, C. (2005). Enhancing the development of students’ language(s). In L. Darling-Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126–168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wald, B. (1984). A sociolinguistic perspective on Cummins’ current framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 55–70). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
