Doing Language Policy: A Micro-Interactional Study of Policy Practices in English as a Foreign Language Classes

Abstract

This study investigates foreign language classroom talk and micro-level language policy-in-process from an ethnomethodological conversation analytic perspective. The study is based on 20 hours of video recordings from 20 lessons in an English as a Foreign Language classroom (EFL) in grades 8 and 9 of an international compulsory school in Sweden between the years 2007 and 2010. The main purpose of the study is to shed light on some of the distinguishing features of how a target-languageonly policy is materialised in situ in a foreign language classroom. The study demonstrates the relative ease with which teachers and pupils uphold a strict language policy in the classroom, but also the considerable interactional work that is done, by both teachers and pupils, in cases where upholding the policy becomes problematic. An interactional phenomenon which arises in such cases is language policing, where the teacher or pupils restore the policy-prescribed linguistic order. Such sequences are analysed in detail. The study increases our understanding of how language policy is lived out in practice, through interaction in the classroom.

International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction

“…Amir (2013a) has shown that if the sanctity of the English-only classroom is broken i.e. Swedish is spoken, then there are a number of practices for implementing language policy.…”

“…Classroom interaction research has examined the language-policing practices of teachers in foreign language contexts (Amir 2013a(Amir , 2013bAmir and Musk 2013). This chapter aims to narrow this empirical gap by investigating whether and how an English-only policy helps accomplish the goals of a lesson, and what impact such a policy has on the sequential organisation of classroom interaction.…”

Doing English-Only Instructions: A Multimodal Account of Bilingual Bangladeshi Classrooms

“…As a result, such classrooms often adopt monolingualism as a norm of interaction and students' resorting to the L1 can be treated as inappropriate, sanctionable conduct. Breaches of such monolingual norms were analyzed by Amir (2013aAmir ( , 2013b and Amir andMusk (2013, 2014), who show that such infractions (comprising use of Swedish in an English-only classroom) trigger acts of 'language policing'. Interestingly, language policing practices may be self-initiated, where a speaker will self-correct the choice of language, or other-initiated, as participants may hold each other accountable for violating the language policy (cf.…”

“…This observation leads us to propose that in line 43, the teacher orients to the other-languageness of Munni's turn, and that by restarting to formulate the exception he is essentially engaging in medium repair (Gafaranga & Torras, 2001) by which the monolingual English medium of instruction is restored (cf. Amir and Musk, 2014;Amir, 2013b).…”

Engelska Hemspråk : Språk i interaktion i modersmålsundervisning i Sverige

“…To be sure, teachers and students alike often policed each other's use of Swedish (cf. Amir & Musk, 2014). Indeed, Ganuza and Hedman (2017a) argue that MTI teachers' rigid attempts to control students' choice of language contributed to "silencing students" (p. 10).…”