ABSTRACT
In educational settings, the term language is mostly used in the sense of code, which can be translated and switched as needed, and which can be acquired by learning the proper words and syntax.1 Thus, language instruction makes use of dictionaries and grammar books and usually ignores the social and cultural dimensions in which language is embedded and that are, in part, constituted by language (McKay & Wong, 1996). The introductory quote suggests that knowing language in the sense of pure code does not exist. Rather, knowing a language is tantamount to knowing one’s way around a particular part of the world (Hanks, 1996). Equally important, language is tied up with who we are: Language is constitutive of our identities, which change even if we only switch from nonstandard to standard forms of a language (Derrida, 1998). Thus, changing my pri-
C H A P T
Wolff-Michael Roth University of Victoria
mary language from German to English and having a third language (French) move into second place was coextensive with profound changes in my identity and values (Roth & Harama, 2000). Similarly, my acquisition of social sciences discourses after having been trained and having worked as a physicist was accompanied by fundamental changes in the way I look at and understand the scientific and technological “advances” of our times. That is, my acquisition of another language, whether cultural or discipline-specific, not only involved the addition of another code but also changed who I am in relation to others and how I understand myself. Taking my cues from pragmatic and postmodern scholars, I propose a way of thinking about language in schools, and particularly about science as language, in a very different way than is usual in the field of science education.
