Chapter 35: (Post) Structural Analyses of Two Notions of Academic Language: Discourse, Dialect, and Deficit

In the literature and discussions about language diver-John trovac sity in K-12 education, references to something called “academic language”—purportedly the language that children need and use in schools, especially to complete academic tasks—are commonplace. In the field of bilingual education, the discourse of “academic language” owes probably most notably to the work of Jim Cummins. His theories of language proficiency have been highly influential (consider the regurgative review by Martinez, 2001; May, Hill, & Tiakiwai’s, 2004, use of Cummins in their report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education) and strongly critiqued (see, e.g., Commins & Miramontes, 1989; Edelsky, 1983, 1996; MacSwan, 2000; Petrovic & Olmstead, 2001; Wiley, 1996). For both reasons, it cannot be denied that he has advanced the field in significant ways. As his work has become part of the common parlance among educators, it has indeed provided an important tool for teachers to make a case against the premature mainstreaming of English language learners (ELLs)—one of Cummins’ stated purposes. Nevertheless, academics must recognize the simultaneity of productive and reductive consequences of our work. This, I would argue, Cummins has not done.