SELF-POLICING IN THE ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

Year 2013, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, - , 01.06.2013

Alia Amır

Abstract

The present study explores how classroom participants invoke a monolingual target-language policy in an English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom, specifically focusing on one method of doing language policy through self-initiated language policing sequences, which I have called self-policing. Language policing refers to the mechanism deployed by the teacher and/or the pupils to (re-)establish the normatively prescribed medium of classroom interaction (Amir & Musk, 2013; cf. Bonacina & Gafaranga, 2011). The data comes from sequential analyses of 20 hours of video recordings in grades 8 & 9 of an international compulsory school in Sweden between the years 2007-2010. Drawing on Auer (1984) and Gafaranga’s (1999) organisational code-switching framework, this study sheds light on how teachers and pupils self-initiate a switch to English in their interactions. As will be demonstrated, both teachers and pupils, while orienting to the English-only norm, use a three-step sequence for language policing.

Keywords

Classroom interaction, code-switching, conversation analysis, language policy, English as a Foreign Language (EFL), language in education policy (LIEP)

SELF-POLICING IN THE ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

Abstract

Bu çalışma, benim kendini yönetme olarak adlandırdığım bir öğrenci ya da öğretmenin kendisinin başlattığı dil politikası dizilişleri yoluyla dil politikası yapma yollarından özellikle bir tanesine odaklanarak, bir yabancı dil olarak İngilizce (EFL) sınıfında sınıf katılımcılarının nasıl tek dilli hedef dil politikasını kullandıklarını göstermektedir. Dil yönetimi, sınıf etkileşim dilini (yeniden) kurmak için öğretmen ve/veya öğrenciler tarafından kullanılan mekanizma olarak tanımlanabilir (Amir & Musk, 2013; Bonacina & Gafaranga, 2011). Veri, 2007-2010 yılları arasında İsveç’te uluslararası bir okulun 8. ve 9. sınıflarında kayıt altına alınmış olan videoların dizisel çözümlemesinden oluşmaktadır. Auer (1984) ve Gafaranga’nın (1999) organizasyonel dil değiştirme yapısından yola çıkarak, bu çalışma öğretmenlerin ve öğrencilerin etkileşimlerinde kendi kendilerine İngilizce’ye nasıl geçtiklerine ışık tutmaktadır. Gösterileceği üzere, sadece İngilizce kuralına uyarlarken, hem öğretmenler hem de öğrenciler dil politikası için üçbasamaklı bir dizilişi kullanmaktadırlar.

Keywords

Sınıf etkileşimi, dil değiştirme, Konuşma Çözümlemesi, dil politikası, Yabancı Dil olarak İngilizce (EFL), eğitim politikasında dil

References

• Amir, A. & Musk, N. (2013). Language policing: micro-level language policy-in-process in the foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse. DOI:10.1080/19463014.2013.783500 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2013.783500
• Auer, J. C. P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Auer, J. C. P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In J. C. P. Auer & A. D. Luzio (Eds.), The Contextualisation of Language, (pp. 1-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Bonacina, F. (2010). A conversation analytic approach to practiced language policies: The example of an induction classroom for newly-arrived immigrant children in France. PhD diss., University of Edinburgh.
• Bonacina, F. and J. Gafaranga. (2011). ‘Medium of instruction’ vs. ‘medium of classroom Interaction’: Language choice in a French complementary school classroom in Scotland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, 319-334.
• Bonacina-Pugh, F. (2012). Researching 'practiced language policies': Insights from Conversation Analysis. Language Policy, 11 (3), 213-234.
• Cekaite, A., & Evaldsson, A.-C. (2008). Staging linguistic identities and negotiating monolingual norms in multiethnic school settings. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5, 177– 1
• Copp Jinkerson, A. (2011). Interpreting and managing a monolingual norm in an Englishspeaking class in Finland: When first and second graders contest the norm. Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5, 27-48.
• Corson, David. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Cromdal, J. (2004). Building bilingual oppositions: Code-Switching in children's disputes. Language in Society, 33, 33-58.
• Evaldsson, A.-C., & Cekaite, A. (2010). ‘Schwedis. He can’t even say Swedish’: Subverting and reproducing institutionalized norms for language use in multilingual peer groups. Pragmatics, 20, 587–604.
• Gafaranga, J. (1998). Elements of order in bilingual talk: Kinyarwanda-French language alternation. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.
• Gafaranga, J. (1999). Language choice as a significant aspect of talk organization: The orderliness of language alternation. Text, 19 (2), 201-225.
• Gafaranga, J. (2000). Medium repair vs. other-language repair: Telling the medium of a bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 327-350.
• Gafaranga, J. (2005). Demythologising language alternation studies: Conversational structure vs. social structure in bilingual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 281-300.
• Gafaranga, J. (2007a). Code-switching as a conversational strategy. In P. W. Auer and L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, (pp. 279-314). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Gafaranga, J. (2007b). Talk in two languages. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Gafaranga, J. (2009). The conversation analytic model of code-switching. In B. E. Bullock and A. J. Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching, (pp. 114-126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gafaranga, J. and Torras, M.-C. (2001). Language versus Medium in the study of bilingual conversation. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 5 (2), 195-219.
• Gafaranga, J. & Torras, M-C. (2002). Interactional otherness: Towards a redefinition of codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6, 1-22.
• Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Heller, M. (1996). Legitimate language in a multilingual school. Linguistics and Education, 8, 139-1
• Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Jenks, C. (2006). Task-based interaction : the interactional and sequential organization of taskas-workplan and task-in-process. PhD diss., Newcastle University.
• Jİrgensen, N. (1998). Children’s acquisition of code-switching for power-wielding. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity, (pp. 237–258). London, UK: Routledge.
• Kaplan, R. (2011). Macro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Volume 2, (pp. 924-935). New York: Routledge.
• Kelly Hall, J. (2007). Redressing the Roles of Correction and Repair in Research on Second and Foreign Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 511–526.
• Leppänen, S. S., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. A. (2009). Language policy in the making: An analysis of bilingual gaming activities. Language Policy, 8(3), 261-284.
• Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33, 703–736.
• McHoul, A.W. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 19, 349-3
• Musk, N. (2006). Performing bilingualism in Wales with the spotlight on Welsh: A study of the language practices of young people in bilingual education. PhD diss., Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
• Musk, N. (2010). Code-switching and code-mixing in Welsh bilinguals’ talk: Confirming or refuting the maintenance of language boundaries? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 23(3), 179-197.
• Musk, N. & Amir, A. (2010). November. Language Policing: The co-construction of microlevel language policy in the English as a second language classroom. Paper presented at Nordisco (Nordic Interdisciplinary Conference on Discourse and Interaction), Aalborg University, Denmark, 17-19 November, 2010.
• Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2): 196-213.
• Ricento, T. (2006a). Theoretical perspectives in language policy: An overview. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, (pp. 3-9). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
• Ricento, T. (2006b). Language policy: Theory and practice – An introduction. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, (pp. 10-23). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
• Ricento, T. & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3): 401-427.
• Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21, 205–243.
• Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Shohamy, E. (2003). Implications of Language Education Policies for Language Study in Schools and Universities. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 278-286.
• Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge.
• Slotte-Lüttge, A. (2007). Making Use of Bilingualism: The Construction of a Monolingual Classroom, and Its Consequences. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 187 (188): 103–128.
• Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Spolsky, B. & Shohamy, E. (2000). Language practice, language ideology, and language policy. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honour of A. Ronald Walton, (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Söderlundh, H. (2012). Global Policies and Local Norms: Sociolinguistic Awareness and Language Choice at an International University. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 87–109.
• Torras, M-C. & Gafaranga, J. (2002). Interactional otherness: Towards a redefinition of codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6 (1), 1-22.
• Torras, M-C. (2005). Social identity and language choice in bilingual service talk. In K. Richards, & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying Conversation Analysis, (pp. 107-123). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Üstünel, E. (2004). The sequential organisation of teacher-initiated and teacher-induced codeswitching in a Turkish university EFL setting. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
• Üstünel, E. and Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Codeswitching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302-325.
• Waer, H. H. E. (2012). Why that language, in that context, right now? The use of the L1 in L2 classroom setting in an Egyptian setting. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
• Wei, L. (2002). ‘What do you want me to say?’ On the Conversation Analysis approach to bilingual interaction. Language in Society, 31, 159-180.
• Wei, L. & Milroy, L. (1995). Conversational code-switching in a Chinese community in Britain: a sequential analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 281-99.
• Wei, L. & Wu. (2009). Polite Chinese children revisited: creativity and the use of code-switching in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 193-211.
• Ziegler, G., Sert, O., & Durus, N. (2012). Student-initiated use of multilingual resources in English-language classroom interaction: next-turn management. Classroom Discourse, 3(2), 187-204.