SELF-POLICING IN THE ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2013, 7(2), 84-105. SELF-POLICING IN THE ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM Alia AMIR1 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) Özet: 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. Anahtar sözcükler: Sınıf etkileşimi, dil değiştirme, Konuşma Çözümlemesi, dil politikası, Yabancı Dil olarak İngilizce (EFL), eğitim politikasında dil 1. Introduction Ricento & Hornberger (1996) use the metaphor of an onion to describe language policy (LP). The reason becomes clear when considering language in education policy (hereafter LIEP); this onion not only has various layers but different shapes and sizes, for instance different levels of education like pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary education, etc. Similarly, different types of education involve different types of language policy and planning, for instance mainstream monolingual education, bilingual education, heritage language programs, second/foreign language teaching and CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). Furthermore, in LIEP a vast number of quantitative as well as qualitative studies have been conducted with various frameworks. Recently the trend has been shifting towards more ethnographic and practice-based approaches with a growing number of studies dealing with 1 PhD Candidate, Department of Culture and Communication, Linköping University, Sweden, Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2013, 7(2), 84-105. language policy in a wider range of settings. This shift stands in marked contrast to the classical language planning period, where much of the work was on the macro-level or state level (Kaplan, 2011; Ricento, 2000). Building on current discussions on an emerging research paradigm of LP (Ricento, 2000, 2006; Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2004; Spolsky & Shohamy, 2000), there have been many interactional studies approaching language policy and language norms at the microlevel. In line with this trend, Leppänen & Piirainen-Marsh posit “language policy as an evolving, mundane phenomenon shaped and reshaped by discursive practices, which in turn are embedded in the multiple contextual and semiotic resources available in specific social activities and environments” (2009: 263). In other words, practiced language policy (Bonacina, 2010) is situated, emergent and continually changing moment by moment. Specifically in the language classroom and educational settings, the contours of the language policy onion are affected by language policy at each level and by both implicit and explicit norms. Nevertheless, when it comes to actually ‘doing language policy’ it is the people ‘here and now’ who shape and coconstruct a language policy. Previous studies of language policy at the school level (see for example, Corson, 19902 for a fuller picture) do not capture the aforementioned emergent nature of language policy, while the early interactional studies compare either the state policies or the school policies with the practiced language policy, especially within bilingual education in minority language contexts (e.g. Heller, 1996; Musk, 2006). Recently, however, there has been a call to “look at what people do, and not at what someone else wants them to do” (Spolsky, 2004: 218). While Spolsky does argue that there is a need to conceptualise language policy as practices, he does not state how to do it. Therefore, his argument stays programmatic (see Bonacina, 2010). Now whereas we have briefly touched upon language policies in schools generally, the question is where they exist, how are they formulated and where are they enforced. According to Corson “Every school already has an implicit policy for language and learning. This unwritten policy [3] exists in the tacit practices of its teachers, administrators and it can be inferred from their interactions with students” (1999: 3). It is these practices within the interactions inside the classroom which this study will focus upon. Similarly, in the field of LIEP4, Shohamy (2003) posits that when LPs and LIEPs are not stated explicitly they must be derived implicitly by examining a variety of de facto practices. Shohamy’s (2003) discussion involves school, national and macro-level policies, whereas she suggests that these de facto policies are hidden and involve covert mechanisms of LIEP imposition. Similarly in this regard, Shohamy (2006: 53) also states that: it is often the case that formal language documents become no more than declarations of intent that can easily be manipulated and contradicted. Yet, it is essential that these mechanisms, or policy devices, given their direct effect and consequences on de facto language policies and practice, must be included in the general picture for understanding and interpreting LP. 2 Corson was influential in initiating sc (...truncated)