Current research in (language) education is rightly concerned about the potential of linguicism and epistemic injustice. Linguicism can be broadly defined as excluding and/or silencing students’ other languages and epistemic injustice as excluding and/or silencing students’ ways of knowing, doing, and being. Thus, any attempts at reducing or eliminating the potential of linguicism and epistemic injustice is a positive move which can help in creating an inclusive and enabling environment for students from diverse backgrounds.

At the same time, many language-in-education researchers/practitioners avoid defining language, which is not wholly their fault; but it does impact their work. Traditional linguists have typically avoided defining language. Instead, they typically contrast human language with nonhuman communication and use these differences to establish the discipline of linguistics. Other approaches to linguistics have attempted to define language. For example, systemic functional linguistics sees language as a semogenic system; however, language can be defined in other ways as well. Three additional ways of defining language are described below (see Mahboob, 2020, for a detailed discussion of these definitions and their social and environmental consequences). Drawing on all these definitions of language can contribute to the goals of pedagogies of voices (Uccelli & Boix Mansilla, 2020/2022) that Uccelli has proposed in her target article.

Language Is a Semogenic System

A semo-genic system means a meaning (semo)-making (genic) system, that is, a system that helps language users make and share meanings. In language-in-education research, this definition has been used to develop the notion of learning language, learning through language, and learning about language (Halliday, 1980), to which Uccelli has also referred in her target article.

Oral language (boli in my speech, ) is only one set of sound frequencies (within a range of frequencies) used by humans to mean different things. Other sets of sounds (e.g., music, thunder, buzzing) also make meanings for humans. And, in addition, humans also use sight, smell, touch, and taste to make meanings. Writing systems are different from boli as they operate through sight, a different sensory system. And reading is just one thing that humans do with their eyes (as boli is with sound); sign language also operates through sight. In addition, humans use gestures, colors, size, distance, dimensions, and many other things that they see to make and share meanings.

An understanding of the difference between boli, writing systems, and sign language has implications for education. For example, by realizing that reading is just one aspect of their visual system, we can question the use of literacy as a primary measure of ability, development, and success. One can ask: If people will not discriminate against a person who cannot see, then why discriminate against someone who does not use one aspect of their sight?

Boli Is Sociosemiotic Inheritance

Boli is inheritance: Children typically learn language from their elders and care givers who learned it from their elders, and they from theirs, and so on. As humans’ ancestral boli evolved and passed across generations, they captured the nuances of their environment as well as their ways of knowing, doing, and being, that is, their epistemologies. These epistemologies evolved based on what was necessary in living with the environment and other species in particular regions. Boli is a sociosemiotic inheritance and, unlike humans’ material/biological inheritance, it is passed on through social engagement and not through DNA. For boli to pass down effectively, it has to remain relatively independent within a larger linguistic ecology. If the linguistic ecology of a community is disturbed, for example, by introducing new concepts and categories, these new concepts and categories can impact local ways of knowing, being, and doing.

Boli Is Science

If one strips science of all applications and methodologies, what remains are taxonomies: ways of classifying and categorizing things and processes. These taxonomies form humans’ boli and their semogenic abilities. Since boli evolves in different contexts and geographies, they reflect different ways of classifying and categorizing things and processes.

Taxonomies can influence how humans see and engage in the world. While boli evolves naturally and may change the ways that it classifies or categorizes things, a deliberate or external influence in the ecology of language can also bring about changes. For example, the concept of religion and taxonomies associated with it (e.g., names of religions, characteristics of religions) evolved during the early period of European colonization. This classificatory system was then borrowed into other languages—evidence of this can be observed in how languages around the world borrow or translate the concept of religion. Once borrowed and/or translated, the concept creates new divisions between groups and often shifts people attention away from practices to belief systems, which can lead to conflict (see also Mahboob & Tupas, 2022).

Boli Is a Complex Dynamic System

Recent work on language has illustrated that boli, like many other natural systems, is a complex dynamic system and, as such, is inherently unstable and constantly changing. For example, The “Five Graces Group” et al. (2009) pointed out:

(a) The system consists of multiple agents (the speakers in the speech community) interacting with one another. (b) The system is adaptive; that is, speakers’ behavior is based on their past interactions, and current and past interactions together feed forward into future behavior. (c) A speaker's behavior is the consequence of competing factors ranging from perceptual mechanics to social motivations. (d) The structures of language emerge from interrelated patterns of experience, social interaction, and cognitive processes. (p. 2)

Given the complex dynamic nature of boli, one can ask: Can one and should one write grammars of boli when they are not stable? While one may argue that there are certain patterns in boli that are used across many contexts, and hence a description of such patterns can be a useful resource in education and training, one should also be aware that these patterns may change across time and space. An understanding of language as a complex dynamic system has implications for what educators teach, how they teach, and how they carry out assessment (see Mahboob, 2018, for a longer discussion of this).

Concluding Thoughts

Current directions in language-in-education research that question and provide alternatives to linguicism and epistemic injustice, such as the pedagogies of voices as proposed in Uccelli's target article, are essential in creating a more inclusive educational environment. To support these efforts, one can draw on a more inclusive set of definitions of language and integrate all sensory systems instead of just speech and literacy in their work. Language, or more specifically boli, is a semogenic system, a sociosemiotic inheritance, a science, and a complex dynamic system. Each of these definitions offers unique insights into boli and how it can lead to or avoid linguicism and epistemic injustice. An understanding of boli as an action/performance/verb (and its differences from reading–writing) can help challenge the use of reading–writing as the dominant approach to education and evaluation. An understanding of how boli is inheritance can boost the prestige of boli and recognize the loss represented by a loss of boli. An understanding of taxonomies and how they influence perception and knowledge can help teachers and others to show how different boli can lead to different ways of seeing, knowing, and acting. And, an understanding of how language is complex dynamic, educationists can create pedagogies that sharpen students’ ability to identify patterns and relationships between patterns without the necessity of using any standard language or genre. Proficiency in a complex dynamic system lies in how many variations and patterns one can navigate, not in how well one measures on a test against standards. These definitions highlight the social and environmental impact of monolingual and Anglo-centric education and show the urgency of enabling pedagogies of voices and other approaches to counter linguicism and epistemic injustice.

中文翻译：

---

关于语言主义、认知不公正和语言教育研究：对“中学生在学校的语言学习：在研究和教育中进行更公正和科学严谨的实践”的评论

当前对（语言）教育的研究正确地关注了语言主义和认知不公正的潜力。语言主义可以广义地定义为排除和/或压制学生的其他语言，认知不公正可以定义为排除和/或压制学生的认知、行为和存在方式。因此，任何减少或消除潜在的语言主义和认知不公正的尝试都是积极的举措，有助于为来自不同背景的学生创造一个包容和有利的环境。

与此同时，许多语言教育研究人员/从业者避免给语言下定义，这不完全是他们的错；但它确实影响了他们的工作。传统语言学家通常避免定义语言。相反，他们通常将人类语言与非人类交流进行对比，并利用这些差异来建立语言学学科。其他语言学方法试图定义语言。例如，系统功能语言学将语言视为一个符号系统；然而，语言也可以用其他方式来定义。下面描述了另外三种定义语言的方法（参见 Mahboob，2020，以详细讨论这些定义及其社会和环境后果）。借鉴所有这些语言定义可以有助于Uccelli 在她的目标文章中提出的语音教学法目标 (Uccelli & Boix Mansilla, 2020/ 2022 )。

语言是一个语义系统

语义生成系统是指意义 ( semo ) 生成 ( genic ) 系统，即帮助语言使用者生成和共享意义的系统。在语言教育研究中，这个定义被用来发展学习语言、通过语言学习和学习语言的概念 (Halliday, 1980 )，Uccelli 在她的目标文章中也提到了这一点。

口头语言（在我的演讲中是boli）只是人类用来表示不同事物的一组声音频率（在一定频率范围内）。其他声音集（例如，音乐、雷声、嗡嗡声）也对人类有意义。此外，人类还使用视觉、嗅觉、触觉和味觉来表达意义。书写系统与 boli 不同，因为它们通过视觉（一种不同的感官系统）进行操作。阅读只是人类用眼睛做的一件事（就像博利用声音一样）；手语也通过视觉发挥作用。此外，人类使用手势、颜色、大小、距离、尺寸以及他们看到的许多其他事物来表达和分享意义。

了解 boli、书写系统和手语之间的差异对教育具有重要意义。例如，通过意识到阅读只是他们视觉系统的一个方面，我们可以质疑将读写能力用作能力、发展和成功的主要衡量标准。有人会问：如果人们不会歧视一个看不见的人，那么为什么要歧视一个不能使用他们某一方面视力的人呢？

Boli 是社会符号学的继承

Boli 是继承：孩子通常从他们的长辈和照顾者那里学习语言，他们从他们的长辈那里学习语言，他们从他们的长辈那里学习，等等。随着人类祖先的 boli 进化并代代相传，他们捕捉到了他们所处环境的细微差别以及他们认识、做事和存在的方式，即他们的认识论。这些认识论是根据在特定地区与环境和其他物种共存的必要条件而演变而来的。Boli 是一种社会符号遗传，与人类的物质/生物遗传不同，它是通过社会参与而非 DNA 传递的。玻利语要有效传承，就必须在更大的语言生态中保持相对独立。如果一个社区的语言生态受到干扰，例如，通过引入新的概念和类别，

玻利是科学

如果将科学从所有应用程序和方法论中剥离出来，剩下的就是分类法：对事物和过程进行分类和归类的方法。这些分类法形成了人类的 boli 和他们的语义生成能力。由于 boli 在不同的环境和地域中演变，它们反映了对事物和过程进行分类和分类的不同方式。

分类法可以影响人类看待世界和参与世界的方式。虽然 boli 是自然进化的，并且可能会改变它对事物进行分类或分类的方式，但语言生态中的蓄意或外部影响也会带来变化。例如，宗教的概念和与之相关的分类法（例如，宗教的名称、宗教的特征）是在欧洲殖民的早期演变而来的。这种分类系统随后被借用到其他语言中——这方面的证据可以从世界各地的语言如何借用或翻译宗教概念中观察到。一旦被借用和/或翻译，这个概念就会在群体之间产生新的分歧，并且经常将人们的注意力从实践转移到信仰体系，这可能导致冲突（另见 Mahboob & Tupas，2022）。

玻利是一个复杂的动力系统

最近关于语言的研究表明，boli 与许多其他自然系统一样，是一个复杂的动态系统，因此本质上是不稳定且不断变化的。例如，“五美集团”等。( 2009 )指出：

(a) 该系统由相互交互的多个代理（语音社区中的说话者）组成。(b) 该系统是自适应的；也就是说，说话者的行为基于他们过去的互动，而当前和过去的互动共同影响未来的行为。(c) 说话者的行为是从感知机制到社会动机等各种竞争因素的结果。(d) 语言的结构产生于经验、社会互动和认知过程的相互关联模式。（第 2 页）

考虑到 boli 复杂的动态特性，可以问：当 boli 不稳定时，是否可以并且应该编写语法？虽然有人可能会争辩说 boli 中有某些模式可以在许多情况下使用，因此对这些模式的描述可以成为教育和培训中的有用资源，但我们也应该意识到这些模式可能会随着时间和空间的变化而变化。将语言理解为一个复杂的动态系统会对教育者教授什么、如何教授以及如何进行评估产生影响（请参阅 Mahboob，2018 年对此进行更详细的讨论）。

结语

语言教育研究的当前方向质疑并提供语言主义和认知不公正的替代方案，例如 Uccelli 的目标文章中提出的声音教学法，对于创造更具包容性的教育环境至关重要。为了支持这些努力，人们可以利用一套更具包容性的语言定义，并在他们的工作中整合所有感官系统，而不仅仅是语言和读写能力。语言，或者更具体地说是 boli，是一个符号系统、一种社会符号学继承、一门科学和一个复杂的动态系统。这些定义中的每一个都提供了对 boli 以及它如何导致或避免语言主义和认知不公正的独特见解。将 boli 理解为一种动作/表演/动词（及其与阅读-写作的区别）有助于挑战将阅读-写作作为教育和评估的主要方法的使用。了解boli是如何继承的，可以提高boli的威望，并认识到boli的损失所代表的损失。了解分类法以及它们如何影响感知和知识可以帮助教师和其他人展示不同的 boli 如何导致不同的观察、认知和行动方式。并且，了解语言是如何复杂动态的，教育家可以创建教学法来提高学生识别模式和模式之间关系的能力，而无需使用任何标准语言或类型。在复杂的动态系统中的熟练程度在于一个人可以驾驭多少变化和模式，而不是一个人在测试中对标准的衡量有多好。这些定义强调了单一语言和以盎格鲁为中心的教育对社会和环境的影响，并表明了支持声音教学法和其他方法来对抗语言主义和认知不公正的紧迫性。