{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018484288354898338, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036968576709796672, 'mean_word_length': 5.153409090909091, '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}}
On differences and deficits: A critique of the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the word gap

The word gap, or the language gap, can be traced back to Hart and Risley’s 1995 seminal work on language practices in high- and low-income families, and it is one of the most widely cited explanations for why children from low-income, minority contexts underperform academically in contrast to their white, middle-income counterparts. Despite its widespread influence on research, education and policy, the word gap has been at the centre of vociferous debates in academic circles over whether the word gap is a deficit in language input for infants that should be attended to or a difference in language practices that should be embraced. In this article, I draw on multiple disciplines to highlight the strengths and shortcomings of word gap findings, and I provide future directions for educators, policymakers and researchers seeking to better understand the language experiences of children growing up in low-income contexts from a cultural and contextual perspective.