5.1 Explicit regulation: drawing boundaries of acceptability and correctness
5.1.2 Commentary on English
As Gordersch and Dretzke (1998: 13) suggest, people’s linguistic behaviour can be divided into three: (1) how people think they use language, (2) how they think they ought to use language, and (3) how they actually do use language. In terms of language
102
regulation, we are interested in finding links between 1 and 2 as well as between 2 and 3.
Also, it appears that we need to make a further distinction between notions that speakers have of their own language and notions that they have of others’ language, since this may have an effect on their notions of how language ought to be used. In section 5.1.1, I looked into actual usage in the form of language corrections, which already sheds light on speakers’ notions of correctness. In what follows, I turn to explicit commenting on language, which further brings forth speakers’ notions of language use: both how they think they use language and how they think they ought to use it. The section thus relates to the repertoire analyses of chapter 6 in that I explore speakers’ talk about language. The difference is that the commenting analysed in this section takes place in the naturally-occurring study event interactions, whereas chapter 6 focuses on the research interviews and thus elicited talk about language.
What I mean with explicit language commenting are metalingual, rather than metadiscursive, comments (Berry 2005: 8–12; section 4.2.1). My focus, then, is on those instances of the interaction where language is taken up as a topic, not talk about the talk itself. For instance, a student might refer to his or her English skills in the interaction, and thus make a metalingual comment. The questions focused on are:
(1) What kinds of notions of their own and each other’s English do speakers construct through language commenting?
(2) Who or what are constructed as language experts?
The first question sheds light on how speakers think they use language and how they view each other’s language, and the second question deals with speaker perceptions of how language ought to be used. In the following, I first explore the more general type of commenting on language, where students commented on their own or their fellow students’ English, and then move on to commenting that concerned students’ written texts (presentation slides or reports). The latter type of commenting was done by both students and teachers. I deal with it separately in order to shed light on the differences constructed between the regulation of spoken and written language.
Commenting on one’s own English
Most comments on one’s own English were found in the student group. In their comments, the students most often expressed insecurity in using the language. This was done, for instance, by directly referring to the (felt) limitations of one’s English, as
103
illustrated in example 5.15, where a student (S2) expresses difficulty in translating from her L1 Brazilian Portuguese into English, and considers this a limitation of her command of English.
(5.15)
S2: so i didn’t find anything in books but erm in my country it’s a developing country where these participatory methods has started with the (paulo freire is a) the one who first said something about this <S1> okay </S1> this is erm, it’s hard to say because i have only material in my own language and i’m not that good in english <SU> eh </SU> to translate things [but] <SU-1>
[yeah] </SU-1> we could try to do something in this way that erm, before before starting this erm participatory methods in brazil th- erm regarding to to helping the rural people <S1> yeah </S1> erm they they start how to this do to do this extension how to bring new technologies to developing the rural area(s) so they idea was okay i have the the technology here and i go to the the rural area <SU-1> yeah </SU-1> and i give it to them and it has to work because it’s [good] <SU-1> [mhm] </SU-1> how can it be wrong <SU-1>
[yeah] </SU-1> [so] they thought it would work but then nothing worked even though [they] <SU-1> [yeah] </SU-1> have good technologies they have put money but [the] <SU-1> [mhm] </SU-1> the people didn’t accept it because nobody had asked them what to do so then they started to think that there was something wrong why is it so difficult to to, developing (a) rural program then they have started to to try to find the the problems and they have started this participatory methods talking to the people asking them what’s what is your opinion about the place where you live why you didn’t use that technology that we gave to you and then they ha- they started doing this erm this rapid how do they call this rapid rural (one) <SU-1> [(right) yeah yeah] </SU-1> [these questionnaires there] there there’s a special name in the literature [(xx)] <SU-1> [yeah] </SU-1> something like that, rapid rapid rural (approach) or something like this
S6: erm yeah (xx)
S2: and the teacher has said the name i don’t <S6> [but erm] </S6> [know (if the word is)] correct in english
S6: you mean this a- participatory rural appr- approach or something S2: yes
104
S6: okay when you make this all (this)
S2: (this) question(s). and maybe we can try to compare how was it before and and and how it it’s now because now erm about participatory methods i’m sure you have find some good materials because they have they always say about this techniques but they [don’t say] <S1> [yeah] </S1> about before or [what] <S1> [yeah] </S1> was [before]
SU: [mhm]
(SG, V07A1GW) The comment S2 makes about her language use (i’m not that good in english to translate things) implies that she relates strongly to her first language (note the way she talks about my own language contrasted with translating into English). S2 thus perceives English as a foreign language that is not her own and that limits her expression (cf. chapter 6).
However, the example also shows that after expressing her insecurity, S2 goes on to explain her ideas and continues uninterrupted, seemingly without difficulties for quite a while (ca. 2 min). The expression of insecurity appears to function as a disclaimer:
because she has to use English, she may not be able to bring forth all her expertise.
Towards the end of the example, we have a different kind of expression of insecurity, as S2 initiates repair by asking the others for help with a special term. Here S2 refers to a gap in her lexis and seeks for the ‘correct’ expression in English (i don’t know (if the word is) correct in english). We see that the self-initiation is followed by S6’s suggestion, after which S2 again takes the floor. It is clear that the repair sequence slows down the interaction, but it appears that the insecurity remains with the one term.
Insecurity was also expressed in the form of confirmation checks. In example 5.16, the students talk about asking the course teacher to clarify the group work task instructions.
(5.16)
S5: and for tomorrow i i think that we need (to) show to the teacher yeah for example er all my information that i have about my sentences about my my what is the relative importan(ce) yeah and and ask her okay this is the idea that you want that you are talking about that you want tha- that we speak about that, do you understand
S2: [yes]
105
S5: [because my english]
SU-4: [yeah]
S5: [is] not [very good i know]
S2: [if you have] if you (already have) something of course i- it’s good to show to her but <S5> [yeah] </S5> [but] (d- don’t go so) deeply because if you’re going the if we are going the wrong way it’s a waste of time to <S1> yeah
</S1> to prepare something only to to show to her and then she say no it’s not correct
(SG, V07A1GW) We can see that similarly to example 5.15, English is constructed as problematic (not very good i know). S5 expresses uncertainty in terms of whether the other students understand him (several occurrences of the confirmation check yeah as well as the explicit confirmation question do you understand). In previous ELF research, confirmation checks have been found to be in use to guard against miscommunication (Mauranen 2006b: 136–
137), and that seems to be taking place here as well. In addition, the abundance of confirmation checks along with the explicit statement, my English is not very good i know, implies that S5 is insecure about his English. However, two students (S2 and SU-4) confirm that they have been able to follow S5 and this can also be seen in S2’s turn, which directly relates to what S5 said.
The expressions of insecurity in the above examples suggest that the two speakers are not satisfied with their English and that they are aware of the limitations of their command of the language. The speakers construct a divide between ‘good’ and ‘not good’
English, and place their own English towards the ‘not good’ end of the continuum (cf.
chapter 6). The students thus show acute awareness of their perceived lack of command in English relative to some implied target or norm. In example 5.15, we saw that S2 contrasted her English with her L1, which means that a division is constructed between L1s and L2s. The contrast appears to function as a disclaimer, where one’s ‘deficient’
command of English is seen to hinder one’s performance in the group, and this is also when the contrast is constructed as relevant. However, both of the above examples illustrate that communication was not hindered. In example 5.15, S2 simply continued speaking, and in example 5.16, S5’s co-interactants showed no signs of trouble in understanding him – quite the contrary. It thus appears that the subjective experience of not speaking English well enough may not correspond to how the interlocutors view it.
The students’ metalingual comments concerning their ‘not very good’ English construct
106
the English as unacceptable, yet the fellow-students’ reactions imply that the usage falls within the scope of acceptability.
While, in the above, the speakers constructed insecurity of using English, a few of the language comments also indicated confidence in one’s command of the language.
These expressions were rare in the data, implying that speakers did not feel the need to explicitly express confidence. The example (5.17) comes from the guided group, where S3 offers to translate a text from her L1 Finnish into English.
(5.17)
S1: (i think) there’s been research done on the botnica subspecies and i think that would be interesting to bring into this project as well <M1> mhm </M1> do you think you can find it (if you’ve) seen it once
S3: yeah i (read it) @@ and i can send it for you if it’s in finnish i can translate it
S2: yeah or then y- you can [(xx)] <S3> [or i can] </S3> straight away (xx) S3: yeah
(GG, B09C2GGW) The example shows that the source materials the students used were not always in English (see also example 5.15), which reflects the multilingual nature of the environment.
In the data, only students commented on their own language, and most such comments were found in the student group. Also, the students whose L1 was English tended not to comment on their English47. The expressions of insecurity illustrate that at least some students perceived their own English to be in need of improvement, but the implied target or norm remained abstract in the comments.
Commenting on other participants’ English
Students’ comments on their own language showed awareness of the (possible) limitations of their English. Language awareness also becomes evident in the ways the students made the NS status relevant in the group by commenting on each other’s language.
47 However, compare example 5.24, in which NS3 responds to the other students’ expressions of insecurity by commenting on his own language.
107
In the student group work, NS3 was separated out as a NS of English. At one point in the second meeting, when the group talked about whether they needed more information on traditional methods or not, S5 realised that NS3 was a NS of English, which caused him to lament on his own English (example 5.18).
(5.18)
S2: <FIRST NAME NS3> do you think we need to to find more information about the traditional methods or it's okay from this study case,
NS3: er, i think it will maybe be okay from the study case i can maybe do some explaining er a little further than what the study case says
S2: mhm-hm
NS3: but i think they'll mention maybe some traditional previously at least traditional methods as well so
S5: <ADDRESSING S2> i think that he’s <REFERS TO NS3> english speaker yeah and he’s not going to have problems for to speak and speak and speak but but (xx) i think so yeah
NS3: @no@
S5: i think
<P: 05>
S2: [we are all learning together <FIRST NAME S5>
S5: [@@ in in in half in in half hour of exposition in english i can speak i need to speak and to talk all my life yeah
S2: [@@
S5: [for half an hour i need to (talk) about all my life
S2: er for me it's going to be the first presentation in english so, (there's a little)
<P: 15>
(SG, V07A2GW) In the example, S5 reacts to NS3’s turn by shifting attention to the upcoming presentation situation, and in the process draws attention to NS3’s L1 status. We can see that S5 distances himself from NS3 by referring to NS3 in third person (I think that he’s) and by addressing S2 while doing the commenting. It is also notable that although
108
commenting on NS3’s NS status, S5 actually expresses concern about his own English.
By comparing his English to that of the NS, S5 shows awareness of the differences in the group members’ English. What is more, he highlights the difference between L1 and L2 use of English, and the implications of this difference: for L2 speakers of English, the language may cause additional trouble, whereas NSs are seen to have no problems at all.
NS3 reacts to S5’s comment with a no, spoken through nervous-sounding laughter, and S2 seeks to soften S5’s comment by saying that they are all in the same boat, learning together.
S2 further shares her own anxieties about presenting in English, which illustrates that she recognises S5’s concerns.
Interestingly, NS3’s use of study case instead of the Standard English version case study does not interfere with S5’s rendition of NS3’s L1 status. NS3’s accommodation, then again, appears to tell more about his unwillingness to draw similar distinctions compared to those made by S5 between L1 and L2 use and users. Rather, it seems that NS3 wants to be part of the group, and the bringing up of the language issue is not appreciated, since it separates out NS3.
In another example (5.19), we again have S5 taking up the L1 speaker status of NS3, this time in relation to the order in which the group members were to present in the group work presentation. The students had already decided that S1 and S4 start. In the example, they discuss whether S5 or NS3 should speak next.
(5.19)
S5: and the next you or me NS3: yeah
S5: you NS3: sure S5: uh-uh
NS3: @unless you wanna go@
S5: no no me because i (now) actually i can remember that you speak english a little bit better than me yeah and if i speak after you i am going to looks like stupid okay
SS: @@
S5: i think it’s better if i speak before NS3: @okay@
109
<P: 14>
S5: no but if you prefer
NS3: no it doesn’t matter @yeah@
S5: thank you very much
(SG, V07A3aGW) The example shows that S5 was worried that his English, again compared to that of NS3’s, would make him look ‘stupid’ in the actual presentation of the group work, which implies that on some level he was concerned that people would judge him on account of his ‘not very good’ (see example 5.16 above) English, rather than on what he would say.
Language was thus seen to affect overall credibility in the presentation situation, rather than, for instance, presentation skills that were not mentioned once in this group’s meetings.
In contrast to the orientation to one’s own English as problematic, Suviniitty’s (2012) informants reported that problems in ELF interaction reside in the interlocutor, rather than in their own English. Since Suviniitty’s (2012) findings are based on a questionnaire study, it may be that compared to expressing one’s opinion in a questionnaire, face-to-face contact makes it more difficult, or improper, to blame others for their lack of command in the language. In interaction, especially of the group work type, where it is important to reach a common goal, it may also be more productive and polite to be honest about how one feels about one’s own English, whereas blaming others for not understanding would threaten the others’ face.
In all, the students’ comments on language show that at least some students who spoke English as their L2 reported insecurities in using English. The comments imply a division between ‘my own’ L1 and English as an L2, and it becomes evident that some students considered it problematic that they had to use English. The insecurity was constructed in relation to the NSs of English in the group, as well as more generally towards an implied target or norm. The commenting functioned as a disclaimer: the students reported that they were not able to express themselves fully, since English is their L2. In terms of language regulation, this means that the NSs of a language are seen as the experts of that language.
110 Commenting on written texts
In the study event interactions, speaking and writing were treated differently in terms of language regulation. For one, it was more common for teachers and students to comment on and to correct the language of written texts (students’ presentation slides and reports) than one another’s speech. For another, the scope of acceptability was wider for speech than for writing: comments on written texts more often concerned correctness and in this sense, defined acceptability on a narrower scope, whereas linguistic corrections of speech were rare (section 5.1.1). Considering that the primary concern of speakers is to achieve outcomes, it would have been surprising had the speakers focused on linguistic forms any more than would have been necessary for the achievement of their outcome. Yet, this poses interesting questions in terms of writing versus speech and the correctness notions attached to each. In the following, I turn to those instances of the study event interactions where the metalingual commenting and the related language corrections deal with written language. I am thus concerned with the commenting of students’ written texts that took place during the interactions, not the marking of the texts.
In the group-work events, the students produced presentation slides. One member in both of the events was a NS of English, and both times the NS was allotted the role of proof reader on account of being a NS of English, as can be seen in examples 5.20–5.23 below. The first example is from the last session of the student group right before the students started to go through their presentation slides together.
(5.20)
S5: it’s (very) important the grammar and the vocabulary yeah SS: [mhm]
S2: [(well)] i think if if you <REFERS TO NS3> see something you can help us with the english [because it’s not (exactly) good]
S5: [i hope i hope yeah]
S2: to have some big mistake showing [@@]
S1: [[@yeah yeah@]]
S4: [@@]
(SG, V07A3bGW)
111
The example shows that all of the L2-English-speaking students agree on the importance of correcting the English in their slides, and the task of correcting is allotted
The example shows that all of the L2-English-speaking students agree on the importance of correcting the English in their slides, and the task of correcting is allotted