Regimes of motherhood: Social class, the word gap and the optimisation of mothers’ talk

Abstract

The role of working class mothers’ talk in explaining their child’s ‘impoverished’ language development and the resulting ‘word gap’ between social classes is hotly debated. Academic research in this area spans decades, crosses continents, and gathers up a wide range of disciplines and positions, ranging from research seeking to intervene in and optimise mothers’ talk, to research that vigorously criticises any attempt to do so. Through an extended analysis of Jacques Donzelot’s seminal study The Policing of Families, and Michel Foucault’s concept of a ‘regime of truth’, we explore how motherhood is constructed by academic debate as something to be endlessly optimised. Academic debate functions by (1) reducing expectations concerning the role and remit of experts so as to place the onus on mothers to implement findings which the former will facilitate, (2) complicating the contributing factors to language delay, thus avoiding apportioning blame too directly whilst giving endless cause to do further research, and (3) committing mothers to a permanent labour in which they are expected to better themselves as measured by the manifest language development of their children. Its strongest critics remain within the constraints of this regime of truth to the extent that they argue for humility of expertise, for recognition of broader sociocultural factors, and for the importance of privileging the expertise and agency of mothers. This article considers how all parties are, in effect, obliged to declare the truth of motherhood and will find themselves implicated in its governance.

Language development, linguistic input, and linguistic racism

“…To continue to use “quality” linguistic input to describe linguistic environments is to intentionally choose epistemological violence; this work puts children at‐risk by measuring “gaps” in their linguistic experiences when no such gaps exist (Ladson‐Billings, 2006). Those doing work under the “language gap” must drop this framework altogether because anyone working under this tradition is colluding with the status quo (Allen & Spencer, 2022).…”

“…I know that the end of the debate cannot be concluded with all sides satisfied. Still, hopefully, I urge those doing work under the “language gap” tradition to drop this framework altogether—instead of continuing to shift the rhetoric—because working under this tradition is colluding with the racist status quo (Allen & Spencer, 2022).…”

“…I will also not be the last, nor will I stop. With that in mind, I still imagine a future in which I no longer must serve as a critic for “language gap” research (see Allen & Spencer, 2022).…”

“…It is not meant to do that because no one can (yet) do that. I do not want to introduce any grounds for disagreement or greater reason for doubt into the debate (Allen & Spencer, 2022) by quoting Chomsky, but I do want to make the same point he makes so succinctly, “[T]here is little point in speculating about the process of acquisition without a much better understanding of what is acquired” (Chomsky, 1959, p. 55; as quoted in Johnson & White, 2020, p. 595). In the next section, I will lay out examples of how language is mischaracterized through descriptions of linguistic input that are argued to be “necessary” for language development, with the knowledge that language is part and parcel of human development, and it has been developed by children for thousands of years without worldwide incident or catastrophe.…”

“…The research literature of the past few decades portrays parental linguistic input, particularly the mother's (Allen & Spencer, 2022), as the most powerful indicator of a child's language development. As Leffel and Suskind (2013) argue, “Parent linguistic input lies at the heart of the problem; yet it also lies at the heart of the answer.” On the surface, the idea that parental linguistic input robustly predicts a child's language outcomes makes sense.…”