{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019230769230769232, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.85207100591716, '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}}
Are we raising the standards of language use or just playing games?

Given the current state of play with respect to literacy 'crises' in Western democracies, 
this article revisits the 'language games' that often inform these concerns, examining 
their rules and who benefits from them. It argues that to focus narrowly on the technical 
aspects of language, as the current emphasis does, misses the point of what is at stake 
for students: those who advocates claim to want to help. Drawing on twenty semistructured 
interviews and observations of teachers in primary and secondary schools 
within Queensland (Australia), the article outlines four perspectives on language use 
and how these variously position students as literate and illiterate. It concludes that 
we now need a different game plan to address students' use of language, one that 
provokes a stance and praxis in keeping with a more inclusive politics and which 
provides real challenges to broader social constraints.