Navigating monolingual language ideologies: Educators’ “Yes,BUT” objections to linguistically sustaining pedagogies in the classroom

Abstract

Aims:

We examine how educators articulate tensions between linguistic pluralism and linguistic normativity in written Linguistic Autobiographies through their metacommentary about student language and their role as educators. We specifically focus on “Yes, BUT” objections articulated by 17 participants that frame monolingualism and adherence to idealized forms of English as necessary, despite rhetorical nods to embracing linguistic diversity.

Research questions:

(1) How do participating educators construct “Yes, BUT” objections to linguistic pluralism in their written Linguistic Autobiographies? (2) What language ideologies inform these objections? (3) What ideological positions for educators are implicated?

Design/methodology/approach:

Collaborative emergent qualitative coding and inductive discourse analysis.

Data and analysis:

We analyzed Linguistic Autobiographies written by 50 educators taking an online master’s class in Sociolinguistics for Bilingual Educators and examined features of “Yes, BUT” objections and their ideological justification using collaborative, emergent coding and inductive discourse analysis.

Findings/conclusions:

We document how educators’ “Yes, BUT” objections illuminate discursive moves that justify the seeming embrace, yet ultimate rejection of, linguistic diversity.

Originality:

This study disentangles monolingual language ideologies to address objections inherent to educators’ “Yes, BUT” constructions that arise as common barriers in teacher education. We reframe these objections as emergent degrees of linguistic pluralism, which serve as evidence of the contextual difficulties educators often encounter in schools. We thus acknowledge rather than dismiss the tensions educators face in fostering linguistic pluralism.

Significance/implications:

This study illuminates how language ideologies shape (and possibly offer insights for undoing) complacency in what is often discussed as a long-standing tension between the seemingly mutually exclusive positions of linguistic pluralism and linguistic normativity. We argue that analyzing and addressing these “Yes, BUT” objections in educators’ narratives is key to the disruption of monolingual language ideologies in educational settings and beyond.

Keywords

Language ideologies teacher education sociolinguistics language policy discourse analysis

Introduction

In this article, we examine tensions between embracing linguistic diversity (e.g., linguistic pluralism) and perpetuating linguistic normativity as articulated by educators in Linguistic Autobiographies they wrote for an online master’s level course in Sociolinguistics and Bilingual Education. Specifically, we frame educators’ writing as a form of performative narrative about multilingual learners to understand how they navigate language ideological tensions through metacommentary about students’ language practices and their role as educators. This study illuminates how language ideologies (LIs) shape (and possibly offer insights for undoing) long-standing tensions between the seemingly mutually exclusive positions of linguistic pluralism and linguistic normativity (Kubota, 2020).

While some educators in the United States have moved beyond this seeming impasse, many are still embroiled in what we call a “Yes, BUT” tension (Anderson et al., 2024) that acknowledges the benefits of linguistic diversity and relative arbitrariness of language hierarchies (the “Yes”), but only to a certain degree (the “BUT”). These “Yes, BUT” constructions signal ambivalence as educators grapple with institutional requirements of enforcing English and its idealized varieties, perpetuating monolingualism and adherence to certain forms of English as not just “normal” but necessary. However, we also consider how educators’ seeming recalcitrance might be a response to contextual factors rather than simply individual resistance (Bernstein et al., 2023), comprising what we discuss below as emergent degrees of linguistic pluralism.

In addition to educators’ institutionally shaped views, raciolinguistic ideologies that frame racialized students’ language practices as “deficient” hinge on the perpetuation of “Standardized English” as a neutral, unaffiliated variety that is necessary for academic success (Rosa & Flores, 2017). Consequently, educational institutions and those who participate in them valorize the language practices of dominant groups, such as the white middle- and upper-class in U.S. contexts, while obscuring the racialized and classed histories of these linguistic hierarchies (Fallas Escobar et al., 2022; Rosa, 2019).

We argue that analyzing “Yes, BUT” objections in educators’ narratives is key to the disruption of monolingual and raciolinguistic LIs in educational settings and beyond. Although numerous studies have documented the existence of these language ideological tensions in education (e.g., Athanases et al., 2019; Banes et al., 2016; Fallas Escobar & Treviño, 2021; Godley et al., 2015; Kubota, 2020; Metz, 2019), we aim to analyze how these tensions function discursively, guided by the following research questions:

Research question 1 (RQ1). How do participating educators construct “Yes, BUT” objections to linguistic pluralism in their written Linguistic Autobiographies?

Research question 2 (RQ2). What LIs inform these objections?

Research question 3 (RQ3). What ideological positions for educators are implicated?

By examining how educators construct “Yes, BUT” objections, we illuminate specific discursive moves that justify the seeming embrace, yet the ultimate rejection of, culturally and linguistically sustaining pedagogies (Herrera, 2023; Paris & Alim, 2014). We focus on objections—reasons or rationalizations participants provide to hedge or qualify their rhetorical embrace of linguistic diversity in the classroom. We argue that identifying these moves can (a) provide a path to disentangling monolingual LIs in teacher education and (b) help teacher educators themselves to preemptively address some of the more common objections that surfaced in “Yes, BUT” tensions.

Theoretical framework

Language ideologies

LIs are sets of beliefs that are performed in particular contexts and informed by a mix of widely circulating societal messages, institutional norms and practices, and individual experiences and beliefs (Chang-Bacon, 2020; Henderson, 2020; Kroskrity, 2004). LIs often entail tensions in how groups and their practices are positioned and valued (Duran, 2020; Menard-Warwick, 2022; van Dijk, 2006). Therefore, articulating LIs does not indicate a wholesale allegiance, despite that they are often tacit and seen as common sense (Milroy, 2001).

A common LI in educational contexts is that of linguistic appropriateness, by which some forms of language are deemed inappropriate for classroom use because they diverge from an idealized norm linked to middle-class, white language practices (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Lippi-Green, 2011). Such LIs cast “appropriate” language use as a proxy for other, less acceptable bases for discrimination (e.g., racial, economic; Rosa & Flores, 2017). Another commonly discussed type of LI that pertains to multilingualism is monolingual ideologies, which frame monolingualism as the norm and languages as discrete, independent, and acontextual systems (de Jong, 2013). In contrast, heteroglossic ideologies frame language use as fluid, complementary, and contextually situated (García & Torres-Guevara, 2010).

Similar to monolingual LIs, standard LIs contribute to the normative view that a nation should have one unified language and that a particular variety (i.e., dialect) of this language is the superior and/or “standard” form. This reinforces monolingual LIs and perpetuates hegemonic sociolinguistic relations (Lippi-Green, 2011; Silverstein, 1996). In U.S. contexts, for example, standard LIs position a particular form of English, often associated with the white, college-educated middle- and upper-class as the idealized or “standard” variety of English (henceforth “Idealized English,” see Chang-Bacon, 2021). Standard LIs frame idealized forms as discrete entities or codes (Showstack, 2017) and variations as an impurity (García & Torres-Guevara, 2010). These dominant LIs are also framed in light of counter-hegemonic LIs that contest normative representations and practices, further highlighting the multiplicity and tension associated with LIs (Martínez, 2013; Menard-Warwick, 2022).

Language practices are a form of discourse through which meanings are made and embedded in social relations (Pennycook, 1994). Discourses thus create and limit possibilities for how meanings are organized about “systems of power/knowledge within which we take up subject positions” (Pennycook, 1994, p. 128). LIs are therefore understood, perpetuated, and resisted through language use (van Dijk, 2006), which can be both a site for legitimation (e.g., educators’ claims to authority and ability to make and enforce rules) and reification (e.g., naturalization of ideologies as “common sense,” Leonardo, 2003). We align with Foucault’s (1980) approach to discourses as both constitutive of and recursive with realities, rather than merely reflecting them (Anderson & Holloway, 2020).

Educator language ideologies

As Leonardo (2003) points out, LIs are always rooted in material relations and institutions (e.g., schooling practices) as well as always evolving in relation to other types of ideologies (e.g., of ability, race, and gender). Relevant to our study, educators’ own experiences as students, their training, and their professional experience are all embedded in institutional and social relations that carry ideological messages about language use. These LIs shape how educators navigate school systems and are conveyed through their own, others’, and institutions’ use of language (e.g., social interactions and policies; Leonardo, 2003). Therefore, educators’ language use and metacommentary about their own and others’ language use provide insights into LIs (Duran, 2020; Razfar, 2005).

Research suggests that some LIs undergird educational inequity, including pedagogical, disciplinary, and assessment-related aspects (Godley & Reaser, 2018; Martínez, 2013; Zuniga et al., 2018). For example, Cushing (2023) examined LIs shaping educator sensemaking of U.K. language policy by analyzing educators’ discourse for the worldviews that shape their educational practices and beliefs about language. He found that U.K. educational institutions strongly perpetuate Idealized English as well as kinds of idealized students—that is, those who use “good” English to get ahead in work/school. Many scholars have similarly shown that students who do not assimilate to such norms often face discrimination, sanctions, or social exclusion (e.g., Baker-Bell, 2020).

Due to the pivotal role of educators in this regard, a number of studies have explored how LIs function within teacher education (e.g., Athanases et al., 2019; Banes et al., 2016; Bernstein et al., 2023; Cheatham et al., 2014; Iversen, 2021; Jimenez-Silva et al., 2012; Ricklefs, 2023; Thoma, 2022). For example, Deroo and Ponzio (2023) examined how pre-service teachers link language, identity, and power through their varied representations of English’s hegemonic role as supposedly necessary for success. They illustrated how pre-service teachers can perpetuate LIs to either legitimate or marginalize certain speakers and practices. Many participants in their study aligned with monolingual and raciolinguistic ideologies by framing assimilation to white, middle-class linguistic norms (e.g., Idealized English) as a goal and their linking of language use with educational opportunities.

Positioning

We define positionality in terms of macro-ideological subject positions and storylines that are mutually constituted alongside micro-interactional events and meso-institutional practices (Anderson, 2009). The ideological positions implicated by educators’ objections articulated in “Yes, BUT” constructions (RQ3) therefore draw simultaneously from (a) circulating societal messages about language use, appropriacy, and success; (b) institutional messages about “kinds” of students, policies, and practices; and (c) what educators do with language and say about language (including proscribing practices and repercussions thereof). Put simply, ideological positioning brings larger social and institutional categories to bear on students’ language use (or their presumed use) by attributing categories of belonging or categorizing students as types of speakers (Anderson, 2009) in ways that draw on and contribute to LIs.

In aggregate, studies of educator LIs have demonstrated three key features of language ideologies in school contexts. First, like all LIs, they are informed by past experiences, particularly educators’ own relationship with linguistic diversity (Banes et al., 2016; Fallas Escobar & Treviño, 2021). Second, LIs inform educators’ professional roles, whether through a pedagogical embrace/rejection of students’ multilingual practices in the classroom (e.g., Bernstein et al., 2023; Martínez, 2013) or advocacy for linguistically responsive instructional policies more broadly (e.g., Zuniga et al., 2018). Finally, much of the literature cited earlier suggests that LIs can be somewhat malleable. By integrating new ideas or experiences into existing belief systems educator LIs can shift, particularly around embracing linguistic diversity and pluralism (Chang-Bacon, 2020; Godley et al., 2015). Nevertheless, tensions in how educators navigate these ideological shifts persist, particularly in relation to educational practice—a tension we now explore.

Methods

Participants included 50 educators enrolled across face-to-face and online graduate education and linguistics programs at a large southwestern U.S. institution (2021–2023). Kate recruited participants via email based on their prior enrollment in an online course on sociolinguistics for educators that she designed and taught. The course explored language variation, identity, multilingualism, and LIs. Participation entailed completing an online survey and a written Linguistic Autobiography. Linguistic Autobiographies were around 3,500 words and covered participants’ linguistic backgrounds, positionalities, and reflections on beliefs about language, learners, and educators (see Appendix 1 for prompt).

These 50 participants represent a diverse group in terms of age, racial identification, geographic location, language background, and prior teaching experience (see Table 1 for demographic information).¹ Overall, participants were 80% female, 60% people of color, 60% multilingual, and 64% residents of Arizona. In addition, 66% of participants had been teaching for 3 years or more (and 22% for 9 years or more). Of the multilingual participants, 75% grew up in multilingual households, with the remaining 25% having learned an additional language through coursework and/or living outside of the United States as an adult. These demographics reflect those who chose to participate (34% of those invited opted in); we were not aiming for a representative sample (although our participant demographics mirror the much higher proportion of females in U.S. K-12 education). Notably, participants’ demographics reflect more racial and linguistic diversity than the predominantly white and monolingual U.S. teaching population overall (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2020).

Table 1.

Participant demographic information (n = 50).

	n	%	Those with Yes, BUT
Gender identification
Female	40	80	14
Male	9	18	3
Non-binary	1	2	0
Racial identification
White	20	40	11
Latine	14	28	2
Asian	8	16	3
Other (Filipino, Jordanian, Persian American, Native American, Mixed)	5	10	1
Black	3	6	0
Age
22–25	11	22	3
26–29	8	16	2
30–34	9	18	4
35–39	7	14	4
40–49	10	20	3
50+	5	10	1
Geographic location
AZ resident	32	64	2
Non-AZ resident	18	36	15
Experience living outside of the United States	24	48	10
No experience living outside of the United States	26	52	7
Language background
Multilingual	30	60	8
Grew up multilingual	23	46	6
Became multilingual through studying/living outside the United States as an adult	7	14	2
Monolingual	20	40	9
Program of enrollment
Educating Multilingual Learners (EML) MA	32	64	11
EML certificate	6	12	0
Other MA (TESOL, Education, Linguistics)	8	16	5
PhD	4	8	1
Teaching experience
Has taught	47	94	15
Has not taught	3	6	2
Never taught/taught less than 1 year	7	14	2
1–2 years	10	20	3
3–5 years	14	28	6
6–8 years	8	16	2
9+ years	11	22	4
Teaching experience (areas)
K-5	11	22	6
6-8	4	8	0
High school	10	20	8
Other	8	16	1
No response	17	34	0

Linguistic Autobiographies

We focus our analysis on participants’ Linguistic Autobiographies based on the advantages of autobiographical reflective writing for the study of LIs (Lindahl et al., 2021; Metz & Knight, 2021). Educators’ autobiographical writing can afford examination of “who speaks and who listens, under what conditions of possibility, and along the lines of which political and pedagogical agendas” (Schenke, 1991, as cited in Pennycook, 1994, pp. 132–133). As others have argued, the examination of LIs should consider the sociocultural contexts of their manifestation (Chang-Bacon, 2020; Razfar, 2005)—that is, the meaning-making practices that represent, evaluate, and constitute LIs. We align with other scholars who use Linguistic Autobiographies to elicit narratives in which LIs can be implied, commented upon, justified, and related to other contexts (Lindahl et al., 2021) as this supports analysis of tensions that arise when educators reflect on their own and students’ language practices and how they navigate those tensions or leave them unresolved (Metz & Knight, 2021).

Analytic framework

An inductive discourse analytic approach informed our analysis (van Dijk, 2006). In our first cycle of collaborative, emergent coding, each author read a selected subset of the 50 linguistic autobiographies in their entirety, specifically highlighting “Yes, BUT” constructions. We identified this discursive construction based on the following criteria, derived from Anderson et al. (2024): the participant explicitly acknowledged the importance of varieties other than Idealized English while simultaneously reinforcing the importance of Idealized English for school, work, and/or societal participation, in the same or adjacent sentences. Although nearly all participants grappled with broader language ideological tensions in their Linguistic Autobiographies, for the purpose of this study we sought to specifically examine the use of the distinct “Yes, BUT” objection, which we identified in 17 (34%) of participants’ Linguistic Autobiographies. From our individual reading of the data, we had initially arrived at 32 instances of “Yes, BUT” constructions. However, through discussion we eliminated 15 as not meeting the criteria (e.g., the “Yes” and the “BUT” were separated by more than a few sentences; the construction was describing a past stance; absence of both a fully articulated “Yes” and “BUT”).

Our second coding cycle entailed each reading through all “Yes, BUT” excerpts and documenting patterns in the features of their ideological justification. Kate marked the structure of each excerpt by identifying portions of the text that represented the “Yes” (i.e., a general embrace of linguistic diversity and pluralism) as well as the “BUT” (i.e., objections or equivocations reinforcing the continued need for or utility of Idealized English). We then all coded these separate portions of each excerpt based on the justifications participants used to underscore their arguments, considering first the “Yes” examples as a set, and then the “BUT.” We collectively organized these codes into broader themes to represent key justification groupings (e.g., high-stakes testing and better job prospects for speakers of Idealized English). After applying a values coding approach (i.e., documenting “the importance [participants] attribute to [them]selves, another person, thing, or idea,” Saldaña, 2021, p. 131) within these groupings, we finally identified specific language ideological assumptions and positionings embedded in each category, informed by our reviewed literature base on LIs.

Findings

We now share our interpretations of the articulations of “Yes, BUT” objections in these 17 participants’ Linguistic Autobiographies, first discussing types of “Yes” constructions, followed by “BUT” constructions. We also consider how participants framed their role as educators in light of these tensions, as this illuminates ideological sources of ambivalence that may inform our understanding of how monolingual LIs are maintained among educators and within education systems more broadly.

The “Yes”

Celebrating diversity

We interpreted three different types of “Yes” across participants’ “Yes, BUT” objections. The most prominent was celebrating diversity, which draws from liberal/neoliberal views of multiculturalism (Kubota, 2020). Such views reject monolingual LIs on a rhetorical level through a focus on the naturalness of diversity and the importance of validating linguistic differences. Participant 595² exemplifies this type:

It is my goal to be seen as an educator that embraces the set of unique cultural differences that each [multilingual learner] can share; whether this means creating special days to celebrate lingual diversity . . . and/or holding school festivals to promote inclusivity. These types of actions are what lead to better association and acceptance of all cultures at the school level.

Participant 460 also highlighted the inherent value of diversity and how language varieties “are not just different, and not just acceptable as separate forms of communication, but valuable in their own rights.” Participant 580 also reinforced that forms other than Idealized English have their place: “Through my teachings, I want to explain there is an academic way to speak and the way we were raised to speak by our families . . . and through life experiences. Both. . .are acceptable forms of English and neither is ‘incorrect’.”

Cutting across celebrating diversity is the notion that divergence from Idealized English is acceptable, just not in school. This type of “Yes” construction appeals to a disembodied diversity and does not name difference in terms of who is speaking or what that means for educational systems or teachers’ role therein. Both of these features align with raciolinguistic ideologies and the erasure of nuance among racialized students’ language practices and identities into a homogenized (and often unnamed) “Other” that sits in opposition to normative whiteness and the Idealized English that is presumed to accompany it (Rosa, 2019). Such vagaries perhaps make it rhetorically easier to weave in with the surrounding justifications of “BUT,” which we turn to after discussing the next two “Yes” types.

Making room for students’ language(s)

The second type of “Yes” centralizes students as speakers and how ideological messaging about language use can shape their educational experiences. The following excerpts illustrate the focus on students in this type: “I have the power to create confidence in my students’ hearts and minds. I also have the power to subconsciously shame them into silence with my implicit bias toward their languages” (Participant 430); “I will provide opportunities to my students to not forget their own ways of speech and languages are very important and not. . .to forget who they are as an individual” (Participant 525).

Participants who expressed this type of “Yes” highlighted the detriment of devaluing students’ home language practices and the importance of language to identity. However, they also maintained pragmatic goals of developing (Idealized) English proficiency and use: “Teachers who understand the relationship between culture, language and identity will be best able to prepare students for academic English proficiency without devaluing their heritage” (Participant 635); “By validating their language choices, they will be able to freely participate in class and thrive in their educational journey” (Participant 535). In sum, this type of “Yes” advocates for allowing students to use other languages or forms of English in the classroom but simultaneously remains wedded to the eventual need to master (Idealized) English for school and beyond.

Questioning unjust structures

The final type of “Yes” questions unjust structures and institutional/social systems that perpetuate linguistic hierarchies. Participant 440 acknowledged biases toward multilingual students, stating: “Students can never have a successful bilingual education when the educational system as a whole is fundamentally flawed and biased against the same students” . Likewise, Participant 555 emphasized that, “It is important to teach all students to ask questions and wonder about the world around them, most especially when the world and society around them is continuing to oppress those who have been deemed different from the ‘norm’.” The aforementioned performative nature of the Linguistic Autobiography combined with the sociolinguistics course’s tenets of promoting linguistic pluralism and multilingualism perhaps create a discursive context that invites such performance. However, this more critical type of “Yes” was effectively negated by the looming “BUT” constructions that followed. The following “Yes” quote exemplifies this type as a short break from a very dominant “BUT.”

This [the societal privileging of correct grammar and writing] has, unfortunately, become a norm in our society . . . However, this class has convinced me that there is no “standard” form of spoken English. Who is to say what is “right” and what is “wrong”? (Participant 545).

As illustrated by this quote, some participants came to recognize the arbitrary, and even oppressive, nature of monolingual LIs. Nevertheless, these key “Yes” moments were consistently qualified with key objections to a full embrace of linguistic pluralism, as we now explore.

The “. . . BUT”

Although these 17 participants indicated a general openness to linguistic diversity and pluralism in their “Yes” constructions, they also expressed ambivalence or contradictions to these positions in the “BUT” objections that immediately followed. These “Yes, BUT” constructions were thus marked by forms of hedging that began with an initial statement affirming linguistic pluralism before qualifications that reaffirmed the need for Idealized English. Our analysis of “BUT” constructions highlights how participants raised certain objections to justify their hesitance to fully embrace multilingual/plural approaches (Kubota, 2020). These objections generally drew on two areas of justification: notions of success and ideologies of appropriateness.

Success

Participants often evoked student success to justify their adherence to the importance of Idealized English. Some articulated this justification by describing Idealized English as necessary for school success like “academic success in writing, reading, and oral language,” which students learning English were supposedly “struggling with” (Participant 504). Participants referred to these idealized varieties using various designations, including “standard English” (Participant 540), “school English” (Participant 505), and “academic English” (Participant 635) with an agreement that these norms “should be explicitly taught. . .[and] are necessary for academic success” (Participant 505). In addition, some participants linked this notion to high-stakes standardized testing, like Participant 635 who claimed that, while “a descriptivist view remains the norm in higher education, there is real pressure to ensure students are competent in academic English before high school graduation.”

Participants also framed their objections according to the promise of future success. For example, Participant 555 emphasized the importance of “teach[ing] students to be themselves and. . . [encouraging] their linguistic background and diversity,” then subsequently hedged by stating, “but I also need to help them succeed.” Others mentioned more specific areas of success, such as Participant 435, who argued that, in addition to being “critical for success,” “standardized English cultivates opportunity. . .teaching standardized English will hopefully help students receive better higher education, more opportunities for jobs, and navigate the bureaucratic world around them.” Participants thus struggled to reconcile the embrace of linguistic pluralism with societal expectations, as is succinctly exemplified by Participant 575’s complete “Yes, BUT” dyad: “While in an ideal world students would be able to use their natural dialect in all situations/contexts, we do not live in an ideal world, and ‘standard’ English is an expectation in many contexts in their lives.”

Appropriateness

For over half of participants, “BUT” constructions centered on general linguistic appropriateness. Participant 580 illustrated this focus as providing students with “a better understanding of when it is appropriate to use the language they are comfortable with using, such as home language, and when academic language may be more appropriate.” These “BUTs” often cited the need for students to “shift” (Participant 595) or “switch” (Participant 440) their language features depending on context. Participant 460 had initially indicated that it was important “not to suggest there is correct language” and then followed with, “but the way they speak to their friends on the bus ride home may be correct for then and there, but not for the introduction to their formal academic essay at school the next day.”

Notions of appropriateness were often linked to how students would be perceived for their language choices. Participant 430 worried that “people will judge them for it when they leave the classroom.” These constructions drew on the idea of generalized expectations, such as Participant 460’s admonition that, “It does not do students any good to ignore academic language and the expectations that come with it.” Participant 435 similarly stated:

Like it or leave it, as of today standardized English is the expected form of English to be used in education, government, and the workplace. . .If people (though unfortunate) perceive standardized English as smarter, educators should help their students receive that advantage.

Importantly, these ideologies of appropriateness do not name specifically whose expectations were being considered. When Participant 555 identified the “sad reality but true that students’ won’t be taken seriously if they don’t speak [Standardized English]” they did not identify by whom students would not be seriously taken. Participant 585 discussed the importance of Idealized English for students “from different backgrounds” without specifying who they were different from. Across the 17 participants who articulated “Yes, BUT” objections, there was a lack of clarification around the consistent references throughout to “people,” “society,” or simply “expectations” in general. Even when Participant 575 argued, “Learning how and when to use ‘Standard’ English can give students back the power to use the system that was designed to exclude them,” they refrained from naming who benefits from that system and who is excluded. Here, we note an unspoken assumption that the white listening subject (Flores & Rosa, 2015) is the key arbiter of language appropriateness, a topic we revisit in the Discussion and conclusion section.³

Educators’ ideological positioning: arbitrating and accommodating Idealized English

Through these “Yes, BUT” objections, participants also reflected on their role as educators, implicating ideological positions therein. These participants maintained a central focus on the importance of teaching students about language variation and how Idealized English and other language varieties differ from one another. In addition, they positioned themselves as instructional arbiters of language difference, tasking themselves with raising students’ awareness of when and how to use certain language varieties over others.

Arbitrating: recognizing (and ranking) linguistic difference

Many participants framed their educator role as communicating that all language varieties are “valuable in their own right” (Participant 460) and none are better or worse, “just different” (Participant 430). For example, Participant 435 described their role as helping students “see the value in other types of language.” However, in animating this role, participants implicitly positioned themselves as arbiters of which forms of language were to be considered “other.” By extension, they framed their role as providing explicit instruction on “standard ways [of using language]” (Participant 530) as well as how these differ from varieties that participants might deem less or non- standard.

Participants illustrated these arbitrator positions by highlighting their responsibility to “teach standards of grammar and generalized pronunciation” (Participant 635), arguing that familiarity with these forms was key to the previously emphasized purview of “help[ing students] succeed” (Participant 435). Not teaching Idealized English, Participant 535 argued, would do students a disservice by failing to provide them with “the tools to navigate the world and thrive.” An educator’s role, according to such justifications, was to arbitrate which forms belonged to which category (standardized vs. “other”) to ensure students’ familiarity with the use of Idealized English.

Accommodating: “code switching” as reifying Idealized English

Some of the positions articulated earlier suggested a more descriptive, observational role for educators to simply teach students about language differences. However, when it came to actual instructional strategies, participants often emphasized more hierarchical, appropriateness-based discourses. A common strategy mentioned was code switching, or helping students know when and how using Idealized English would supposedly be more appropriate. For example, Participant 505 cited the importance of “teach[ing] students about register and how to select based on the situation,” with the justification that speaking Idealized English “was vital to school English learning.” Participant 575 echoed this position, with specific suggestions for teaching about code switching:

[Code switching] can be taught with a critical approach that provides students with opportunities to develop dialect/language variation awareness and to investigate the history and use of “standard” English. It can be taught in a way where students are not made to believe that their language use is wrong and needs to be fixed. Learning how and when to use “Standard” English can give students back the power to use the system that was designed to exclude them.

Here, Participant 575 illustrated the key tensions inherent to this code-switching-emphatic approach. On the one hand, such an approach encourages educators to teach students that there is nothing “wrong” or that “needs to be fixed,” about any language form. On the other hand, an educator must also emphasize to students that “learning how and when” to use Idealized English will help empower them within fundamentally unjust systems—which paradoxically involves more accommodation to existing power structures than actual empowerment (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Metz, 2019). Such contradictions were illustrated in Participant 435’s “balanced” approach, in which an educator should attempt to ensure that students “can become well-rounded linguistic citizens” through code switching when deemed appropriate by the educator, passing on that knowledge to students so that they could eventually internalize these appropriateness norms themselves.

Across participants’ positioning of these varying educator roles and their seeming contradictions, there remained a consistent awareness that educators play a key role in shaping students’ language ideological development, as summarized by Participant 430:

As an educator, I have the power to create confidence in my students’ hearts and minds. I also have the power to subconsciously shame them into silence with my implicit bias toward their languages. I now understand this power and will use it to allow my students to speak and write freely, to give them feedback and tools to improve those skills, and to share my experiences with them so that we can continue to connect, learn, and grow together.

As demonstrated by this explanation of the power educators have over the dynamics of language use and ideologies in classrooms, educators are instrumental in instilling either “confidence” or “shame” around language use in school and beyond. A tension also remains between the freedom that Participant 430 mentions (e.g., wanting students “to speak and write freely”) and the notion that it is up to the educator to “allow” or deny this freedom. We next discuss the power dynamics of this key role and language ideological implications for educators.

Discussion and conclusion

Our findings demonstrate how participating educators grappled with their own language ideologies in written linguistic autobiographies, especially when considering how to negotiate ideologies in their classroom practice. The 17 participants who articulated “Yes, BUT” objections expressed enthusiasm about linguistic pluralism and skepticism around linguistic normativity and monolingual language ideologies. However, as some of these participants reflected on the pedagogical and policy implications of this “Yes” in their narratives, ambivalence often emerged in the form of objections (“BUT”). This finding concurs with previous studies of educator LIs, which often exemplify inconsistent levels of agreement with or embrace of linguistically inclusive practices in the classroom (e.g., Anderson et al., 2022; Banes et al., 2016; Bernstein et al., 2023; Godley et al., 2015).

Rather than taking participants’ objections merely as maintained investment in monolingual language ideologies, we see the opportunity to view “BUT” constructions as evidence of pragmatic awareness of policies and contexts to which they must answer. In other words, objections to a full embrace of linguistic diversity do not necessarily represent individual recalcitrance, but instead provide evidence of the actual contextual difficulties and policy directives that educators encounter when trying to disrupt monolingual ideologies in schools. By really listening to, rather than dismissing, the tensions educators face in the classroom, we suggest the fields of linguistics and teacher education might be able to develop solutions for navigating these tensions with pre- and in-service educators.

We argue that these “Yes, BUT” objections might also be repositioned as emergent degrees of linguistic pluralism in which educators test the alignment between their ideals and real-world constraints. Participants often drew on their own experience in classrooms to highlight specific issues or policies that might constrain their implementation of linguistically inclusive pedagogies, including standardized testing, school expectations for student language use, and broader societal constraints around language expectations. In this way, participants’ objections demonstrate key struggles that educators face, or are likely to encounter, in linguistically restrictive school settings.

The discursive context of Linguistic Autobiographies offers an opportunity for teacher education and professional development to address these notions directly. However, rather than using these objections to “end” the conversation around what is or is not possible under current educational policies and practices, these objections could provide a generative space to grapple with ways to adapt, subvert, or advocate for change to existing policies. We, therefore, argue that explicitly addressing these tensions is key to disrupting monolingual language ideologies in educational settings and beyond. If educators’ (often legitimate) contextual concerns are dismissed, it may preempt the implementation of linguistically responsive pedagogies in classrooms. Although awareness of and questioning restrictive linguistic hierarchies represents a key first step in advancing linguistic justice, the complex work of on-the-ground implementation cannot be ignored by researchers and teacher educators. Instead, we contend that it is necessary to both acknowledge and strategize around the actual contextual constraints teachers face in school contexts. Educators, with their firsthand knowledge of these contextual constraints, represent key thought partners in this strategy.

Nevertheless, key ideological tensions remain, even in educators’ openness to linguistic diversity. Participants explicitly acknowledged that it is important for students to see the value of different language varieties. However, participants’ “BUT” constructions conveyed actual and hypothetical classroom practices (e.g., the use of code switching) and justifications for emphasizing Idealized English (e.g., its powerful status in helping students succeed). These objections illuminate a disconnect between educators’ espoused stances toward linguistic diversity (“Yes”) and how they position linguistic practices in the classroom where they legitimize the notion of Idealized English (“BUT”). In other words, Idealized English still seems to be the only variety that is encouraged both inside and outside the classroom, thus reifying the dominant position of idealized forms of English.

These objections are further reinforced by participants’ animating of an unnamed white listening subject as the arbiter of linguistic appropriateness (Flores & Rosa, 2015). Participants’ tendency to present vague references to “people” or “society” demonstrated a hesitance to name the raciolinguistic ideologies that ultimately undergird notions of linguistic normativity. This represents a key imperative to push individuals toward naming both these ideologies and subject positions explicitly. Statements such as “society expects standard English” (emphasis added) give outsized authority to an unnamed listening subject, positioning an individual’s or group’s preferences as representative of all society. In contrast, there can be more generative discussions if educators are encouraged to address questions such as, “Who specifically expects this type of language?,” and “Why does their opinion matter more than an educator’s or their students’?” Such questions represent opportunities for educators to begin engaging with instances of racialized and classed language dynamics and naming the individuals or dominant groups who stand to benefit from their unnamed listening subject status. In classrooms, this can be facilitated through exercises and assignments geared toward naming ideologies (Banes et al., 2016; Davila, 2016; Henderson, 2017), course practicum and internship experiences in racially and linguistically affirming settings (Varghese et al., 2021), or even providing opportunities for students to “practice” engaging with common ideological tensions that emerge in school-based policy and curricular discussions through simulations and role-plays (Fox & Chang-Bacon, 2023; Yoon, 2023).

LIs represent a key determining factor in educators’ and students’ engagement and experience with linguistic diversity. The continued presence of monolingual language ideologies across a range of educational spaces demonstrates the persistence of these ideas, even in contexts of seeming linguistic pluralism. To address this recalcitrance of monolingual language ideologies, the “Yes, BUT” objections raised in educators’ Linguistic Autobiographies represent an important entre into individuals’ language ideological recognition and development, not only in regard to educators’ new understandings of principles of linguistic pluralism, but also in their objections to fully embrace linguistically affirming pedagogical approaches. In documenting and grappling with these objections, the field (a) can move toward disrupting both the individual and structural barriers educators face in recognizing and implementing linguistically affirming pedagogies and practices and (b) engage explicitly with the language ideological tensions educators and students face in everyday classroom and curricular contexts.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Spencer Foundation grant #202200043.

ORCID iD

Kate T. Anderson

Notes

Author biographies

Kate T. Anderson is an associate professor at Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College and lead editor of the journal Linguistics and Education. She is an educational linguist and qualitative methodologist whose recent work explores educator language ideologies from a range of perspectives in order to promote linguistic justice.

Chris Chang-Bacon in an assistant professor at the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development. His work explores language ideologies and policies in English as a Second Language (ESL), dual-language, and bilingual education settings. As a former ESL teacher in Massachusetts, South Korea, and Morocco, Chang-Bacon’s scholarship focuses on disrupting the racial and linguistic biases that reproduce educational inequities for multilingual students.

María Guzmán Antelo is a Ph.D. candidate in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Virginia. Her work focuses on preparing and supporting pre-service teachers to work with multilingual learners and the fundamental role mentor teachers play in the preparation of pre-service teachers.

References

Anderson

K. T.

(2009). Applying positioning theory to analysis of classroom interactions: Mediating micro-identities, macro-kinds, and ideologies of knowing. Linguistics and Education, 20, 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.08.001

Anderson

K. T.

Ambroso

Cruz

Zuiker

Rodriguez-Martinez

(2022). Complicating methods for understanding educators’ language ideologies: Transformative approaches for mixing methods. Language and Education, 36(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1931296

Anderson

K. T.

Holloway

(2020). Discourse analysis as theory, method, and epistemology in studies of education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 35(2), 188–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1552992

Anderson

K. T.

Rodriguez-Martinez

Yoon

S. S.

(2024). Educators’ stancetaking on standardized English: From prescriptivist to critically conscious and somewhere in-between. Journal of Language Identity & Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2023.2299696

Athanases

Banes

Wong

Martinez

(2019). Exploring linguistic diversity from the inside out: Implications of self-reflexive inquiry for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118778838

Baker-Bell

(2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge.

Banes

Martínez

Athanases

Wong

J. W.

(2016). Self-reflexive inquiry into language use and beliefs: Toward more expansive language ideologies. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(3), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1185906

Bernstein

Anderson

Rodriguez Martinez

(2023). Teacher beliefs about multilingual learners: How language ideologies shape teachers’ hypothetical policymaking. International Multilingual Research Journal, 17(3), 191–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2023.2182094

Chang-Bacon

C. K.

(2020). “It’s not really my job”: A mixed methods framework for language ideologies, monolingualism, and teaching emergent bilingual learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118783188

10.

Chang-Bacon

C. K.

(2021). Monolingual language ideologies and the idealized speaker: The “New bilingualism” meets the “old” educational inequities. Teachers College Record, 123(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300106

11.

Cheatham

Jimenez-Silva

Wodrich

Kasai

(2014). Disclosure of information about English proficiency: Preservice teachers’ presumptions about English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113503687

12.

Cushing

(2023). Policy mechanisms of the standard language ideology in England’s education system. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 22(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.1877542

13.

Davila

(2016). The inevitability of “standard” English: Discursive constructions of standard language ideologies. Written Communications, 33(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316632186

14.

Deroo

Ponzio

(2023). Fostering pre-service teachers’ critical multilingual language awareness: Use of multimodal compositions to confront hegemonic language ideologies. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 22(2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1863153

15.

de Jong

(2013). Discourses and U.S. language in education policies. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 98–111.

16.

Duran

(2020). “Todas las poems que estan creative”: Language ideologies, writing, and bilingual children. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 19(6), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1726754

17.

Fallas Escobar

Henderson

Lindahl

. (2022). “I look Mexican, so they assume I speak Spanish”: Latinx teacher candidates’ experiences with raciolinguistic policing. The Modern Language Journal, 106(1), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12762

18.

Fallas Escobar

Treviño

. (2021). Two Latina bilingual teacher candidates’ perceptions of language proficiency and language choice options: Ideological encounters with listening and speaking others. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(1), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2021.1877213

19.

Flores

Rosa

(2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149

20.

Foucault

(1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 ( Gordon

, Ed.). Pantheon.

21.

Fox

Chang-Bacon

(2023). Critical language awareness through advocacy: Disrupting deficit discourse through simulation in L2 writing teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, Article 100992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.100992

22.

García

Torres-Guevara

(2010). Monoglossic ideologies and language policies in the education of U.S. Latinas/os. In Murillo

Villenas

Galván

R. T.

Muñoz

J. S.

Martínez

Machado-Casas

. (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education (pp. 182–193). Routledge.

23.

Godley

Reaser

(2018). Critical language pedagogy: Interrogating language, dialects, and power in teacher education. Peter Lang.

24.

Godley

Reaser

Moore

(2015). Pre-service English language arts teachers’ development of critical language awareness for teaching. Linguistics and Education, 32(Pt. A), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.03.015

25.

Henderson

(2017). Teacher language ideologies mediating classroom-level language policy in the implementation of dual language bilingual education. Linguistics and Education, 42, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.08.003

26.

Henderson

(2020). Language ideological multiplicity and tension within dual language bilingual education teachers. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 21(2), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1791708

27.

Herrera

L. Y.

(2023). Translanguaging in teacher education: Engaging preservice teachers in culturally and linguistically sustaining pedagogies. Language and Education, 37(5), 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2203677

28.

Iversen

(2021). Negotiating language ideologies: Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on multilingual practices in mainstream education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 18(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019.1612903

29.

Jimenez-Silva

Olson

Hernandez

(2012). The confidence to teach English language learners: Exploring coursework’s role in developing preservice teachers’ efficacy. Teacher Educator, 47(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2011.632471

30.

Kroskrity

(2004). Language ideology. In Duranti

(Ed.), Companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496–517). Blackwell.

31.

Kubota

(2020). Promoting and problematizing multi/plural approaches in language pedagogy. In Lau

Van Viegen

(Eds.), Plurilingual pedagogies (pp. 303–321). Springer.

32.

Leonardo

(2003). Discourse and critique: Outlines of a post-structural theory of ideology. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043038

33.

Lindahl

Fallas Escobar

Henderson

(2021). Linguistically responsive instruction for Latinx teacher candidates: Surfacing language ideological dilemmas. TESOL Quarterly, 55(4), 1190–1220. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3079

34.

Lippi-Green

(2011). English with an accent. Routledge.

35.

Martínez

(2013). Reading the world in Spanglish: Hybrid language practices and ideological contestation in a sixth-grade English language arts classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24(3), 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3079

36.

Menard-Warwick

(2022). Narratives of multilingual becoming: The co-construction of solidarity as a language ideology. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.2008251

37.

Metz

(2019). Accommodating linguistic prejudice? Examining English teachers’ language ideologies. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 18(1), 18–35.

38.

Metz

Knight

(2021). The dominant school language narrative: Unpacking English teachers’ language ideologies. Language, 97(3), 3238–3256. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-09-2018-0081

39.

Milroy

(2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00163

40.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2020). Race and ethnicity of public school teachers and their students. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020103/index.asp

41.

Paris

Alim

H. S.

(2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77

42.

Pennycook

(1994). Incommensurable discourses? Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.2.115

43.

Razfar

(2005). Language ideologies in practice: Repair and classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.04.001

44.

Ricklefs

(2023). Variables influencing ESL teacher candidates’ language ideologies. Language and Education, 37(2), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1936546

45.

Rosa

(2019). Looking like a language, sounding like a race: Raciolinguistic ideologies and the learning of Latinidad. Oxford University Press.

46.

Rosa

Flores

(2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000562

47.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

48.

Schenke

(1991). The “will to reciprocity” and the work of memory: Fictioning speaking out of silence in ESL and feminist pedagogy. Resources for Feminist Research, 20(3/4), 47–55.

49.

Showstack

(2017). Stancetaking and language ideologies in heritage language learner classroom discourse. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(5), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2016.1248558

50.

Silverstein

(1996). Monoglot “standard” in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In Brenneis

Macaulay

(Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306). Westview Press.

51.

Thoma

(2022). Biographical perspectives on language ideologies in teacher education. Language and Education, 36(5), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2022.2085046

52.

van Dijk

. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115–140.

53.

Varghese

Beam-Conroy

Shank

Snyder

(2021). Contexts and complexity: Promoting racial and linguistic justice through bilingual dual language teacher education. In Li

Anderson

Hare

McTavish

(Eds.), Superdiversity and teacher education: Supporting teachers in working with culturally, linguistically and racially diverse students, families and communities (pp. 86–99). Routledge.

54.

Yoon

S. S.

(2023). Co-constructing critical consciousness with preservice teachers using drama-based research and pedagogy [Unpublished PhD Dissertation]. Arizona State University.

55.

Zuniga

Henderson

Palmer

(2018). Language policy toward equity: How bilingual teachers use policy mandates to their own ends. Language and Education, 32(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1349792