In this chapter, I have looked into the negotiation of acceptability and correctness of language. First, I explored explicit regulatory practices and the construction of boundaries between unacceptable and acceptable language, after which I turned my focus on more subtle regulatory practices and considered the scope of acceptability.
We saw that L2 speakers of English were the ones who made language relevant in the first place. They did most of the language corrections (even if NSs of English were present), and they were the ones who took up language as a topic in the form of
160
metalingual commenting. Four kinds of language experts could be found in the data: (1) teachers who had expertise in the relevant subject, (2) students who were assigned as experts on account of their L1 status, (3) speakers (whether students or teachers) who took on the expert role on their own (negotiated expertise), and (4) language professionals. The findings show that the teachers took on the role of language expert even if they were L2 speakers of English and even if they were not English instructors.
The English instructor (E1), then again, had linguistic authority both as a NS of English and as a language professional. NSs of English could act as language experts on account of their L1, but the findings show that the role was allocated to the NSs in the group by the L2-English-speaking students. Since language was also corrected by some of the students who did not belong to any of the preceding categories, we can conclude that the role of language regulator was negotiable in the interaction. That the L2 speakers of English acted as language experts, even if they mainly relied on their notions of ENL norms in doing the corrections, implies that NSs and L2 speakers of English are more balanced in ELF than in L1–L2 interaction, where correcting appears to be the responsibility of NSs only (e.g. Hosoda 2006; Kurhila 2003, 2006).
The analyses show that corrections were mainly done when intelligibility was at stake, but also to draw boundaries between unacceptable and acceptable English. The language in written texts was corrected more often than spoken language, and when spoken language was corrected, it mostly concerned lexis. Corrections mainly dealt with expressions that were seen to deviate from ENL or words that were seen to be from another language. However, most of the unconventional use of English was left uncorrected. Also, the presence of the English instructor in one of the groups was found to increase the group’s focus on language.
As to what kinds of boundaries were constructed, the findings illustrate a difference between spoken and written language. For spoken language, correctness was attached to (notions of) ENL norms, whereas the scope of acceptability was much wider. This means a division of prescriptive and performance rules. The reliance on the primacy of ENL was reflected in the students’ comments on language, where the L2 speakers of English sometimes compared their English to that of the NSs present (or to an implied norm), and in the process constructed their English as problematic. In contrast, for written English, correctness and acceptability went together. The participants mainly drew on (their notions of) ENL norms, but they also encouraged adopting an ‘international standard’, which means that correctness notions did not only follow those attached to ENL.
161
The more subtle language-regulatory practices could be seen to widen the scope of acceptability. On the one hand, the findings provide further evidence for the distinction between a narrower scope of correctness as opposed to a wider scope of acceptability. On the other hand, they imply that acceptability is not simply determined based on established ENL norms, but rather that the scope of acceptability is wider. If we look at the findings in more detail, we notice that, for one thing, embedded repairs showed fluctuation in the orientation of the repairs, which pulled English to different directions and increased variation. Second, intermediaries rephrased key elements, which in turn increased chances for mutual understanding. The rephrased elements were not treated as incorrect; rather they were alternative expressions. Third, lexical accommodation illustrated that unconventional items were accepted in the interaction, and even recycled across meetings.
This implies that acceptability does not correspond to the correctness norms constructed in the groups, which supports the conclusion of prescriptive versus performance rules.
The analysis on lexical accommodation also showed maintenance of idiolectal preferences, which similarly to embedded repairs increased variation, and can be seen to widen the scope of acceptability beyond ENL norms. The analyses thus show that ELF speakers tolerate variation, but that they also regulate English, and in the process draw boundaries of correctness on the one hand, and boundaries of acceptability on the other.
Mostly, correctness was constructed in relation to (notions of) ENL, but we also saw new norms of acceptability emerging.
In the following chapter 6, I focus on participant perspectives on ELF and language regulation by exploring the research interviews conducted with students and teachers attending the study events analysed in this chapter. In addition, the chapter analyses the English instructor interviews.
162
6 Interpretative repertoires of language and its regulation
Research interviews were conducted with the teachers and a number of students who attended the interactions analysed in the previous chapter 5. In this chapter, I focus on these interview accounts in order to shed light on the schematic aspects of language regulation, that is, the interviewees’ notions of language and what they see as acceptable and correct English. The accounts are analysed for the construction of such notions by considering the following aspects (cf. Gordesch and Dretzke 1998: 13; see also section 5.1.2):
(1) How do the interviewees describe the way they and other speakers use English?
(2) How do they describe the way they ought to use English?
(3) What interpretative repertoires of language and its regulation do the interviewees employ when talking about English?
I use these questions to analyse how the interviewees describe ELF and how they perceive themselves and others as ELF speakers, and what they construct as the appropriate target norm(s). In the analysis, I focus on the interviewees’ metalingual comments in order to discern interpretative repertoires used by the interviewees (section 6.1). An interpretative repertoire is constructed out of a restricted range of repeatedly occurring metalingual comments. Thus, when I talk about the construction of interpretative repertoires in the data, I mean that the interviewees repeatedly describe English and its use from specific perspectives, and that this points towards the existence and use of specific interpretative repertoires. Student and teacher interviews are analysed separately in sections 6.2 and 6.3 respectively. In addition to the student and teacher interviews, I explore English instructor interviews (section 6.4), with focus on the instructors’ descriptions of students’ English, and their reports of the kind of English they (aim to) teach. The accounts are used to widen the perspective of the language-regulatory situation at the university.
Before turning to the analysis, I briefly explain my approach to the interview data.
163