Advertisement

Language Policy

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 213–234 | Cite as

Researching ‘practiced language policies’: insights from conversation analysis

  • Florence Bonacina-PughEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In language policy research, ‘policy’ has traditionally been conceptualised as a notion separate from that of ‘practice’. In fact, language practices were usually analysed with a view to evaluate whether a policy is being implemented or resisted to. Recently, however, Spolsky in (Language policy. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, 2004; Work Pap Educ Linguist 22(1):1–14, 2007; Encyclopedia of language and education. Springer, New York, 2008) has argued that policy and practice need not be seen as distinct and that there is a policy within language practices themselves. In this paper, I propose to call the policy found at the level of language practices a ‘practiced language policy’. The aim of this paper is to explore further this new conceptualisation of language policy and to propose an approach to research it. I argue that Conversation Analysis in its broad sense (that is, including Sequential Analysis and Membership Categorisation Analysis) can be an efficient tool to discover practiced language policies and give an illustration of this argument drawing on a case study of an induction classroom for newly-arrived immigrant children in France.

Keywords

Language policy and practice Multilingualism Classroom talk Conversation analysis Code-switching France 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Auer, P. (1995). The pragmatics of code-switching. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching (pp. 115–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonacina, F. (2010). A Conversation Analytic approach to practiced language policies: The example of an induction classroom for newly-arrived immigrant children in France. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Bonacina, F. (Forthcoming). Ideologies and issues of access in multilingual school ethnography: A French example. In S. Gardner & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Multilingualism, Discourse and Ethnography (pp. 269–284). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bonacina, F., & Gafaranga, J. (2011). ‘Medium of instruction’ vs. ‘medium of classroom interaction’: Language choice in a French complementary school classroom in Scotland. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, online preprint.Google Scholar
  6. Fishman, J. A. (1979). Bilingual education, language planning and English. English World-Wide, 1(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fishman, J. A., Ferguson, C. A., & Das Guptas, J. (1968). Language problems of developing nations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Gafaranga, J. (2001). Linguistic identities in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1901–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gafaranga, J. (2007). Code-switching as a conversational strategy. In P. W. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication (pp. 279–314). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  10. Gafaranga, J. (2010). Medium request: Talking language shift into being. Language in Society, 39, 241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Haugen, E. (1983). The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and Practice. In J. Cobarrubias & J. Fishman (Eds.), Progress in language planning: International perspectives (pp. 269–289). Berlin: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Hélot, C. (2003). Language policy and the ideology of bilingual education in France. Language Policy, 2, 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hélot, C., & Young, A. (2006). Imagining multilingual education in France: A language and cultural awareness project at primary level. In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. Torres-Guzmán (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools (pp. 69–90). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  15. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). Culture un action. Studies in membership categorisation analysis. Washington: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  17. Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 24–41). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.Google Scholar
  19. Housley, W. (2000). Category Work and Knowledge ability within multidisciplinary team meetings. Text, 20, 83–107.Google Scholar
  20. Housley, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2002). The reconsidered model of membership categorization analysis. Qualitative Research, 2, 59–83.Google Scholar
  21. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, D. C. (2010). Implementational and ideological spaces in bilingual education language policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liddicoat, D. (2007). An Introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  25. Martin, P. W. (2005). ‘Safe’ language practices in two rural schools in Malaysia: Tensions between policy and practice. In A. M. Y. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 74–97). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  26. McHoul, A.W. (1978). The organisation of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society 7, 183–213.Google Scholar
  27. Pavlenko, A. (2003). Language of the enemy: Foreign language education and national identity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(5), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ricento, T. (2006). Language policy: Theory and practice – An introduction. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 10–23). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Sacks, H. (1972a). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sacks, H. (1972b). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 325–345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  33. Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social science and conversation analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  38. Spolsky, B. (2007). Towards a theory of language policy. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 22(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  39. Spolsky, B. (2008). Investigating language education policy. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 10, pp. 27–39). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (2000). Language practice, language ideology, and language policy. In Lambert, R. D., & Shohamy, E. (Eds.), Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honour of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Tollefson, J. W. (Ed.). (2002). Language policies in education: Critical issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42–59). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Vila i Moreno, X. F. (2008). Language-in-education policies in the Catalan language area. AILA Review, 21, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wei, L., & Martin, P. (2009). Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching: An introduction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young, R. F. (2008). Language and Interaction: An advanced resource book. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Edinburgh, The Moray House School of EducationEdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations