liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 10 of 10
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Amir, Alia
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Doing Language Policy: A Micro-Interactional Study of Policy Practices in English as a Foreign Language Classes2013Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    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-language-only 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.

    List of papers
    1. Language policing: Micro-level language policy-in-process in the foreign language classroom
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Language policing: Micro-level language policy-in-process in the foreign language classroom
    2013 (English)In: Classroom Discourse, ISSN 1946-3014, E-ISSN 1946-3022, Vol. 4, no 2, p. 151-167Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    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).

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    Routledge, 2013
    Keywords
    conversation analysis, classroom interaction, practiced language policy, code-switching, language policing.
    National Category
    Specific Languages Learning
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-96370 (URN)10.1080/19463014.2013.783500 (DOI)
    Available from: 2013-08-15 Created: 2013-08-15 Last updated: 2018-11-23Bibliographically approved
    2. Self-policing in the English as a Foreign Language classroom
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Self-policing in the English as a Foreign Language classroom
    2013 (English)In: Novitas-ROYAL, ISSN 1307-4733, E-ISSN 1307-4733, Vol. 7, no 2, p. 84-105Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    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)
    National Category
    Educational Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-100197 (URN)
    Available from: 2013-10-30 Created: 2013-10-30 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved
    3. Pupils Doing Language Policy: Micro-interactional insights from the English as a foreign language classroom
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Pupils Doing Language Policy: Micro-interactional insights from the English as a foreign language classroom
    2014 (English)In: Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies, ISSN 1457-9863, Vol. 8, no 2, p. 93-113Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper, we examine instances of the methods pupils deploy to do language policy in an English as a foreign language classroom in Sweden, where there is a locally practised English-only rule. Although we exemplify some more tacit methods of constructing a monolingual classroom (Slotte-Lüttge 2007), we focus primarily on instances where pupils police other pupils and on occasion even the teacher, when they are perceived not to be upholding the rule. This blatantly explicit method of pupils doing language policy, which we term language policing, generally serves to (re-)establish and maintain English as the medium of interaction and instruction. The data for this study consists of video-recordings of 18 EFL lessons in an International Swedish school and was collected in grade 8 and 9 classes (15-16 year olds) between the years 2007-2010. In order to reveal the interactional orientations of the participants in situ (Seedhouse, 1998:101), conversation analysis has been used to identify and analyse naturally occurring cases of pupils doing language policy. By discussing the analyses with reference to different policing trajectories, how participants employ a range of initiator techniques, and the nature and distribution of their policing methods, for example, we elucidate the empirical basis for our subcategories of pupil- initiated policing. We also relate language policing practices to the maintenance of a monolingual classroom and conclude that establishing and maintaining the English-only rule “sufficient[ly] for all practical purposes” is a routine matter (cf. Zimmerman 1971:227), since little language policing is needed to maintain it. In cases where the language rule is breached, both pupils and teacher play an active role in (re-)establishing themonolingual classroom.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä, 2014
    Keywords
    Conversation Analysis, practiced language policy, language policing, English as a Foreign Language (EFL), codeswitching.
    National Category
    Educational Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-109347 (URN)
    Available from: 2014-08-14 Created: 2014-08-14 Last updated: 2019-01-28Bibliographically approved
  • 2.
    Amir, Alia
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Language Policing: a look at the micro-level policy practices of the second language classroom2010Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Amir, Alia
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Language policing the purist and monolinguist beliefs in the English as a Second Language classroom2011Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    English is the official policy in the school (under observation) for English as a Second Language (ESL) Classroom. However, the participants here actually police each other’s and their own language choice to accomplish this language policy. Language policing here refers to the collaborative co-construction and orientation of the participants to the micro-level language policy in situ. The participants’ indigenous way of interpreting the official policy is negotiated, challenged and accomplished online. The official policy of the classroom is based on purist and monolinguist belief which entails that “English-only” is spoken in the classroom both by the teacher and the pupils. Swedish is deemed as a forbidden language. To keep “English-only” rule, however, alternate practices of policing emerge to avoid Swedish in the class. The study highlights the alternate practices displayed by the participants which emerge because of language policing.

    The empirical data of the study comprises of over 20 hours of video recordings of ESL classrooms in an International Swedish school. The data was collected between the years 2008-2010 in the grades 8 and 9. There are 17 incidences of language policing in the data. The English language teachers of this particular school follow an “English-only” policy which is enforced through a point system.

    The study aims to contribute to the research in the micro orientation of the second language (L2) classroom (Hellermann, 2008; Cekaite, 2006; Seedhouse, 2004). It is also an attempt to see how through talk and actions participants defy the policies in practice that are monolinguist and purist.

    References

    Cekaite, A. (2006) Getting started: Children’s participation and language learning in an L2 classroom. Tema Barn: Linköping Studies in Arts and Science.

    Hellermann, J. (2008) Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Seedhouse, P. (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford. Blackwell.

  • 4.
    Amir, Alia
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Self-policing: How English-only is upheld in the foreign language classroom2012Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 5.
    Amir, Alia
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Self-policing in the English as a Foreign Language classroom2013In: Novitas-ROYAL, ISSN 1307-4733, E-ISSN 1307-4733, Vol. 7, no 2, p. 84-105Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    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.

  • 6.
    Amir, Alia
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    The co-construction and negotiation of micro level language policy in an English as a second language classroom2010Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 7.
    Amir, Alia
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    The language-policing practices constituting the emerging micro-level language policy-in-process in the EFL classroom: The example from a Swedish EFL classroom2012Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 8.
    Amir, Alia
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Tracing micro-level language-policy in foreign language classrooms: a case study of English as a foreign language (EFL) in Sweden2012Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 9.
    Amir, Alia
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Musk, Nigel
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Modern Languages. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Language policing: Micro-level language policy-in-process in the foreign language classroom2013In: Classroom Discourse, ISSN 1946-3014, E-ISSN 1946-3022, Vol. 4, no 2, p. 151-167Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    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).

  • 10.
    Amir, Alia
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Language and Culture. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Musk, Nigel
    Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Modern Languages. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Pupils Doing Language Policy: Micro-interactional insights from the English as a foreign language classroom2014In: Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies, ISSN 1457-9863, Vol. 8, no 2, p. 93-113Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper, we examine instances of the methods pupils deploy to do language policy in an English as a foreign language classroom in Sweden, where there is a locally practised English-only rule. Although we exemplify some more tacit methods of constructing a monolingual classroom (Slotte-Lüttge 2007), we focus primarily on instances where pupils police other pupils and on occasion even the teacher, when they are perceived not to be upholding the rule. This blatantly explicit method of pupils doing language policy, which we term language policing, generally serves to (re-)establish and maintain English as the medium of interaction and instruction. The data for this study consists of video-recordings of 18 EFL lessons in an International Swedish school and was collected in grade 8 and 9 classes (15-16 year olds) between the years 2007-2010. In order to reveal the interactional orientations of the participants in situ (Seedhouse, 1998:101), conversation analysis has been used to identify and analyse naturally occurring cases of pupils doing language policy. By discussing the analyses with reference to different policing trajectories, how participants employ a range of initiator techniques, and the nature and distribution of their policing methods, for example, we elucidate the empirical basis for our subcategories of pupil- initiated policing. We also relate language policing practices to the maintenance of a monolingual classroom and conclude that establishing and maintaining the English-only rule “sufficient[ly] for all practical purposes” is a routine matter (cf. Zimmerman 1971:227), since little language policing is needed to maintain it. In cases where the language rule is breached, both pupils and teacher play an active role in (re-)establishing themonolingual classroom.

1 - 10 of 10
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf