His comment spoke to the dichotomy of academic and nonacademic languages that also exists in the signing communities in the educational context. The broader colonial logics rooted in whiteness that Flores and Rosa have presented in their argument against universal linguistic competence also affect the education of racialized disabled minorities that communicate in speech and signed modalities. The two key themes—inferiority and deficiency—in Flores and Rosa's discussion point to the intertwinement of race and disability in the history of colonialism. Race, class, and gender have often been central in theoretical analyses and debates in postcolonial scholarship, but disability has notably been absent from the scholarship (Kliewer & Fitzgerald, 2001; Soldatic, 2015). Disability has been used as a metaphor as a way to protect a democracy against social disorder and as a motivation to establish the notions of normalcy (Frederick & Shifrer, 2019) that underlie whiteness in conceptualizations of linguistic competence and humanness.

The devaluation of racialized communities’ linguistic repertoires has been part of the main thread of colonialism which has served to exploit and control populations with unwanted or undesirable characteristics from European theological and scientific standpoints (Kliewer & Fitzgerald, 2001). In the 16th century, race was used as part of a religious imperative to dominate those who were judged to be inferior, and disability was used to confine people by institutionalizing them, which gave rise to the period of the Great Confinement. During the 17th and 18th centuries of rationalism, the debate about racial hierarchy had evolved into scientific explanations about human variation as a challenge to theology, and the debate eventually settled on the “natural” relationship between race and intellectual capacity from the European viewpoint (Kliewer & Fitzgerald, 2001, pp. 458–460). The merging of eugenic science and social Darwinism set the tone for employing and educating those with desirable social traits who could participate as full citizens and excluding those with undesirable traits. By excluding those with undesirable traits, those with desirable traits exerted their control over populations with unwanted or undesirable characteristics through confinement or incarceration that also included segregation in education on the basis of race and disability.

American Sign Language (ASL) is in an interesting position as a language native to the United States with respect to the intersection of race and disability. In Europe and the Americas, deaf children were commonly institutionalized as part of the religious mission because their lack of speech facility was thought to endanger their souls, and education was thought to be a way to salvation (Monaghan, 2003). Initially a speech method was taught, but in the 18th century, a local sign language in France that was developed out of a sign system created by unschooled deaf children was adopted as an instructional medium in a deaf school, and the signing method became a model for deaf schools around the world. In the 19th century, oralism (the speech method) arose in opposition to sign language that was associated with theology, and it dovetailed with the rise of the scientific movement associated with Darwinism and nationalism. After the 1880 decision at the Second International Congress on the Education of the Deaf in Milan, Italy, signed languages were banned in schools for the deaf in favor of speech that was considered the mark of humanity; anything other than speech or writing was less than human. However, the oralist policy was not equally enforced in 17 segregated schools for Black deaf children in US southern states established between 1867 and 1983 (McCaskill et al., 2011). After desegregation, Black deaf students were expected to use mainstream ASL used at former white schools, which reinforced their negative perception of their own Black ASL varieties used at segregated schools (Bayley et al., 2018).

In 1965, non-Black scholars William Stokoe and his deaf associates Dorothy Casterline and Carl Croneberg published their dictionary of ASL with their linguistic analysis and proclaimed it as a natural language according to the universal linguistic properties (Stokoe, 1965). In the same instance, Black deaf signers were “deliberately avoided […] as subjects in compiling their dictionary of American Sign Language” because their signing was radically different and the number of Black signers was presumed to be small (Maxwell & Smith-Todd, 1986, p. 83). These days, ASL is one of the popular foreign languages to be formally taught in secondary and postsecondary institutions (Robinson & Henner, 2018). It is also standardized with the publication of dictionaries and textbooks, the formalized training of ASL teachers, and the formal ASL assessments for those using ASL in teaching and service professions (Hill, 2012). The professionalization of ASL has solidified the status of academic ASL as a formal register in educational and professional contexts, and unsurprisingly, academic ASL is white-based. Even though the interaction of race and ethnicity in the assessment of language acquisition and use is acknowledged in the studies of nonwhite deaf children (Pizzo & Chilvers, 2016; Henner et al., 2018, 2019) and the stories of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color ASL/English interpreters (West Oyedele, 2015; Shambourger, 2015), the racialization of linguistic competence has not been critically examined in the applied linguistics of sign language. The framework presented by Flores and Rosa will be a useful construct that compels practitioners and researchers to consider the colonial roots in language assessment and teaching and reevaluate their white-based assumptions about linguistic competence and humanness.

他的评论谈到了学术和非学术语言的二分法，这种二分法也存在于教育背景下的签名社区中。弗洛雷斯和罗莎在反对普遍语言能力的论点中提出的植根于白人的更广泛的殖民逻辑也影响了以语音和手语方式交流的种族化残疾少数群体的教育。弗洛雷斯和罗莎讨论的两个关键主题——自卑和不足——指出了殖民主义历史上种族和残疾的交织。种族、阶级和性别通常是后殖民学术理论分析和辩论的核心，但残疾问题在学术研究中明显缺失（Kliewer & Fitzgerald, 2001 ; Soldatic, 2015）。残疾已被用作隐喻，作为保护民主免受社会混乱的一种方式，并作为建立常态概念的动力（Frederick & Shifrer，2019），这是语言能力和人性概念化中白人的基础。

从欧洲神学和科学的角度来看，种族化社区的语言库贬值一直是殖民主义主线的一部分，它有助于剥削和控制具有不受欢迎或不受欢迎的特征的人口（Kliewer & Fitzgerald，2001）。在 16 世纪，种族被用作宗教命令的一部分，以统治那些被判定为劣等的人，而残疾被用来通过制度化来限制人们，从而产生了大禁闭时期。在 17 世纪和 18 世纪的理性主义时期，关于种族等级的争论已经演变为对人类差异的科学解释，作为对神学的挑战，争论最终从欧洲的角度解决了种族和智力之间的“自然”关系（Kliewer与菲茨杰拉德，2001，第 458-460 页）。优生科学和社会达尔文主义的融合为雇用和教育那些具有理想社会特征的人，他们可以作为完整的公民参与并排除那些具有不良特征的人奠定了基调。通过排除那些具有不良特征的人，那些具有良好特征的人通过监禁或监禁来控制具有不良或不良特征的人群，其中还包括基于种族和残疾的教育隔离。

美国手语 (ASL) 作为一种美国本土语言，在种族和残疾的交叉方面处于一个有趣的位置。在欧洲和美洲，聋童通常被送进机构作为宗教使命的一部分，因为他们缺乏语言能力被认为会危及他们的灵魂，而教育被认为是一种拯救方式（Monaghan，2003）。最初教授的是语音方法，但到了 18 世纪，法国当地的一种手语是由未受教育的聋哑儿童创建的手语系统发展而来的，在聋哑学校被采用作为教学媒介，手语方法成为一种模式面向世界各地的聋人学校。在 19 世纪，口语（演讲方法）与与神学相关的手语相对立，它与与达尔文主义和民族主义相关的科学运动的兴起相吻合。1880 年在意大利米兰举行的第二届国际聋人教育大会作出决定后，聋人学校禁止使用手语，以支持被认为是人类标志的言论；除了语音或写作之外的任何东西都比人类少。然而，2011 年）。取消种族隔离后，预计黑人聋哑学生将使用以前白人学校使用的主流 ASL，这加强了他们对种族隔离学校使用的自己的黑人 ASL 品种的负面看法（Bayley 等人，2018 年）。

1965 年，非黑人学者 William Stokoe 和他的聋人同事 Dorothy Casterline 和 Carl Croneberg 出版了他们的 ASL 词典，并通过他们的语言分析，并根据普遍的语言特性宣布它是一种自然语言（Stokoe，1965 年）。在同一个例子中，黑人聋人手语者“在编写他们的美国手语词典时被刻意避免[……]作为主题”，因为他们的手语完全不同，而且黑人手语者的数量被认为是很小的（Maxwell & Smith-Todd，1986 年，第 83 页）。如今，ASL 是在中学和高等教育机构正式教授的流行外语之一（Robinson & Henner，2018）。它还通过出版词典和教科书、对 ASL 教师的正式培训以及对在教学和服务行业中使用 ASL 的人员进行正式的 ASL 评估进行标准化（Hill，2012 年）。ASL 的专业化巩固了学术 ASL 作为教育和专业领域正式注册的地位，毫不奇怪，学术 ASL 是基于白人的。尽管种族和民族在语言习得和使用评估中的相互作用在对非白聋儿童的研究（Pizzo & Chilvers, 2016 ; Henner et al., 2018, 2019）以及黑人、土著和有色人种 ASL/英语口译员（West Oyedele，2015 年；Shambourger，2015 年），语言能力的种族化尚未在手语应用语言学中得到严格检验。Flores 和 Rosa 提出的框架将是一个有用的结构，它迫使从业者和研究人员考虑语言评估和教学中的殖民根源，并重新评估他们关于语言能力和人性的基于白人的假设。