{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015678254942058625, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.703196347031963, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Problematizing ethnolects: Naming linguistic practices in an Antwerp secondary school

This article argues that naming linguistic practices “ethnolectal” is a praxis with ideological consequences that sociolinguists fail sufficiently to address. It suggests that a transformation of linguistic differences into ethnolect-codes quickly falls prey to homogenizing groups and their language use, obscures speakers' styling practices as well as the relations between “ethnolect” and standard language speakers. Furthermore, “ethnolect” as an analytical concept buttresses the idea that linguistic practices are caused by ethnicity, when it is more likely to assume language use is shaped by how speakers interpret prevailing representations of ethnicity and style their language use in relation to that. As an alternative, I argue that ethnolects be viewed as representations of particular ways of speaking that do not necessarily correspond to systematic linguistic practices. Sociolinguists therefore need to investigate how local and general perceptions of ways of speaking lead to specific styling practices, and integrate these into their descriptions. In addition, they need to be aware that their own work is social action as well, which requires taking into account the concerns of who gets labeled. This is illustrated with data from a case study showing how Belgian adolescents of Moroccan background resist an ethnolectal categorization of their routine Dutch.