Social organization through teacher-talk: Subteaching, socialization and the normative use of language in a multilingual primary class

Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/linged

Social organization through teacher-talk: Subteaching, socialization and the normative use of language in a multilingual primary class Alicia Copp Mökkönen ∗ University of Jyväskylä, Finland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Available online 20 July 2012

Keywords: Language socialization Classroom ethnography Peer-interaction Language norms Subteaching

a b s t r a c t The present study explores the ways in which peers take up a teacher-like discourse to enforce normative uses of language in a classroom, effectively socializing one another to the institutional use of English which in turn signals class membership. Such an uptake of teacher-like discourses and practices can be characterized as subteaching (Tholander & Aronsson, 2003). Data are drawn from an ethnographic study spanning the first and second grade for a group of students enrolled in English medium education in Finland, and the analysis centers on transcripts of classroom interaction. Findings indicate that students draw on subteaching actions to negotiate alignments and to sanction others, maintaining social order, and constructing situated identities. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper focuses on peer centered interactions in a Finnish first and second grade class where English is the medium of instruction as well as the institutional norm for all talk within the classroom. Such a classroom is by no means common in the Finnish educational system, but has evolved locally in response to a widespread and increased interest in learning English, the emergence of English language preschools in the area and a collective of local public school teachers interested in teaching primary school exclusively through English. Students are expected to use only English once they walk through the door of the classroom, and while the majority of students are Finnish mother-tongue speakers, several other home languages are also represented, including Bengali, French, and Italian. The language of instruction of the rest of the school is Finnish, and students in this class do in fact study Finnish for one period daily. Students also use the language of their choice with peers during recess breaks and lunch time. There is a tension between the multilingual lives of students and the monolingual classroom environment; and yet such a tension is a widespread phenomenon as schools so often fail to account for the linguistic resources students bring to class. Within such an institutional setting, however, there are always opportunities for students to draw on languages and norms for language use among their peers. Students work with and against norms for classroom language use through subteaching, and by doing so also collaboratively construct social relations and identities. Subteaching is the use of teacher-like discourses and practices among peers (Møller & Jørgensen, 2011; Tholander & Aronsson, 2003) and in this study is taken as an interactional tool which gives students moral and institutional authority to accomplish social actions embedded in processes of socialization to expected ways of using language in the classroom. This examination of how young learners, who are in the first two years of compulsory education, negotiate language and peer relations within an English medium class is enhanced through the ethnographic nature of this study and knowledge of participants which I gained over the span of eighteen months of fieldwork.

∗ Correspondence address: Department of Languages, P.O. Box 35 (P), 40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Tel.: +358 040 805 3186. E-mail address: [email protected] 0898-5898/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.06.001

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

311

While the language of the classroom in principle is English, and the use of English in lessons is rigidly maintained, peer interaction is a different matter: it is spontaneous, fluid and multilingual by nature and also a very important part of daily classroom life. It is at the beginning of elementary school that children first become proficient at initiating and maintaining peer group activities; however, it is also at this stage, between the ages of 7 and 10, that there is the production of stratification within groups and social matters such as “acceptance, popularity, and group solidarity become very important” (Corsaro, 2011, p. 220). Using language correctly is one part of marking group belonging, and by engaging in linguistic correction students construct and socialize one another to peer group identities (Cekaite & Björk-Willén, 2012). One avenue into understanding how peer concerns about language are communicated and how ways of speaking become meaningful among peers is through the paradigm of language socialization. From this perspective, language is an object of socialization, but also a medium through which students learn “local theories and preferences for acting, feeling, and knowing in socially recognized and organized practices associated with membership in a social group” (Ochs, 2002). In the last ten years, a plethora of work in the field of language socialization has revealed that socialized outcomes are variable and unpredictable (Duff, 2002; Talmy, 2008), that peers play a powerful role in socialization (Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2007) and that code use in multilingual settings is affected by processes of socialization (Fader, 2009; Garrett, 2007; Guardado, 2009). Traditional research in the field has been critiqued for too often foregrounding outcomes rather than processes and for characterizing language socialization as one-way, top-down and individualistic, whereby a child or novice acquires skills from an adult or expert (He, 2003; Bayley & Schecter, 2003). However, from the outset, children have been viewed as agentive and active in organizing their own social worlds (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 165) and language socialization has been conceptualized as “an interactional achievement” (Ochs, 2002), one which is inherently multidirectional and contingent (Talmy, 2008). In line with an agentive, multidirectional and interactive view of socialization, participants in the classroom collectively determine and produce what is normative in regards to language choice and use in the classroom. Specifically, in this study the perspective of language socialization is applied to examining the ways in which students step into teacher roles to enforce the use of English, an interested practice that relates to issues of identity, voice and membership in this classroom context. 2. Subteaching This study builds upon previous research on the ways in which children may take up and recreate adult genres to produce new meanings (Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2007), more specifically, by extending previous work on how students reproduce teacher-like discourses and practices among peers (Møller & Jørgensen, 2011; Tholander & Aronsson, 2003). Tholander and Aronsson conceive of the notion of “subteaching” to describe instances where students take up teacher-like discourses such as “instructing, evaluating, and disciplining their peers” (2003, p. 208). This conceptualization is based on Goffman’s (1981) participation frameworks, which concern the organization of activity and the ways in which individuals position themselves and others in conversation. Within a participation framework there is always the possibility to shift footing, or a temporary change in alignment with others (Goffman, 1981, p. 128). Changes of footing occur along a continuum, from slight shifts in tone to obvious shifts in stance and can be signaled through changes in “pitch, volume, rhythm, stress, tonal quality” (Goffman, 1981, p. 128). Subteaching as a change in footing is therefore not absolute as an action and can be signalled in a variety of ways. Further, students can both position themselves and be positioned as subteachers by others (Tholander & Aronsson, 2003). The use of the term “subteaching” specifies particular contextually oriented actions, but is closely related to research on uptake of authoritative discourses by children (Goodwin, 1990), the concept of revoicing1 which occurs when discourse incorporates reported speech through the uptake of a genre or through the stylization of speech (Maybin, 2008), authoring whereby students dialogically construct institutional practices (Candela, 2005; De Haan, 2005) and more generally, double voicing and the notion that all speech may be considered multivoiced and related theories of double voicing (Bakhtin, 1981, 1984). While the role of a subteacher may be taken up, co-constructed, resisted and even subverted, this role also entails the display of positionings, alignments, and stances. Moral work emerges in discourse through evaluative statements, judgements, and even prosody: the indexing of normative cultural and social practices as manifested in talk. Moral stances are constructed and displayed through ongoing collaborative work between participants in interaction (Evaldsson, 2004) and such stances are particularly visible when there is a breach in social practices (Goffman, 1971; Stokoe, 2003). It has been noted in prior research that “any consideration of the accountability of social conduct brings moral dimensions into focus” (Drew, 1998, p. 295). As subteaching entails holding others accountable, prior research in this area has conceptualized subteaching as “a moral position” (Tholander & Aronsson, 2003). Subteaching actions also have implications for the construction of situated identities. When individuals occupy different roles and positions of status within the social group, opportunities for developing different kinds of student identities arise (Buzzelli & Johnston, 2002). Further, this kind of evaluative activity among peers is one way in which individuals situate or position themselves in the world as they develop an understanding of themselves (Maybin, 2008). Thus the uptake of a teacher-like discourse among peers in the classroom can operate as a resource for identity work, with implications for socializing local norms and negotiating peer group relations.

1 Maybin (2008) builds on Bakhtinian notions of revoicing, however revoicing has also been conceptualized as a discourse strategy in educational contexts whereby a teacher may revoice student utterances with implications for voice, positioning, and the scaffolding of learning (O’Connor & Michaels, 1993).

312

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

Subteaching was originally conceptualized to investigate how Swedish junior-high school students managed group work activities, unrelated to issues of language choice (Tholander, 2002; Tholander & Aronsson, 2003). The recent work of Møller and Jørgensen (2011), however, draws on the notion of subteaching to examine how minority Turkish language users import monolingual discourses from the broader context of Danish society. While this earlier study draws on data collected during small group activities organized by the researcher outside of class, the present study utilizes classroom data, whereby subteaching is institutionally supported and co-constructed. However, in line with the work of Møller and Jørgensen (2011), this study also recognizes the “special opportunities” for constructing authoritative discourses available to multilingual students (p. 71), but rather than examining minority–majority language discourses among students with a shared linguistic repertoire, I focus on the yet to be examined functions of subteaching among a heterogeneous group of language speakers. This classroom, significantly, is conducted in English, a non-national language, foreign to both native Finnish students and newcomers (immigrants). Authoritative institutional discourses can be appropriated by students and for their own purposes, purposes which may or may not align with overarching goals of the classroom (De Haan, 2005; Tholander & Aronsson, 2003; Walkerdine, 1981). Peers may draw upon teacher discourses about language to accomplish social actions, and in doing so support institutional policies for language use already in place. In this setting the use of English is tenuously maintained, the classroom operating as a distinct microcosm of English language use although the majority of the students in this class share a Finnish mothertongue. A great deal of monitoring is required in order to maintain the use of English in a classroom with only one “official” voice of institutional authority; the classroom teacher. Peer sanctioning is not discouraged, and in fact one could argue that it is encouraged by the teacher because she recognizes it and allows it and occasionally as the data extracts reveal, even comments upon it. 3. Data and methods This paper falls within a broader ethnographic study exploring how students reinterpret, reformulate and contest language norms in the classroom, utilizing an extensive pool of data including transcripts of 77 audio and audio-visually recorded lessons, informal interviews with parents and the classroom teacher, and a collection of artefacts and samples of student work, including journal entries, drawings, and written communication between the school/teacher and the home. The analysis of data extracts highlights instances of interaction where first and second grade students take up a teacher-like discourse, across the span of 18-months of fieldwork. Data were collected by myself, the author, as I observed and engaged in daily classroom life, observing, recording and collecting data and at times assisting the teacher. In this study I draw primarily on discourse analysis in conducting a microanalysis of interaction contextually oriented and embedded in ethnography. My approach to discourse analysis originates with Gee (2005) and is based on an understanding of language as a tool which is used to participate in activities, construct identities, and support membership and social organization in groups. Groups are socially, culturally, and institutionally formed and shape what activities and identities are available and possible (Gee, 2005). My analysis of subteaching actions also benefits by taking an ethnomethodological concern with the uses of language in structuring social organization (Ten Have, 2004) as I examine how language is used to co-construct, resist, and subvert subteaching actions. As such, the analysis draws on research from the field of conversation analysis, providing a detailed analysis of the ways in which participants draw on various interactional resources. The field site is an English medium, first and second grade classroom situated within a public Finnish school where most other classes are conducted in Finnish, with the exception of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classes. The teacher is a mother-tongue speaker of Finnish, as were the majority of the sixteen students who participated in this study. Three students in this class spoke home languages that were neither Finnish nor English. In the first school-year of fieldwork, there were no students present who spoke English as a home language. In the second school-year of fieldwork, the influx of new first grade students included one student with a home language of English, and two students from bilingual homes where both English and Finnish were used. Regardless of home language, all students in the English medium program study Finnish for one period (45 min) per day, either as a “mother tongue” or as an “additional language”. However, the use of Finnish within the classroom, with the exception of Finnish lessons is strongly discouraged by the teacher, even among peers in personal or private talk. 4. Analysis and discussion 4.1. Using teacher talk to maintain and construct moral and social order It has been observed that “children socialize one another, constructing their own norms and valued identities of the peer group,” and one way to do this linguistically is through moral positioning through interaction (Kyratzis, 2004, p. 640), for example assessment and evaluation (Goodwin, 2007). In the first extract, two students take a common stance on the actions of another student building local standards of moral and social order. Unlike the other extracts in the analysis,

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

313

this instance of subteaching does not concern language choice but rather examines subteaching as a broader discourse practice. The primary participants in this interaction are Ariel, Lucille and Kalle, who are all second grade students. Ariel and Lucille are close friends who are also both newcomers to Finland and non-mother tongue speakers of both English and Finnish. Kalle is a male student, speaks Finnish as a mother-tongue and attended the first grade in an English language school in China prior to entering this class as a second grade student. In this regard, it is he who is the newcomer as Ariel and Lucille completed the first grade together in this class and this interaction takes place in the first month of the second grade. At the time of this interaction, the teacher is giving a maths lesson directed at the first graders who are seated on the right hand side of the classroom, while the second graders, seated on the left hand side of the classroom, have been asked to work independently in their maths booklets. A few minutes before this interaction takes place, the teacher is distracted by the off-task behavior of Kalle who is among the second grade students and she says, “Kalle, Kalle, Kalle can you look at me, please don’t, I’m trying to explain something to the first graders” and she tells him to work on a specific task quietly. Two distinct activities are established and accordingly Kalle’s behavior is treated as disruptive to the teacher’s instruction of the first grade students. At the beginning of this extract the first grade students have just finished taking turns writing the number five on the board next to the teacher. She now addresses the first graders with another question, how to sound out and spell the number five.2 Extract 1

→ →

→

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Teacher:

Student: Teacher: Kalle: Student: Teacher: Ariel: Lucille: Minja: Lucille: Minja: Lucille: Minja: Kalle: Teacher:

now very difficult question >can you listen< Aarto (1.3) what is the sound you hear when you say what’s the first letter first sound ◦ five◦ five eff -eff very good Ka:a↓lle y↑ou don’t have to say it they’re [first graders] [ef:f ] then they won’t learn [anything] [i: i ] ◦ because you say [everything◦ ] [ve: ve ] e it doesn’t matter that’s a fi:ive (1.5) number five (.) well done

Although Kalle gives the answer “eff” (line 8), there is no uptake from the teacher until a first grader produces the answer (line 10). Kalle’s utterance is, however, noticed and remarked upon by his peers who are seated nearby. Ariel draws attention to Kalle’s action and expresses disapproval employing a sharp downward intonation when she exclaims Kalle’s name (line 11). Ariel’s rising intonation when she exclaims “you”, places emphasis on the fact that Kalle has chosen to answer the question without being a ratified participant (line 11). According to Lucille, if Kalle answers the teacher’s question, the first graders “won’t learn anything” (line 13). When Lucille uses “they” (line 14) to refer to the first grade students, she makes relevant Kalle’s status, as well as their collective status as second grade students (line 13). By doing this, both girls therefore have referenced two distinct activities established by the teacher, therefore making explicit the inappropriate nature of Kalle’s participation. Lucille’s utterances (lines 12–16) seem remarkably double voiced, as it is possible to discern an authoritative discourse here (Bakhtin, 1984). Perhaps because it is such an ideologically laden sentiment for a second grader to express, the voices of others can be heard. Lucille is also picking up on the earlier concerns of the teacher. As noted in the introduction to the extract, the teacher has singled Kalle out already, and has also given a reason for why his behavior is disruptive. The teacher has previously objected to Kalle’s off-task behavior on the grounds that it interferes with her aim of “explaining something to the first graders”. In a similar manner to the teacher, Lucille has taken up this concern with the actions of Kalle in relation to the first grade students highlighting both his unratified participation and also explicating what effect it has on the ongoing activities of the classroom. In short, Lucille takes up a teacher-like discourse through a manner of sanctioning, reformulates the earlier concerns of the classroom teacher and by doing so, explicitly references pedagogical concerns.

2 Regarding transcription; when it is not possible to identify the speaker with certainty, he or she is identified in the transcript as “Student”. As well, arrows in the right hand column direct the readers’ attention to turns where a subteaching action is performed explicitly. Please also see conventions for transcription in the Appendix.

314

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

In the next extract, we will examine the voice of the teacher in maintaining the use of English in class and examine the way in which a student builds her own directives into the teacher talk, adjunctly participating in teacher talk. Directives may be defined as utterances that are “designed to get someone else to do something” (Goodwin, 1990, p. 63) and the use of directives can construct asymmetrical power relations (Ervin-Tripp, 1976). This interaction takes place when the class is asked to discuss their weekends on a Monday morning. After another student talks about his upcoming birthday party, Aleksi complains that his birthday is at an inconvenient time of the year when no one is able to attend his party. Extract 2 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

→

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Aleksi:

Teacher: Aleksi: Student: Student: Teacher:

Lucille: Teacher:

my birthday is never from the good year all the times sometime they don’t come two or one and then no↓body mm (.) well maybe in January when you have your birthday you can invite your classmates [yes but then I ( )] [I’M COming ( )] mistä sä tiedät ( ) how do you know mm hm ah boys are you talking Finnish or English (1.2) >what’s the language< and don’t speak when someone else is >thank ↑you< and (.) we have Aleksi who is talking here now ◦ so everybody knows (to) be listening◦ Lucille (.) now it’s Lucille’s turn to speak (.) listen

The teacher’s institutional role allows her to invoke the English monolingual norm without explicitly stating it by asking the boys which language they are “talking,” and by further asking, “what’s the language” (lines 9–12). Lucille then instructs the boys with a more explicit directive, using an imperative, “and don’t speak when someone else is” (line 13). By “andprefacing” she links her directive to the teacher’s and thereby invokes an institutional identity (Heritage & Sorjonen, 1994). Lucille uses “someone” rather than naming the student and therefore more broadly references rules for turn taking: one should not speak when someone else is. Lucille’s participation is ratified by the teacher who says “thank you and we have Aleksi who is talking now” (line 14). She ties her utterance explicitly to Lucille’s turn with “and” and then reinforces the norm Lucille has already referenced, the fact that it is Aleksi’s turn. The fact that Lucille’s contribution is supported by the teacher places her in quite a powerful role, because getting others to accept her version of the rules may be seen as a demonstration of institutional rank or power (Diamond, 1996). Lucille’s position of moral authority is collaboratively achieved. Speaking ‘one at a time’ also indexes the institutional frame and this is a concern most often taken up by a teacher. In fact, the teacher does take up this normative expectation for participation following Lucille’s turn; not only should everyone speak one at a time in English, but also “everybody” should be “listening” (line 15). With her contribution sandwiched between the teacher’s instruction, Lucille has not only taken up a teacher-like discourse but has been integrally involved in the work of teaching norms for interaction in collaboration with the teacher.

4.2. Siding with the teacher: indexing gender and authority In the next extract, although first-grader Minja does not append her subteaching turn to the teacher’s turn, she builds upon the recent discourse of the teacher. This extract is presented in two parts, both of which are drawn from interaction during a handicrafts lesson which takes place over two 45 min periods. In Part 1, the expectations for language use are set up by the teacher at the beginning of a handicrafts lesson when she has the attention of the entire class. In Part 2, which takes place in the second period of this lesson, Aleksi and Kalle who are seated together begin to use Finnish. The teacher who is at the time circulating the classroom, pauses at their desk and uses only her bodily orientation and her gaze to remind the boys to use English. Then Minja addresses the language choice of the boys on behalf of the teacher, who is still present but who has moved on to assist other students. Minja is a female student in the first grade who, like the male students she interacts with, speaks Finnish as a first language. Just prior to the beginning of Extract 3A, the teacher has allowed some of the students to change desks so they may sit with friends and quietly converse. The teacher allows Ariel and Lucille to change seats but denies this same privilege to second grade boys Aleksi and Kalle on the grounds that they are often too disruptive. After a moment she reconsiders and addresses them thus:

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

315

Extract 3A 01 02 03 04 05 06 08 09 10

Teacher:

Aleksi: Teacher: Aleksi:

01

Aleksi:

02

Kalle:

03 04

Aleksi: Kalle:

05 06 07 08

Teacher: Aleksi:

Kalle and Aleksi you could-can try (0.9) to sit next to each other ((Aleksi casts eyes downwards)) but if it doesn’t work than you’ve got to ↓move o↑kay (1.1) and we’ll use En↓glish ((nods)) ↑alright okay ((nodding while Kalle has not looked at the teacher at all))

Extract 3B

→

09 10 11 12 13

Kuisma: Kalle: Minja: Eerik: Kuisma:

ootko ylpee itsestäs are you proud of yourself joo ((smiling)) yes hee mä annan sulle viis senttiä jos mää-mää niin I give you five cents if I- I so ((leans over their desk and raises eyebrows at boys)) ( ) ((gaze moves to teacher)) no English ((smiling and shakes head)) (5.0) ((boys look in desk)) onks Kalle onks sulla se euro do you Kalle do you have that euro ((whispers and Aleksi leans forward smiling)) what are ↑you ↓talking b↑oys ((turns around in seat to look at Kuisma and Kalle)) ((smiles at Kalle who smiles back)) ( ) ((Kuisma looks at Minja and returns to seat))

In Part 1 of this extract, Aleksi in particular has agreed to use English, nodding in agreement (line 8) when the teacher states, “and we’ll use English” and also when the teacher confirms with upward intonation “alright” (line 9) he replies “okay” while again nodding in agreement (line 10). Kalle, on the other hand, has studiously avoided the teacher’s gaze. Nevertheless the boys use Finnish illicitly through the first and second period of this handicrafts lesson. Part 2 of this extract illustrates teacher sanctioning, or a mild reminder, with peer sanctioning directly following. The teacher does not need to even vocalize her concern, simply by leaning over the desk and raising her eyebrows she references their previous agreement to speak English (line 5). Aleksi recognizes this, an inaudible utterance preceding his response of “no English” at which point he smiles and shakes his head (line 6). The teacher moves on to monitor and assist other students and after a brief period of silence, a first-grader, Kuisma, addresses Kalle audibly in Finnish (see Fig. 1). Kalle whispers in response and Minja turns in her seat and asks, “what are you talking boys” (line 10). Minja’s utterance of “what are you talking boys” mirrors typical teacher talk in this classroom in several ways. We have already seen in Extract 2 how the teacher draws attention to the use of Finnish in class by querying the language in use, rather than issuing a directive to switch. Second, similar to Extract 2 (line 9), speaking categorically to the boys in question rather than naming students, is also a common practice in this classroom. This may be because all the male students in this class are Finnish speakers, whereas among the female students there are several newcomers. My ethnographic fieldnotes have shown that it is the boys who are most often reminded to use English in class when talking amongst themselves. The social identity of a “boy” is made relevant within this interaction (Sacks, 1992) and in this case it is a category that locally infers certain things, such as more frequently speaking Finnish in class. The use of gendered address may be considered

Fig. 1. Kuisma and Kalle looking into the desk. This image coincides with Extract 3B, lines 7–8.

316

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

Fig. 2. At the end of the interaction. Kuisma returns to his seat. Minja on the right hand side is still oriented towards Kalle who is standing holding his desk lid open.

one further recognizable feature of teacher discourse that students may attend to and draw upon. This is consistent with recent research on the construction of gender categories in classroom interaction, which focuses on the use of the member category of “boys” in teacher reproach, revealing that this category can be subsequently used by peers (Tainio, 2011). In fact, previous studies have found Finnish teachers to use gendered address more frequently than those in the United Kingdom (Gordon, 2004; Palmu, 2003). Minja, although only in the first grade, has insightfully picked up on and employed the use of gendered address in utilizing a teacher-like discourse. Minja’s attempt to subteach is largely ignored by the boys using Finnish. It does draw the gaze of Eerik who turns in his seat and after Kuisma and Kalle exchange looks, Kuisma returns to his desk saying something inaudible to Minja (see Fig. 2). What was originally a matter of language choice between two boys had been opened up to the attention of others, drawing the gaze and participation of other students. And thus through the uptake of a teacher-like discourse, Minja has altered the course of the interaction. 4.3. Collaboration and co-construction in subteaching The following extract illustrates how students position themselves and are positioned by others as subteachers. This interaction takes place between Minja and Aarto. Throughout my fieldwork I noted that Aarto, who is the target of the subteaching action in this extract, was frequently corrected and sanctioned by both the teacher and by peers for incorrect use of English, and for the use of Finnish in class. The interaction I analyze here, takes place among students who have gathered at the back of the classroom discussing an activity involving a crochet needle and yarn during a handicrafts period. Extract 4 01

Minja:

02

Aarto:

03

→ →

→

04

Student:

05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

Ariel: Minja:

Kalle: Aarto: Minja: Aarto:

mä teen piikkiä I’m making the spike mitä kyllä voitki (.) voidaan pistää kyllä what yes you can (.) yes you can poke tästä piikkiä tiesit että jo sen the spike here you knew that already ((while unravelling a ball of yarn)) ihan tot oh ye .hhh Aar↓to I kno:w (3.8) did ↑ you (.) know that we don’t have Fin↑nish (0.6) we’re hav↓ing .hh[h ah] [handicrafts class] [English class] handi-handicrafts yes and we talk (0.5) eh =Engli:sh

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

317

Ariel’s falling intonation and outbreath express disapproval (line 5). Minja aligns with Ariel and asserts an epistemic knowledge of what kind of language should be used at this moment, by stating “I know” (line 6). Minja herself has also just used Finnish in a previous turn (line 1). However, when Ariel expresses disapproval of Aarto, Minja shifts stances by switching languages, moving from using Finnish to using English. Her social positioning changes as she aligns with Ariel, who is an older female student, and switches languages. Such a move is consistent with research indicating that girls achieve rank through relationships with other girls, displaying “relative positioning by formulating alliances” as opposed to how boys are more likely to achieve social order and ranking through competition and evaluation of skill (Goodwin, 1990, p. 136). As a second grader, who I have observed to be outgoing and popular among both boys and girls, Ariel is a desirable student for Minja, herself a first grader, to align with. After a pause, Minja begins to vocalize her disapproval overtly (line 7). One may look at this exchange as containing what Bergmann (1998) terms an “inbuilt moral commentary” (p. 288) and it is this morality which Minja builds upon when she takes up a teacher-like discourse. When Minja addresses Aarto with, “did you know” (line 7), she is utilizing rhetorical teacher talk in a way which sets up what comes next. According to Sacks (1992) “one tenet of conversation is that one should not tell someone something they already know” (pp. 438–443) and in this way, the use of this utterance is particularly institutional, indexing the teacher’s power to ask known-answer questions. Furthermore, this kind of reminder is a strategy the classroom teacher often employs; reminding students of where they are and what they do not currently have (Finnish class) entrusting them to make the correct decision in regards to language choice. This kind of reminder is constructed from a shared understanding of what membership in the class entails. When Minja says, “did you know that we don’t have Finnish” and after pausing continues, “we’re having” (line 7–9) it is so clear to the other students that completion is required that there is an overlap as two students complete the utterance. Her falling intonation, outbreath and the syntactic structure of her utterance, provide an opportunity for response and enable the participation of other students here. Aarto answers, “English class handi-handicrafts,” repairing the latter part of the utterance (line 11). And Kalle’s contribution, “handicrafts” overlaps with Aarto’s (line 10). When Minja says “yes and we talk,” (line 12) she evaluates their responses as correct but also uses an incomplete utterance with level intonation. This may be considered a continuing intonation and it is one way in which this fragment is designed to be completed by another speaker from the outset (unlike anticipatory completions and word searches) (Koshik, 2002). Called a designedly incomplete utterance (DIU), this is a turn that is used as a kind of prompt to draw a display of information from a student (Koshik, 2002). While similar to “known information” questions (Mehan, 1979) and “display” questions (Long & Sato, 1983), DIUs are not syntactic questions. Aarto responds to this prompt and supplies “English,” latching onto her turn (line 13) savouring his response by drawing out the second syllable. While Minja has adopted the discourse of a teacher here, she had not taken up this role all on her own. At the end of this extract, Aarto repeats his earlier answer, constructing a full sentence, “we have English class handicrafts” (line 14). Using “we,” he has recycled Minja’s earlier syntactic construction, “we’re having” (line 9), which may be a display of alignment (Goodwin, 2007). Aarto, Minja and others have collaboratively co-constructed or re-instated the norm for language use in this class through this interaction. The use of “we” in this interaction (lines 7, 9, 12) signals an “in-group” and emphasizes the shared nature of this norm. “We” can group “speakers and hearer(s) as equal agents/recipients of the proposed directive” (Goodwin, 1990, p. 112) or mark shared accountability (Mehan, 1979) and is not an uncommon feature of teacher talk. Minja may be indexing shared membership in the classroom, which is contingent on certain norms, and at the same time rests upon shared accountability. Students very clearly instigate the collaborative construction of a norm for language use in this lesson. Minja herself at first uses Finnish, so through this interaction she also constructs alignment with another student, Ariel, who is the first to sanction Aarto. Aarto and Kalle willingly take up the role of ‘students,’ utilizing an institutionally familiar pattern of discourse.

4.4. Resistance: from indexing mother tongue knowledge to subversion and mockery In the next extract, a peer uses a directive to enforce the English monolingual norm and encounters resistance. The normative use of English is, in this instance, not a strong enough grounds for the construction of asymmetrical power relations between students, whereby one student gives directives to another. Directives are at the “interface between language and social action,” constructed through speech, operating as social action, making visible relationships between participants and displaying positions or shifts in footing (Goodwin, 1990, p. 65). Goodwin (1990) considers the activity of instruction to be a subgenre of directives, where directives display oneself as competent and the other as incompetent and so it is not surprising that being the recipient of a directive from a peer may be viewed as undesirable and worth resisting. At the time of this interaction there are only six pupils present in the classroom working on a handicraft under the teacher’s supervision. The teacher is engaged in assisting with another student’s craft and overhears this exchange between Lucille and Aleksi.

318

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

Extract 5

→

01

Aleksi:

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Lucille: Aleksi: Lucille: Aleksi:

Lucille: Aleksi: Lucille: Aleksi: Teacher:

Katri: Teacher: Aleksi:

Lucille: Student: Aleksi: Lucille: Teacher:

(Juha) tuu ((gaze directed at Juha)) come ((seated on floor, rises slightly)) speak in Engl↓ish (1.0) ((gaze directed at Aleksi)) (wh-) what is tuu come no (4.3) ((shakes head emphatically)) tu (doesn’t) mean anything (0.8) [tuu] [then] >why do you say that< well tuu means come (0.6) but tu doesn’t mean anything than why do you say Juha ↑co↓me I could use () ↑Lu↓cille’s sort of a lan↓guage police↓man ◦ mmhm◦ (2.1) ma↑king sure that everyone ↑uses (0.6) English that’s right and then ( ) in playschool (1.2) you did (al) uh (the ways) make sure that everybody speaks (0.9) Finnish ◦ did not◦ ((snort)) (because you didn’t even) know (5.0) (what)( ) can I take this off Ms. S no (.) you hook these through

Dominance and subordination are the roles that are taken up in successful directive and response sequences (Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2007, p. 283) but in this sequence Aleksi chooses to resist Lucille’s directive rather than comply with it. Subteaching actions can function as interactional moves which engender unequal power relations, in turn producing resistance and opposition. Sequences of opposition such as this can reveal how hierarchical social relations are constructed (and deconstructed) among the peer group. After Lucille gives the directive “speak in English” (line 2), Aleksi asks “why what is tuu”, referring back to his own Finnish turn in line 1. In spoken Finnish “tuu” with a long vowel means “come” and may be used as a directive. Instead of giving a direct refusal, Aleksi’s question strategically denies Lucille’s authority by casting doubt on her knowledge of Finnish. Lucille correctly answers “come” (line 5). Aleksi however does not accept the answer. Instead he denies that “tu” (here uttered with a short vowel) means “anything”, which leads Lucille to ask why he would say something that does not mean anything (lines 11, 13). Aleksi goes through the trouble of repeating his utterance in English, which is partly inaudible (line 14). It is at this point that the teacher comments to myself and in front of the class, that Lucille is a “language policeman” (line 15). The teacher’s utterance is designedly incomplete, the upward intonation prompting a student to contribute (line 17–19) showing that indeed this has become a whole class interaction, where Lucille is very publically characterized as someone who monitors language in the classroom. Aleksi then suggests that Lucille also acted this way in preschool to enforce the use of Finnish (lines 21–26). Aleksi speaks haltingly here as he continues to work carefully on his craft. This statement (lines 21–26) may be seen as an “inversion of normative expectations” and thus an attempt at humor (Cekaite & Aronsson, 2004, p. 374). Lucille and Aleksi both attended an English language preschool, so it is unlikely that Finnish was spoken there. Aleksi’s closing statement “because you didn’t even know” (line 29) may speak to the fact that Lucille did not speak Finnish when she entered preschool as a newcomer to Finland. Further, Lucille is being characterized, at least historically, as a non-Finnish speaker and thus her translation of Aleksi’s utterance (line 5) and the monitoring of his language use are disqualified. Lucille’s use of directives signals an understanding of the norm as crucial to the functions of the classroom, and she has wholeheartedly taken up and very successfully been socialized to use English in the classroom. This is not simply because she is a non-native speaker of Finnish as she can be heard using Finnish on the playground with other children. Significantly, however, she instigates this interaction with Aleksi by indexing the power of this teacher-enforced norm, which allows her to take up a position of moral authority and use directives with a peer. The teacher overhears this exchange and does not enforce the English norm, but instead offers commentary on Lucille’s role in the class as a “language policeman” (lines 15–18). We come to see that this interaction is as much a place for contending language use as it is for student positioning and identity work. Lucille is publically constructed by both her teacher and her peers, as an enforcer, a monitor, as someone who overtly abides by and upholds certain classroom practices. According to Aleksi, who is perhaps attempting to irritate Lucille by inverting the language of enforcement (line 26), this has always been the case. Aleksi’s closing utterance, “you

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

319

didn’t even know” (line 29) indexes an interactional history, and displaces Lucille in her use of teacher-talk, for a teacher is expected to “know” quite a lot. By invoking this history Aleksi also positions himself as a ‘knowing’ participant, displaying authority in a similar way to the teacher. Sharing this story about Lucille in playschool, Aleksi is aligning with the teacher’s position, in fact utilizing elements from her turn (lines 17 and 24). In this regard, Aleksi draws on the teacher’s discourse to resist Lucille’s subteaching actions. Aleksi thus creatively sidesteps Lucille’s use of directives, resisting her uptake of a subteaching role. In the next extract, however, upon hearing Lucille use Finnish, Aleksi uses Lucille’s own words against her, telling her to “speak English”. She uses this phrase so frequently in class that it is recognizably appropriated by Aleksi and illustrates an instance of double-voicing (Bakhtin, 1984). The following interaction takes place during a lesson in the subject of Environmental Sciences, where the teacher instructs students on the names of local flora and fauna in both Finnish and English. These lessons are the exception to the rule, rare instances where the use of Finnish terminology by students is encouraged. Extract 6

→

→

Teacher: Lucille: Teacher: Student: Teacher:

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Aleksi:

08

Lucille:

09 10 11 12

Aleksi: Teacher:

13 14 15 16 17 18

Teacher: Katri: Aleksi: Lucille: Teacher: Ali:

19 20

Teacher: Aleksi:

21 22 23 24 25 26

Ariel: Ali: Teacher: Ali: Katri: Ali:

27

Teacher:

Lucille:

so I wonder if anybody knows the name no↓ I don’t know ↓it in ↑Fin↓nish mm mm I did mention it yesterday (.) something to do with co↑lour ((raises eyebrows and looks around)) ◦ mustikka◦ blueberry sininen blue =kwe:e ((cringes)) we’ll start with that ((smiles and nods at Lucille)) Ee↓rik sininen [kukka] blue flower [Kati] nhh nii ((lowers hand, shakes head and slumps)) ↓speak ↑Eng↓lish ((sing-song voice, wags finger at Lucille)) ( ) ((mouths at Aleksi, smiling)) Ali mustikkakukka hahaa blueberry flower let me [write it for you] [>speak English] ((points at Ali)) speak English< ((points at Lucille)) ( ) ↓Aleksi (.) okay I [can see] [shhh] hh here (.) it is called (.) in Finnish SIN ◦ oh oh oh oh◦ ((hand up)) sinivuokko anemone hepatica (or liverwort) very good

The teacher asks for responses in Finnish (line 3) and Aleksi is the first to provide an answer (line 7). However, Lucille’s response is clearer and louder (line 8). The teacher selects Lucille’s answer and states “we’ll start with that” and gives Eerik a warning about his off-task behavior (line 11). Lucille pairs her accepted contribution with kukka, the word for flower (line 12), which overlaps with the teacher’s selection of another student. This other student, Katri, has forgotten, or changed her mind about contributing an answer and it is at this point that Aleksi begins an interaction parallel to the lesson. He turns to Lucille, who is seated next to him, wags his finger and says in a sing-song voice, “speak English” (line 15). Her response is inaudible but she smiles and mouths something to him. Aleksi turns his gaze back to the teacher and Ali laughingly gives the playful answer of blueberry flower (line 18), which draws on the earlier unofficial responses of Aleksi and also Lucille (mustikka and kukka). As the teacher turns to the blackboard, Aleksi speaks quickly pointing to Ali, “speak English” and then turns to Lucille and wags his finger, stating again “speak English” (line 20). Ali responds to Aleksi, stating his name with playful disapproval before orienting back towards to teacher’s writing on the board. The teacher’s turn overlaps with Ali, as she for the first time acknowledges the counter activities occurring among peers, hushing the class and drawing their attention to the board (line 23). When Aleksi says “speak English” (lines 15, 20), he appropriates the voice of Lucille by drawing on the prosody which is typical of her utterance and thus he “animates” her voice (Goffman, 1974, p. 537) through imitation. An act of imitation may be described as occurring when someone does something they are not “entitled” to do, but are able to do, using an action they have “borrowed” (Sacks, 1992, pp. 479–481). Imitation becomes mockery when it is not done in a serious manner, and when the imitation is done in a “negative way” (Sacks, 1992, p. 480). Aleksi is appropriating Lucille’s voice in a less than serious manner, and through this mockery of her he uses her utterance for a different purpose. Such double-voiced discourse

320

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

entails “inserting a new semantic intention into a discourse which already has, and which retains, an intention of its own” (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 188). His utterances function as a commentary on Lucille’s actions when she engages in this kind of language monitoring. He is resisting subteaching in general and at a different time than when it actually goes on, as Lucille is not engaged in any sort of subteaching at the moment. Aleksi also reveals he is acutely aware of the change of context in regards to language use during this lesson. Finnish is necessary in this lesson because they do indeed live in Finland and require vocabulary to describe local plants in Finnish. The teacher has told me that sometimes students in the English program miss out on important Finnish vocabulary which they may not encounter outside of school because they study environmental science and other topics through English. During the course of my fieldwork, Aleksi is sometimes sanctioned by the teacher for using Finnish in lessons, but more often he is sanctioned for using Finnish in peer talk. While he has appropriated Lucille’s words, he is taking an action that she would not take – sanctioning peers during a whole class lesson when the teacher is instructing and in fact asking for answers in Finnish. In this way, this imitation of Lucille becomes mockery as it exaggerates enforcement of the norm in a way that is impossible to take seriously. Aleksi may be seen as skillfully exploiting this opportunity and drawing on “contextual and pragmatic knowledge about the cultural frameworks and expectations” of the context to produce humor (Howard, 2009, p. 30). He is appropriating the subteaching voice of Lucille, subverting this voice and actually countering the institutional agenda in this lesson, thus constructing a new meaning with an embedded ideological stance or response (Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2007, p. 282). Aleksi’s response may be viewed as playful and humorous by other students, for example Lucille smiles and mouths something inaudible to him (line 16) but it also allows him to position himself in relation to the activities of the class. In this way, although Aleksi is mocking the subteaching voice of Lucille, he powerfully competes with the lesson through his own social commentary. By appropriating a subteaching voice, one might observe that he is engaged in subversive subteaching because monitoring the use of English among students is still a teacher-like practice regardless of one’s stance, and despite the fact that this may be viewed as an act of resistance. 5. Discussion and conclusions This paper has explored the dynamic ways the practices of subteaching are engaged in, resisted, and even subverted as part of processes of socialization in the classroom. The analysis has revealed that peer-centered interaction has a powerful role in socializing the norms for language use and reveals that there are even certain moral responsibilities in regards to participation. Students have learned institutionally mandated rules for language use in school, but they contingently draw upon these norms adapting them to their own social purposes, even reinterpreting and subverting them to perform social actions. The role of a subteacher is co-constructed but it is also resisted, most vocally and agentively by Aleksi. Subteaching actions relating to language choice are possible because the institutional monolingual norm is not interpreted and adhered to by all students in the same manner. Language socialization is achieved through interaction (Ochs, 2002, p. 108) and therefore is inherently contingent on the agency of individuals (Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin, 1990). The significance of this study taking place over two school years in a mixed grade class is that the subteaching role is taken up despite shifting membership in the classroom, and this role is replicated by a new student during the second year of fieldwork. Lucille is shown to engage in subteaching actions when she is in both the first and the second grade. Minja enters the class during the second year of fieldwork as a first grade student and also engages in subteaching actions (Extracts 3 and 4). In this regard, this work provides a unique contribution to the issue of subteaching and the peer management of language choice in school through longitudinal ethnographic documentation. This paper, in line with previous research on multilingual children, shows subteaching to be a resource in organizing participation and doing membership work (Møller & Jørgensen, 2011) but also significantly shows how subteaching can be used by students to position themselves in relation to categories such as grade level, gender, and mother tongue in a heterogeneous group. This study is the first to explicitly focus on subteaching as it occurs in the routine and daily activities of a classroom, unlike previous studies which have focused on small group activities without the presence of a classroom teacher (Møller & Jørgensen, 2011; Tholander & Aronsson, 2003). Subteaching actions most often took place on a united floor or began among peers and opened up to whole class participation, becoming powerful positioning events where norms for language use, integral to classroom membership, were negotiated and resisted. Due to the context, there are also unique ramifications to subteaching. The act of subteaching may aid the teacher in monitoring language use in peer-centered interaction, and maintaining the use of English in class. The analysis shows that subteaching is not done illicitly but can be authorized by the teacher, in fact the role of subteacher can also be collaboratively constructed and legitimized by the classroom teacher. Consistent with earlier research indicating that students who most often engage in subteaching activities are female (Tholander & Aronsson, 2003), the data presented in this study primarily features females in the role of subteachers. Further, the analysis reveals that the act of subteaching may perpetuate gendered identities in relation to language use, taking for instance the use of gendered address which mirrors institutional talk and reproduces the social identity of boys in the classroom as Finnish speakers who resist using English. However, the analysis also shows that subteaching actions are attended to, and can be manipulated by male students as well. Aleksi, a male student uses the words of a frequent subteacher in the final extract, becoming a false voice of authority in order to oppose the female subteacher and to perhaps even make a point about the arbitrary nature of the norms for language choice in the class. Through such appropriation subteaching actions are both resisted, and oriented to. Aleksi resists Lucille and reaffirms her situated identity as a language monitor.

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

321

Thus the voice of frequent subteachers can even become recognizable and reconstituted not just as the voice of the teacher, but of the voice of the subteacher. Such instances of dispute offer opportunities for the uptake of positions and stances, and therefore identity work and the renegotiation of social relationships and hierarchies within the peer group (Goodwin, 2006, p. 33). Subteaching is a way for students to tell other students what to do, even when there is no direct consequence to themselves. It is an interactional tool for enforcing normative practices, indexing local issues of morality, power, and social organization. Subteaching draws on a moral authority which can more easily be built upon an institutional voice. It has been long established that there are moral dimensions to teacher discourse in the classroom (Bernstein, 1996; Buzzelli & Johnston, 2002). Teaching may be viewed as inherently moral not due to explicit instruction as to right and wrong, but because teachers interact with students to achieve understanding and improvement as classroom participants jointly strive to make meanings which may be taken as moral (Buzzelli & Johnston, 2002). Drawing on moral discourses embedded in teacher-talk gives authority to peers engaging in subteaching actions and are part and parcel of the way in which such actions can be used in social organization. Even so, it is not a matter of simply breaking the rules or following the rules but rather entails “ongoing collaborative judgment work” among students (Evaldsson, 2004, p. 360). Even students that enforce the normative use of English may have spoken Finnish in a prior turn, but by shifting languages and stances, students shift alignments. The prevalence of peer monitoring of language use may be seen as a response to the pressures of a monolingual institutional norm, but also functions as another resource for students in negotiating peer relationships. These relationships are the arena in which students are effectively socialized to specific ways of using language, whereby the normative grounds for class membership are continuously established. Acknowledgments This article benefitted from the insights of three anonymous reviewers. I am grateful to Anne Piirainen-Marsh and Anne Pitkänen-Huhta for their comments and advice. I would also like to thank Normann Jørgensen for commenting on an earlier version of this paper. Appendix. Transcription conventions ↓ ↑ > < < > : stress LOUD ◦ quiet◦ @ (.) (1.5) [ ] ( )

Precedes falling intonation Precedes rising intonation Cut-off Faster tempo Slower tempo Lengthened vowel Stressed Loud Quiet Animated voice Pause, less than .5 s Length of pause Overlap Inaudible utterance

References Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (pp. 259–422). Austin: University of Austin Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). In C. Emerson (Ed., Trans.), Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bayley, R., & Schecter, S. R. (2003). Introduction: Toward a dynamic model of language socialization. In R. Bayley, & S. R. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 1–6). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bergmann, J. R. (1998). Introduction: Morality in discourse. Research on language and social interaction, 31(3&4), 279–294. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research and critique. London: Taylor & Francis. Buzzelli, C. A., & Johnston, B. (2002). The moral dimensions of teaching: Language, power, and culture in classroom interaction. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Candela, A. (2005). Students participation as co-authoring of school institutional practices. Culture Psychology, 11(3), 321–337. Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2004). Repetition and joking in children’s second language conversations: Playful recyclings in an immersion classroom. Discourse Studies, 6(3), 373–392. Cekaite, A., & Björk-Willén, P. (2012). Peer group interactions in multilingual educational settings: Co-constructing social order and norms for language use. International Journal of Bilingualism, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006912441417 Corsaro, W. A. (2011). The sociology of childhood (3rd ed.). London: Sage. De Haan, M. (2005). The authoring of school: Between the official and unofficial discourse. Culture Psychology, 11(3), 267–285. Diamond, J. (1996). Status and power in verbal interaction: A study of discourse in a close-knit social network. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 295–325. Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 298–322. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66. Evaldsson, A. C. (2004). Shifting moral stances: Morality and gender in same-sex and cross-sex game interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(3), 331–363. Fader, A. (2009). Mitzvah girls: Bringing up the next generation of Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Garrett, P. (2007). Language socialization and the reproduction of bilingual subjectivities. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 233–256). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

322

A. Copp Mökkönen / Linguistics and Education 23 (2012) 310–322

Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status and exclusion. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Goodwin, M. H. (2007). Participation and embodied action in preadolescent girls’ assessment activity. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 40, 353–375. Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2007). Children socializing children: Practices for negotiating the social order among peers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(4), 279–289. Gordon, T. (2004). “Sata pientä sääntöä. . .” – sukupuoli koulun arjessa. In E. Vitikka (Ed.), Koulu-sukupuoli-oppimistulokset (School-gender-learning results) (pp. 68–83). Helsinki: Board of Education. Guardado, M. (2009). Speaking Spanish like a boy scout: Language socialization, resistance and reproduction in a heritage language scout troop. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(1), 101–129. He, A. W. (2003). Novices and their speech roles in Chinese heritage language classes. In R. Bayley, & S. R. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 128–146). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23, 1–29. Howard, K. M. (2009). Breaking in and spinning out: Repetition and decalibration in Thai children’s play genres. Language in Society, 38, 339–363. Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309. Kyratzis, A. (2004). Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 625–649. Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H. W. Seliger, & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Maybin, J. (2008). Revoicing across learning spaces. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 81–92). Boston: Springer. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Møller, J. S., & Jørgensen, J. N. (2011). Linguistic norms and adult roles in play and serious frames. Linguistics and Education, 22, 68–78. Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures. (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (2002). Becoming a speaker of culture. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 99–120). London: Continuum. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335. Palmu, T. (2003). Sukupuolen rakentuminen koulun kulttuurisissa teksteissä. Etnografia yläästeen äideenkielen oppitunneilla [Construction of gender in cultural texts in school. An ethnographic research on mother tongue lessons in secondary school.] Helsingin yliopiston kasvatustieteen laitoksen tutkimuksia 189. Helsinki: University Press. Sacks, H. (1992/1995). In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli children. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163–191. Stokoe, E. H. (2003). Mothers, single women and sluts: Gender, morality and membership categorization in neighbour disputes. Feminism & Psychology, 13(3), 317–344. Tainio, L. (2011). Gendered address terms in reproach sequences in classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education, 22(4), 330–347. Talmy, S. (2008). The cultural productions of the ESL student at Tradewinds High: Contingency, multidirectionality, and identity in L2 socialization. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 619–644. Ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London: Sage. Tholander, M. (2002). Doing morality in school. Teasing, gossip and subteaching as collaborative action. Linköping: Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Tholander, M., & Aronsson, K. (2003). Doing subteaching in school group work: Positionings, resistance, and participation frameworks. Language and Education, 17(3), 208–234. Walkerdine, V. (1981). Sex, power and pedagogy. Screen Education, 38, 14–24.