‘Don't speak like that to her!’: Linguistic minority children's socialization into an ideology of monolingualism

Abstract

It is of general interest to the study of language in society how ideologies motivating linguistic hegemony get formulated in the context of increasing diversity. This includes if and how linguistic diversity surfaces under conditions that are clearly disfavouring it, and why or why not it happens. Also, we need to know how ideologies of language surface at the micro-level, and how they are continuously passed on, shared, negotiated or contested. These are central issues in this study of socialization into a condition and an ideology of linguistic hegemony in Copenhagen, Denmark. It is illustrated how school-authorities, parents and children co-create Danish dominance and a linguistic ideology of monolingualism during the first school year. The primary focus is on two school-beginners with minority language background in a linguistically diverse classroom, and the linguistic registers of particular interest are Danish, the majority language, and Turkish, an immigrant language. The article builds on field-notes, ethnographic interviews, video-and audio-recordings. Linguistic Ethnography and Language Socialization constitute the methodological frameworks, and Silverstein's 'total linguistic fact' forms an analytic principle.Europa karakteriseres af stigende befolkningsmaessig diversitet. Ikke mindst skolerne er dog stadig domineret af ideologier, der motiverer etsproget sproglig hegemoni. Det er af stor betydning for studiet af sprog i samfundet, hvordan sproglig mangfoldighed kommer til udtryk under betingelser, der defavoriserer den, samt hvorfor eller hvorfor ikke det sker. Dette omfatter ogs a, hvordan sproglige ideologier løbende deles, forhandles eller anfaegtes af deltagere. I denne artikel undersøges socialisering til en tilstand af og ideologi om dansksproget sproglig hegemoni i København, Danmark. Det demonstreres, hvordan skoleledelse, foraeldre og børn samkonstruerer den gaeldende ideologi over det første skole ar. Fokus er p a to skolestartende børn med minoritetsbaggrund i et sprogligt mangfoldigt klassevaerelse og p a relationen mellem dansk, flertalssproget, og tyrkisk, et mindretalssprog. Feltnoter, etnografiske interviews, video-og lydoptagelser inddrages. Sproglig etnografi og sproglig socialisering udgør Journal of Sociolinguistics 17/3, 2013: 355-375

Performance and ideology in speaking tests for adult migrants

“…It could be argued that it is obvious that the students in a language course should orient to these beliefs. The standard language is considered ‘an entry ticket to mainstream society’ (Karrebaek : 358) and it is important not to diminish learners’ ambitions. Meanwhile, commonsensical and normative understandings of language learning, responsibility and language use (like the importance of learning Swedish and only talking Swedish) are ideologically rooted (Miller ).…”

“…The discourse in the speaking tests provides insights into the process of how competence is perceived and constructed in testing practices. It also gives insights into how language ideologies and linguistic hegemony are produced at a micro‐level in an institutional setting (Karrebæk ) and how testing practices reproduce monolingual institutionalized ideas about language learning and competence. These values are not mentioned as topics in the tests, but they are reflected in the public debate (Milani ) and now performed by the test takers in the situated interaction.…”

“…The speaking tests are, in Bakhtinian terms, a ‘multivoiced’ site (Juffermans and Van der Aa ) and the discourse in the performances echoes contemporary ideologies. Hence, an orientation to a monolingual ideology is not a coincidence, since a monolingual ideology can be found in media debates (Milani ), in the educational system (Clyne ; Karrebæk ) and in testing practices (Shohamy ). Classroom studies have shown how a monolingual norm prevails in language classes, guided by a ‘one language (the target language) norm’ only and where other languages are seen as an obstacle for learning the target language (Blackledge and Creese ).…”

Linguistic dilemmas and chronic ambivalence in the classroom

“…Nor does a focus on teachers' deliberation clash with an analysis of how pupils approach competing values for language, learning, and teaching (cf . Jaspers 2011;Karrebaek 2013;Møller 2019;Nørreby & Madsen 2019). A more comprehensive analysis might show how and when pupils and teachers share the same sets of contrary values, on some occasions aligning themselves with each other, on other occasions taking up oppositional perspectives.…”

Language ideology and identity construction in public educational meetings

“…The above-mentioned research indicates the importance of investigating interactants' communicative practices (e.g., labeling, using specialist vocabulary, or a specific language) to create identities (see e.g., Bailey, 2007;Bolden, 2014). For example, in cultures where monolingual language ideology is dominant, the use of another language can be stigmatized and place people as outsiders to the mainstream culture (Karrebaeck, 2013;Koven, 2013). To avoid stigma, interactants use the majority language as an interactional strategy to distance themselves from their original national or ethnic identity (Karrebaeck, 2013).…”