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 (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 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.