Hi Clara! Thank you for this post! I thought the points you made in your post were very interesting. You were able to weave together the linguistic and sociopolitical aspects of Lippi-Green's argument. Linking the biological limits of accent acquisition (through the Sound House and Critical Period examples) to their social consequences was a perspective I hadn't really considered before, but it made me think about the ongoing nature vs. nurture debate in developmental psychology and how different factors can affect language acquisition. 'Differences' can become distorted into 'deficiencies' within systems that equate legitimacy with 'standardization'.
I agree with your point about Cummins' model and how it can be helpful to an extent, but could also unintentionally reinforce deficit narratives by treating linguistic practices as separate and hierarchical. Schools often overemphasize what students lack rather than what they can bring to classrooms, a pattern that mirrors Lippi-Green's critique of 'corrections'. It seemed like both authors were ultimately asking us to rethink what counts as linguistic competence, but maybe from different standing points: Lippi-Green through accent/ideology, and Cummins through the lens of academic literacy and institutional recognition.
I agree with your point about Cummins' model and how it can be helpful to an extent, but could also unintentionally reinforce deficit narratives by treating linguistic practices as separate and hierarchical. Schools often overemphasize what students lack rather than what they can bring to classrooms, a pattern that mirrors Lippi-Green's critique of 'corrections'. It seemed like both authors were ultimately asking us to rethink what counts as linguistic competence, but maybe from different standing points: Lippi-Green through accent/ideology, and Cummins through the lens of academic literacy and institutional recognition.