{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029201817001946788, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010382868267358857, 'mean_word_length': 5.79295154185022, '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}}
Negotiating the Multilingual Turn in SLA

IN 2011, THE PROMINENT EUROPEAN political theorist, Van Parijs, published Linguistic justice for Europe and for the world (Van Parijs, 2011). The book was a culmination of over a decade’s work on the prospects, and limits, of justice for linguistic minorities, within a normative political theory framework. It was greeted within political theory as an important development—primarily, because it appeared to directly challenge the ‘untrammeled public monolingualism’ of Anglo-American political theory that had been dominant up until that time (May, 2015). Anglo-American political theory has predominantly taken the liberal egalitarian position, following the work of Rawls (1971), that adherence to a (single) national language is a necessary condition of national citizenship, a basis for social and economic mobility, and crucial to making democratic conversations more immediate and accessible (the fewer languages involved, the easier the conversation). In this view, minority languages must be dispensed with as quickly as possible. Of particular concern in many of these Anglo-American political theory accounts is the ongoing use of Spanish in U.S. society. In its most trenchantmanifestations, political theorists within this tradition have concluded that the maintenance of Spanish—via bilingual education programs, for example—would simply ossify social and cultural isolationism and socioeconomic immobility for Spanish speakers, while also potentially contributing to wider democratic