Language Policing

In this response I address the discussion notes written in reply to my focus article, “Explaining -splain in digital discourse.” In the remarks from Andrea R. Leone-Pizzighella, Bárbara Marqueta Gracia, Chaim Noy, François Cooren, Barbara Fultner, and Ursula Lutzky and Robert Lawson, some common themes emerged regarding the instability of meanings, how we treat neologisms, and some research methods for understanding the equivocal nature of me­tapragmatic neologisms. My reply addresses these issues. With the intent to accomplish the sort of productive, interdisciplinary conversation that Language Under Discussion promotes, I hope my reflection and final contribution helps us better understand language and communication.

The pervasive integration of the internet and social media into contemporary society has provided ordinary language users with a far-reaching and ever-vigilant surveillance tool that can be used to monitor, regulate, and control social norms, including language norms. When the target of this regulation is language, the practice is known as language policing. By categorizing and analyzing micro-level, community-based language policing practices in posts and comments from three Finnish Facebook language discussion groups, this article examines language policing as a form of biopower. It serves as a mechanism through which ordinary language users can police written Standard Finnish, control each other's language usage, reproduce dominant language ideologies, and, conversely, challenge them. Using a theory-driven content analysis approach and drawing upon the concepts of shaming types developed by Murumaa-Mengel and Muuli, as well as Foucault's theory of biopower, the analysis reveals two distinct techniques. Firstly, it demonstrates that normation occurs through language policing practices such as denunciatory, recreational, pedagogic, and participative approaches. These practices serve to reinforce established language norms and are in line with standard language ideology. Secondly, the analysis highlights the technique of normalization, in the forms of reflective and normalizing language policing practices. These offer a more critical view of codified language norms and are more accepting of norm-deviations, aligning with more critical language ideologies.

Tämän tutkielman tarkoituksena on selvittää, millaisia kieli-ideologioita ja ideologisia mielipiteitä eistandardinmukaista englantia kohtaan esiintyy suomalaisten hyödyntämässä sosiaalisessa mediassa, miten näitä ideologioita perustellaan ja miten niistä väitellään dialogisessa kontekstissa. Vaikka englanti on maailmanlaajuinen lingua franca, Suomessa englannista ja sen asemasta on monenlaisia mielipiteitä. Sosiaalisen median ansiosta mielipiteiden esittäminen laajalle yleisölle lyhyessä ajassa on helpompaa kuin koskaan aiemmin. Tämä ja monien Internet-alustojen tarjoama vaihtoehto pysyä nimettömänä tekee sosiaalisesta mediasta kiinnostavan kohteen ideologisen väittelyn tutkimukselle. Tutkielma on tapaustutkimus yhdestä Feissarimokat-huumorisivuston "osataan enkkuu"-otsikon alla olevasta julkaisusta ja sen kommenttikentästä. Tutkimuksessa analysoidaan, millaisia kieliideologioita kommenttikentässä voidaan havaita, miten ideologisia kannanottoja esitetään ja miten alkuperäisen julkaisun ei-standardinmukaista englantia ja alkuperäistä julkaisijaa pilkataan ja toisaalta puolustetaan. Analyysissa käytetään Internet-etnografiaa, laadullista sisällönanalyysia, temaattista analyysia sekä entekstualisaation ja parodisen imitoinnin tutkimusta. Tutkimuksen tulokset kertovat, että kommentoijilla on monenlaisia mielipiteitä englannin kieltä ja ei-standardinmukaista englantia kohtaan. Näiden mielipiteiden esittäminen ja niistä väitteleminen viestii erilaisista kieli-ideologioita englannista, englannin asemasta, englannin käytöstä ja sen käyttäjistä sekä vieraiden kielten opetuksesta Suomessa. Kommentoijilla on myöskin erinäisiä tapoja ja artikuloinnin keinoja esittää ideologisia kannanottoja aina humoristisesta pilkkaamisesta faktapohjaiseen argumentointiin.

Tämän tutkielman tarkoituksena on selvittää, millaisia kieli-ideologioita ja ideologisia mielipiteitä eistandardinmukaista englantia kohtaan esiintyy suomalaisten hyödyntämässä sosiaalisessa mediassa, miten näitä ideologioita perustellaan ja miten niistä väitellään dialogisessa kontekstissa. Vaikka englanti on maailmanlaajuinen lingua franca, Suomessa englannista ja sen asemasta on monenlaisia mielipiteitä. Sosiaalisen median ansiosta mielipiteiden esittäminen laajalle yleisölle lyhyessä ajassa on helpompaa kuin koskaan aiemmin. Tämä ja monien Internet-alustojen tarjoama vaihtoehto pysyä nimettömänä tekee sosiaalisesta mediasta kiinnostavan kohteen ideologisen väittelyn tutkimukselle. Tutkielma on tapaustutkimus yhdestä Feissarimokat-huumorisivuston "osataan enkkuu"-otsikon alla olevasta julkaisusta ja sen kommenttikentästä. Tutkimuksessa analysoidaan, millaisia kieliideologioita kommenttikentässä voidaan havaita, miten ideologisia kannanottoja esitetään ja miten alkuperäisen julkaisun ei-standardinmukaista englantia ja alkuperäistä julkaisijaa pilkataan ja toisaalta puolustetaan. Analyysissa käytetään Internet-etnografiaa, laadullista sisällönanalyysia, temaattista analyysia sekä entekstualisaation ja parodisen imitoinnin tutkimusta. Tutkimuksen tulokset kertovat, että kommentoijilla on monenlaisia mielipiteitä englannin kieltä ja ei-standardinmukaista englantia kohtaan. Näiden mielipiteiden esittäminen ja niistä väitteleminen viestii erilaisista kieli-ideologioita englannista, englannin asemasta, englannin käytöstä ja sen käyttäjistä sekä vieraiden kielten opetuksesta Suomessa. Kommentoijilla on myöskin erinäisiä tapoja ja artikuloinnin keinoja esittää ideologisia kannanottoja aina humoristisesta pilkkaamisesta faktapohjaiseen argumentointiin.

1. The problem The site of direct speech reporting or quotation is one of the most documented where language alternation has been observed to occur (see Auer, 1991: 326). At the same time, as Auer says, no systematic account of the relationship between direct speech reporting and language alternation is currently available. The problem such a systematic account of the relationship between direct speech reporting and language alternation should solve is why, among bilinguals, some instances of direct speech reporting are accompanied by language alternation while some others are not (Álvarez-Cáccamo, 1996a: 55). Such an account would further show whether language alternation in direct spech reporting is code-switching, i.e. an instance of "talk which is oriented to by speakers themselves as an instance of deviance from the medium they are using" (Gafaranga, this conference). As Auer recommends, any account of functional language alternation must be based on a theory of inter...

small-scale social life must be pursued in its own right and focused upon directly, rather than merely being thought of as obvious and inevitable by-products of 'higher level' (more complex, more encompassing, more power-related) processes and institutions'' (Fishman, 1991:4). That is to say, according to Fishman, language shift is primarily talked into being in day-today interaction and, by implication, language maintenance or RLS itself must be talked into being. If both language shift and language maintenance are talked into being, it goes without saying that the safest starting point for any maintenance effort is to identify and describe actual interactional processes through which language shift takes place so that they can be addressed directly. This paper is a step in this direction, with specific reference to the Rwandan community in Belgium. As we will see below, in this community, language shift is currently underway from Kinyarwanda-French bilingualism to monolingualism in French. This paper describes a language choice practice I have observed in this community and shows how, through this practice, language shift is accomplished. Extract 1 illustrates this practice. Talk

This dissertation is the fruit of several years of work. The journey has been both positively challenging and enriching. Many people have accompanied me, and contributed emotional, moral and intellectual support. I want to express deep gratitude to anonymous students, parents, teachers, and staffs of two schools in Bangladesh. They welcomed me into their schools and allowed me to conduct the project. Without their kind permission and active participation, this dissertation would not have achieved any substantial foothold. I humbly thank my thesis supervisors: Jakob Cromdal and Katarina Eriksson Barajas for giving me the opportunity of conducting this project and to grow as a researcher. Thank you Jakob for teaching me innumerable surviving skills and in particular reading critically, challenging own writing, and staying focused with one thing at a time. Thank you Katarina for gleaming inspiration and optimism, staying patient with my repeated refractions, and teaching me the importance of staying prepared ahed. Sincere thanks to both of you for unwaevring support and encourgaement over the years. Many thanks to all, former and present, colleagues for their thoughtful contributions at seminars and small talk. I am specially thankful to

The research reported here is part of a broader research project on bilingual Bangladeshi ESL schools. The study seeks to find out how a prescribed language policy that is operating at the school informs classroom instruction. To do so, it uses the distinction between medium of instruction and medium of interaction, introduced by Bonacina & Gafaranga (2011), to examine how participants to instructional exchanges orient their actions to the language policy as well as to locally emerging interactional challenges. Through multimodal conversation analysis the study shows how participants sustain, suppress or even overlook the medium of instruction in the service of doing instruction. These findings therefore contribute to the existing literature on language policy-in-practice and language alternation in bilingual classrooms.

take issue with the draft proposals for English issued by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority particularly in respect of 'stmdard spoken ERglish'. They accuse the authors of misunderstanding, even prejudice, against pupils whose language is non-standard. They fear that, as a result, many pupils will be wrongly identified as having special educational needs and those that do have such needs wilt be doubly disadvantaged. They seek a more linguistically informed and tolerant debate. Figure I: Dimensions of difference between speech and writing I Speech Auditory medium Produced orally Received by the ear Can rely on situational factors Makes use of paralinguistic features (tone, gesture etc.) Communication can be repaired if it breaks down va(yeness, ellipsis, ambiguity tolerated Social activity spontaneous, unplanned Visualmeditltn Received by the eye Dependent on linguistic features for cornmication No opportunity far exchange of commencrp Objects, persons, events etc. must be carefully specified Usually a solitary activity Pianno&, 'careful' producedmsnuauy Deprived of Bn iR?mdae context of comnmnication English (Marenbon 1987), where, on the basis of a 71-word sample of writing from one pupil, the author, a Cambridge don specialising in mediaeval philosophy, concludes that the English language is in near-terminal decline. Parading his contempt for the findings of modern linguistic research, he lays the blame for this

This discussion note offers a response to Judith Bridges' focus article "Explaining '-splain' in digital discourse". We review some of the article's core findings on the bound morpheme-splain, utilised in words such as whitesplain, covidsplain, and thinsplain, and expand on them by addressing three key concerns: we situate the construction and use of-splain formations in a more expansive version of prescriptivism, what we refer to as 'prescriptivism 2.0'; discuss them within the context of language policing and political correctness; and ask whether forms ending in-splain are subject to moral gradience, highlighting directions and opportunities for future research.

We compare language policing in two educational contexts in England: mainstream schools and complementary schools. We draw on a varied dataset (policy documents, in-class observations, interviews) collected from mainstream schools and Greek complementary schools in London. We find similarities in how the two types of schools control, regulate, monitor and suppress the language of school students. Both settings hierarchise standardised and non-standardised varieties in institutional policies that delegitimise the non-standardised varieties. Teachers become vehicles for language ideologies in enacting monovarietal policies drawing on discourses around academic success and the primacy of written language over spoken language, including regional varieties such as Cypriot Greek. Our findings suggest that multilingual and multidialectal students in England who attend both mainstream and complementary schools are exposed to similar kinds of prescriptive discourses across the whole spectrum of their educational experiences, which can have a range of negative effects on their learning and the construction of their self-image. We argue that more links need to be forged between the two educational settings and that these should include the development of integrated pedagogies and policies that legitimise students' whole linguistic repertoires, encompassing both their standardised and their non-standardised varieties as well as their other linguistic resources.

England has had a schools inspectorate since 1839, first in the form of Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI), and since 1992, in the form of the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted). The inspectorate, a workforce made up of a majority of white inspectors, conduct regular inspections of all state schools in England, producing reports which comment on various aspects of educational provision, including teachers’ and students’ spoken language. In this article we deploy a raciolinguistic genealogy to examine the listening practices of the inspectorate, drawing on historical inspection reports generated from archival work, inspectorate language policy, and a large corpus of contemporary reports. We show how raciolinguistic ideologies are deeply embedded into the sociopolitical culture of the inspectorate, and how these ideologies translate into systems of sonic surveillance in which the nonstandardised language practices of students and teachers ...

This paper discusses the affordances and constraints of the rules of turn-taking in classrooms. The study draws on conversation analytic studies of both classrooms and ordinary conversations as well as data from a collection of sixteen secondary mathematics lessons with 12-13 year old pupils. Examining McHoul's (1978) rules for turn-taking in the classroom alongside examples from the data in this study where interactions deviate from these offer alternative ways of interpreting the actions of both teachers and pupils in whole class interactions.

This book gathers together 11 empirical-based studies of classroom interaction carried out in different countries, including the USA, England, Kenya, Sweden, and China. Along with a state-of-the-art literature review, the chapters provide key insights and engagement priorities that will prove relevant to a variety of learning and teaching contexts.

My Chapter in this book analyzes actual classroom interactions to assess whether language policing (Amir, 2013) (the mechanism to re(-establish) L2 as the langauge policy) aligns/disaligns in particular classroom contexts.

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.

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.

In educational research, binaries such as 'nature vs nurture', 'able vs disable', 'formal vs informal', 'traditional vs new', 'research vs practice' have stirred debates for decades. Binary conceptualisation of classrooms, for instance 'on-and off-line', 'face-to-face vs virtual', 'synchronous vs asynchronous' have permeated in the realm of public discussion and, in particular, through the gradual shift of educational practices caused due to COVID-19. Concerning bilingual education, research findings such as 'marked' vs 'unmarked' codeswitching , 'language' vs 'medium' (Gafaranga, 2018), 'task-as-workplan' vs 'task-in-process' (Seedhouse, 2004), language policy as 'text' or 'discourse' vs language 'policy as practice', language policy as a 'fixed' or 'static' concept vs micro-level language policy-in-process are visible products of conceptualizing educational practices through binaries. Critical discussions on potentiality and possibilities of analytical perspectives, for instance 'logo-' vs 'visuo-centric' (Mondada, 2016) and 'mono-' vs 'multi-' modal perspectives, show the importance of binaries as well as its criticism relevant to analytical and methodological tools. With the above-mentioned themes in mind, this panel explores the following questions:

This study examines the relationship between the functions and patterns of language choice in EFL classrooms in a Kuwaiti primary school. It applies the overall order model, specifically the medium of classroom interaction, to identify three patterns of language choice: an English monolingual medium, an Arabic monolingual medium and a bilingual medium. Then, an exploratory analysis of the relationship between specific patterns of language choice and broad functional categories of classroom code switching (CS) was conducted. No one to one relationship between a specific functional category and a specific pattern exists. One language pattern can serve different functions. From a detailed analysis, it is apparent that teachers in EFL classes try, as far as possible, to use the English monolingual medium to conduct pre-planned curriculum activities. However, when teachers and students departed from these prescribed activities, they used Arabic, either the Arabic monolingual medium or a bilingual medium, to serve different functions, such as accessing the curriculum, managing the classroom and establishing interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, the use of the prescribed medium (English monolingual) was never used to enhance interpersonal relationships.

The study depicts the relationship between pedagogical focus and language choice in the language teaching/learning environment of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) at a Turkish university. The article presents the organisation of code-switching which is teacher-initiated and 'teacher-induced'. The data were collected from six beginner-level English classrooms. Transcripts of the lessons were examined using the conversation analysis (CA) method of sequential analysis in relation to the pedagogical focus, applying an adapted version of the classic CA question for interaction involving code-switching: "why that, in that language, right now?" The study demonstrates that code-switching in L2 classrooms is orderly and related to the evolution of pedagogical focus and sequence. Through their language choice, learners may display their alignment or misalignment with the teacher's pedagogical focus.

Marti, L. (2012). Tangential floor in a classroom setting. System, 40(3) 398-406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.07.006


This article examines floor management in two classroom sessions: a task-oriented computer lesson and a literature lesson. Recordings made in the computer lesson show the organization of floor when a task is given to students. Temporary or " incipient " side floors (Jones and Thornborrow, 2004) emerge beside the main floor. In the literature lesson, a permanent side floor is established by Turkish-German bilinguals alongside the main floor. To describe this type of floor, the term " tangential floor " is proposed. An analysis of turns in the two lessons reveals that the code-switching by the bilinguals contributes to the shaping and unfolding of floor. In the literature lesson, they use German in the tangential floor, but use more Turkish, with a few code-switching episodes, in the task-oriented computer lesson.

This article examines floor management in two classroom sessions: a task-oriented computer lesson and a literature lesson.
Recordings made in the computer lesson show the organization of floor when a task is given to students. Temporary or “incipient”
side floors (Jones and Thornborrow, 2004) emerge beside the main floor. In the literature lesson, a permanent side floor is
established by TurkisheGerman bilinguals alongside the main floor. To describe this type of floor, the term “tangential floor” is
proposed. An analysis of turns in the two lessons reveals that the code-switching by the bilinguals contributes to the shaping and
unfolding of floor. In the literature lesson, they use German in the tangential floor, but use more Turkish, with a few code-switching
episodes, in the task-oriented computer lesson.

This paper discusses the affordances and constraints of the rules of turn-taking in classrooms. The study draws on conversation analytic studies of both classrooms and ordinary conversations as well as data from a collection of sixteen secondary mathematics lessons with 12-13 year old pupils. Examining rules for turn-taking in the classroom alongside examples from the data in this study where interactions deviate from these offer alternative ways of interpreting the actions of both teachers and pupils in whole class interactions.

This article examines what we call micro-level language policy-in-process – that is, how a target-language-only policy emerges in situ in the foreign language classroom. More precisely, we investigate the role of language policing, the mechanism deployed by the teacher and/or pupils to (re-)establish the normatively prescribed target language as the medium of classroom interaction in the English as a foreign language classroom of an international school in Sweden. Using ethnomethodological conversation analysis, we have identified a regular three-step sequence for language policing: (1) a (perceived) breach of the target-language-only rule, (2) an act of language policing and (3) an orientation to the target-language-only rule, usually in the guise of medium switching to the target language. Focusing primarily on teacher-to-pupil policing, where the teacher polices pupils’ (perceived) use of their L1 (Swedish), we identify three different categories of teacher-policing. These categories are based on particular configurations of features deployed in the three steps, such as initiator techniques (e.g. reminders, prompts, warnings and sanctions) and pupils’ responses to being policed (e.g. compliance or contestation).

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 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 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.

Traditional approaches to the study of language in education policy (LEP) included
quantitative large scale studies that investigated the linguistic and academic impact of
certain policies on certain student populations. Later on a movement towards more
qualitative approaches to LEP has been noted. However, even studies that have taken
a more ethnographic turn, in order to examine the specificity of certain bilingual
policies (Fitts 2006; Lee et al 2008; Martin-Jones and Saxena 1995), have primarily
been concerned with the processes involved in the micro (classroom) implementation
of a macro policy. Therefore the fundamental language policy making has so far been
conceptualised as being carried out at the macro level (Baldauf 2006) while classroom
language practices have predominantly been explained by reference to outside-the classroom developed policies.
In this paper, I will discuss the explanatory power of the aforementioned approaches
when it comes to the language choices and norms (i.e. ‘practiced’ policies) developed
and oriented to by bilingual learners who attend the Reception classroom of an
International School based in Athens.The paper will be based on a corpus of audio-recordings collected (January-April2008) in the above school.
In line with Spolsky (2004) for whom “the real language policy of a community is
more likely to be found in its practices” (Spolsky 2004: 222), these data will be
examined using Conversation Analytic methodologies applied to language choice
(Auer 1984, 1998; Gafaranga 2000).
References
Auer P. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam. John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Auer P. 1998. Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity.
London. Routledge.
Baldauf R. 2006. Rearticulating the Case for Micro Language Planning in a Language
Ecology Context. Current Issues in Language Planning 7/2&3: 147-170.
Fitts Sh. 2006. Reconstructing the Status Quo: Linguistic Interaction in a Dual-
Language School. Bilingual Research Journal 29/2:337-353.
Gafaranga J. 2000. Medium Repair versus Other Language Repair: Telling the
Medium of a Bilingual Conversation. The International Journal of Bilingualism 4/3: 327-350.
Lee S.J., Hill-Bonner L. and Laura-Gillispie J. 2008. Learning in Two Languages:
Interactional Spaces for Becoming Bilingual Speakers. The International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 11/1: 75-94.
Martin-Jones M. and Saxena M. 1995. “Supporting or Containing Bilingualism?
Policies, Power Asymmetries,and Pedagogic Practices in Mainstream Primary Classrooms” in
Power and Inequality in Language Education. Ed Tollefson J.W. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press: 73-90
Spolsky B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.