Uccelli focuses readers’ attention on two language-based challenges for educational excellence and equity in today's adolescent classrooms. One challenge is the diversity of social identities, where students from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds are often taught by teachers who do not share their cultural backgrounds or experiences. Her own university students reported that their teachers never showed interest in their experiences or languages and told them that the ways that they talked would hold them back. Some were sanctioned for enacting their bilingual identities at school. Students cannot realize their full potential in contexts where they encounter linguicism and racism and where their ways of talking are negatively judged and their meanings not heard.

The second challenge is that midadolescence is also a time when the linguistic demands of learning increase, with variation across subject areas in ways of participating in developing and critiquing knowledge. At the same time, teachers are currently seldom well prepared to be explicit about the ways language works to make meanings in their fields of study or to support students in development of reading, speaking, and writing in their disciplinary areas. Uccelli's research focuses on this challenge, identifying linguistic features of the discourses through which knowledge is presented and critiques are developed. My research, too, has focused on making this hidden curriculum (Christie, 1985) of expectations for language learning visible and explicit (Schleppegrell, 2004, 2020). But success with confronting this second challenge, as with other educational challenges, depends on overcoming linguicism and racism.

Language-in-education research that is grounded in a social semiotic perspective can contribute to overcoming linguicism and racism by recognizing that interpersonal relationships in the classroom are enacted simultaneously with engagement in knowledge construction. Languaging is the primary social process through which learning is achieved in school contexts, as knowledge is socially constructed (Halliday, 2007). Every utterance shapes classroom meaning-making by simultaneously construing interpersonal and ideational meanings as participants position themselves and others while sharing experience and knowledge. Those who speak in the classroom are always displaying aspects of their identities, so a tenor of mutual respect for differences and openness to listening for meaning are a prerequisite. Listeners who do not respect others’ language and respond in ways that reject or discount them and their language perpetuate injustice and inequity and hinder the learning of all (Flores & Rosa, 2015).

To elaborate on Uccelli's point, students are not just “potential contributors to later scholarly endeavors [emphasis added].” All students bring cultural and linguistic resources that enable them to contribute to building knowledge in interaction with others. Every student draws on a full repertoire of linguistic registers that they have developed in activities in and out of school. All registers can be welcomed in learning and participating because school knowledge has to be built with the language and from the experiences and knowledge students bring to the classroom.

As participants in the classroom discourse community work together to develop and critique new knowledge, learners do not just take on what is already known but actively develop understanding that is shaped by the context of learning (Halliday, 2007). Uccelli points out that students may have “gap[s] in collective interpretive resources”; this is true of both teachers and students. While students are learning new disciplinary practices and discourses and engaging with them critically, teachers may need to learn to listen to students and consider what they share, especially when what they share is presented in unfamiliar registers or from different epistemological perspectives. Teachers can adopt a stance that they are there not to provide learners with new resources or to identify what learners lack but to engage learners in interaction that empowers them to engage with and critique the dominant narratives that underlie school discourses. At the same time, with an understanding of language and learning as a dialogic process, teachers can learn to talk explicitly about language in ways that make the meanings and practices of the field of study more available to students.

We need more language-in-education research that sees the classroom as a discourse community where what is said by any speaker affects the positioning of others. Such research can contribute to preparing teachers to engage students whose social experiences and languages they do not share in productive dialogue and joint participation in knowledge construction (Harman, 2018). In teacher education, learning to do the interpersonal work of positioning students as knowers can interact with learning the pedagogical work of talking about language in meaningful ways that enable students to participate in and critique the knowledge presented in different subject areas (Mizell, 2021).

Positioning of students and knowledge is simultaneously achieved in dialogue, and how to create dialogue that engages all learners in adolescent classrooms across content areas in productive discourse remains an important focus for language-in-education research. It is in the context of making meaning in different subject areas that teachers and students can recognize the power of languaging in shaping the field of study as well as the classroom context (Monte-Sano et al., 2021). Both teachers and students need to talk about language and meaning in explicit ways, drawing attention to how speakers and writers position their interlocutors with every utterance/clause as well as how the language they use judges, values, and critiques people and ideas. In this way educational researchers can address the challenges Uccelli raises.

Uccelli 将读者的注意力集中在当今青少年课堂中教育卓越和公平的两个基于语言的挑战上。挑战之一是社会身份的多样性，来自不同语言和文化背景的学生往往由不分享他们文化背景或经历的教师授课。她自己的大学生报告说，他们的老师从未对他们的经历或语言表现出兴趣，并告诉他们，他们说话的方式会让他们退缩。有些人因在学校表现出双语身份而受到处罚。在遇到语言主义和种族主义以及他们的谈话方式受到负面评价并且他们的意思没有被听到的情况下，学生无法充分发挥他们的潜力。

第二个挑战是，青春期中期也是语言学习需求增加的时期，不同学科领域参与发展和批判知识的方式各不相同。与此同时，教师目前很少准备好明确说明语言在其学习领域中发挥作用的方式，或支持学生在其学科领域中发展阅读、口语和写作的方式。Uccelli 的研究侧重于这一挑战，确定话语的语言特征，通过这些话语呈现知识和发展批评。我的研究也集中在使这种隐藏的课程（Christie，1985 年）对语言学习的期望可见和明确（Schleppegrell，2004 年，2020 年）). 但是，与其他教育挑战一样，成功应对第二个挑战取决于克服语言主义和种族主义。

以社会符号学观点为基础的语言教育研究可以通过认识到课堂上的人际关系与参与知识建构同时建立，从而有助于克服语言主义和种族主义。语言是在学校环境中实现学习的主要社会过程，因为知识是社会建构的（Halliday，2007). 当参与者在分享经验和知识时定位自己和他人时，每一句话都会通过同时解释人际意义和概念意义来塑造课堂意义的形成。那些在课堂上发言的人总是展示他们身份的各个方面，因此相互尊重差异和开放倾听意义的基调是先决条件。不尊重他人语言并以拒绝或贬低他人及其语言的方式做出回应的听众会延续不公正和不公平，并阻碍所有人的学习（Flores & Rosa，2015 年）。

为了详细说明 Uccelli 的观点，学生不仅仅是“后来学术努力的潜在贡献者[强调]。” 所有学生都带来了文化和语言资源，使他们能够在与他人的互动中为构建知识做出贡献。每个学生都会利用他们在校内外活动中形成的完整语言记录库。在学习和参与中可以欢迎所有语域，因为学校知识必须通过语言以及学生带到课堂的经验和知识来构建。

当课堂话语社区的参与者共同开发和批判新知识时，学习者不仅接受已知的知识，而且积极发展由学习环境塑造的理解（Halliday，2007 年）). Uccelli 指出，学生可能“在集体解释资源方面存在差距”；老师和学生都是如此。当学生正在学习新的纪律实践和话语并批判性地与他们互动时，教师可能需要学会倾听学生并考虑他们分享的内容，尤其是当他们分享的内容以不熟悉的方式或从不同的认识论角度呈现时。教师可以采取一种立场，即他们在那里不是为学习者提供新资源或确定学习者缺乏什么，而是让学习者参与互动，使他们能够参与和批评学校话语背后的主导叙事。同时，将对语言的理解和学习作为一个对话过程，

我们需要更多的语言教育研究，将课堂视为一个话语社区，任何说话者所说的话都会影响其他人的定位。此类研究有助于让教师做好准备，让那些社会经验和语言与他们不同的学生参与富有成效的对话和共同参与知识建构（Harman，2018 年）。在教师教育中，学习将学生定位为知识者的人际交往工作可以与学习以有意义的方式谈论语言的教学工作互动，使学生能够参与和批判不同学科领域的知识（Mizell，2021 ）。

学生和知识的定位是在对话中同时实现的，如何创建对话，让青少年课堂上的所有学习者参与到富有成效的话语中，跨内容领域，仍然是语言教育研究的一个重要重点。正是在不同学科领域产生意义的背景下，教师和学生才能认识到语言在塑造学习领域和课堂环境方面的力量（Monte-Sano 等人，2021 年）). 教师和学生都需要以明确的方式谈论语言和意义，让人们注意到说话者和作者如何用每一句话/从句来定位他们的对话者，以及他们使用的语言如何判断、评价和批评人和思想。通过这种方式，教育研究人员可以解决 Uccelli 提出的挑战。