1887
Volume 29, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1461-0213
  • E-ISSN: 1570-5595

Abstract

The socio-cultural conditions of late modernity induce a “reflexive imperative” amongst young people, which also results in metapragmatic and metalinguistic behaviour, as has been demonstrated by linguistic ethnographers (LE). However, recent LE studies on reflexivity in Western European settings have mainly focused on how groups of socially low-status, geographically mobile and multilingual youth are involved in creative linguistic processes in which the disapproval of their linguistic hybridity is denounced. In this paper, based on a linguistic-ethnographic study, I will uncover the influence of the reflexive imperative on a different group: six high-achieving, white, elite, male, adolescent pupils in Flemish Belgium. Through a micro-analysis of their metacommentaries and speech practices, I describe the subtle metalinguistic and metapragmatic moves of the pupils, which demonstrate their attitude towards standard language use at school. An analysis of these boys’ linguistic reflexivity demonstrates a complex attitude towards Standard Dutch and Standard Language Ideology: at first sight, they seem to incline towards linguistic equality, resulting in a relaxation of the standard norm. However, an analysis of the more indirect metapragmatic practices of these boys reveals how they strategically use the symbolic capital of Standard Dutch, a practice which echoes the Flemish language-in-education policy and might serve to preserve (or prepare) their (future) elite position in society.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aila.29.05van
2017-01-30
2019-12-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aila.29.05van.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/aila.29.05van&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Archer, M. S.
    2012 The Reflexive Imperative in Late Modernity. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139108058
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108058
  2. Bauman, R.
    1987 The role of performance in the ethnography of speaking. Working Papers and Proceedings of the Center for Psychosocial Studies11: 3–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blommaert, J.
    2007 On scope and depth in linguistic ethnography. Journal of Sociolinguistics11 (5): 682–688. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2007.00346.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00346.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourdieu, P.
    1991Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2001Science de la science et réflexivité. Paris: Raisons d’Agir.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bucholtz, M.
    1999 “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society28 (2): 203–223. doi: 10.1017/S0047404599002043
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599002043 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2011White Kids. Language, Race, and Styles of Youth Identity. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coupland, N.
    2001 Dialect stylisation in radio talk. Language in Society30 (3): 345–375.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Coupland, N. & Kristiansen, T.
    2011 SLICE: Critical perspectives on language (de)standardisation. InStandard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, T. Kristiansen & N. Coupland (eds), 11–35. Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Amato, J.
    1993 Resistance and compliance in minority classrooms. InMinority Education: Anthropological Perspectives, E. Jacob & C. Jordan (eds), 181–207. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. D’hoker, M. & Henkens, B.
    2005 Van segmentering naar convergentie. Structuur en karakter van het secundair onderwijs in België in de 20ste eeuw. InParadoxen van pedagogisering. Handboek pedagogische historiografie, M. Depaepe , F. Simon & A. Van Gorp (eds), 159–176. Leuven: Acco.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Delarue, S.
    2013 Teachers’ Dutch in Flanders: The last guardians of the standard?InLanguage (De)standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies, T. Kristiansen & S. Grondelaers (eds), 193–226. Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Delarue, S. & De Caluwe, J.
    2015 Eliminating social inequality by reinforcing standard language ideology? Language policy for Dutch in Flemish schools. Current Issues in Language Planning16 (1–2): 8–25. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2014.947012
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2014.947012 [Google Scholar]
  14. Delarue, S. & Van Lancker, I.
    2016 De kloof overbruggen tussen een strikt onderwijstaalbeleid en een taaldiverse klaspraktijk: Strategieën van Vlaamse leraren en leerlingen. TNTL132 (2): 85–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W.
    2003Germanic Standardizations. Past to Present [Impact: Studies in Language and Society 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.18 [Google Scholar]
  16. Giddens, A.
    1991Modernity and self-identiy. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goffman, E.
    1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grondelaers, S. & van Hout, R.
    2011 The standard language situation in the Low Countries: Top-down and bottom-up variations on a diaglossic theme. Journal of Germanic Linguistics23 (3): 199–243. doi: 10.1017/S1470542711000110
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542711000110 [Google Scholar]
  19. Heller, M.
    2008 Doing ethnography. InBlackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism, L. Wei & M. Moyer (eds), 249–262. Malden MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hymes, D.
    1964 Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist66 (6): 1–34. doi: 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jaspers, J.
    2005Tegenwerken, belachelijk doen. Talige sabotage van Marokkaanse jongens op een Antwerpse middelbare school. Brussel: VUBPress.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2006 Stylizing Standard Dutch by Moroccan boys in Antwerp. Linguistics and Education17 (2): 131–156. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2006.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2011 Strange bedfellows: Appropriations of a tainted urban dialect. Journal of Sociolinguistics15 (4): 493–524. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2011.00502.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00502.x [Google Scholar]
  24. 2014 Stylisations as teacher practice. Language in Society43 (4): 371–393. doi: 10.1017/S0047404514000360
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000360 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jørgensen, J. N.
    2008 Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism5 (3): 161–176. doi: 10.1080/14790710802387562
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710802387562 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lybaert, C.
    2014 Het gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen: Percepties en attitudes van een spraakmakende generatie. Gent: Universiteit Gent.
  27. Madsen, L. M.
    2014 Heteroglossia, voicing and social categorisation. InHeteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy, A. Blackledge & A. Creese (eds), 41–58. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑7856‑6_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7856-6_3 [Google Scholar]
  28. Martín Rojo, L.
    2010 Constructing Inequality in Multilingual Classrooms. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110226645
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226645
  29. Mehan, H.
    1985 The structure of classroom discourse. InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, 3: Discourse and Dialogue, T. A. van Dijk (ed.), 119–131. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Milroy, J.
    2001 Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics5 (4): 530–555. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00163
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00163 [Google Scholar]
  31. Milroy, J. & Milroy, L.
    1985Authority in Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. doi: 10.4324/9780203267424
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203267424 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nicolini, D.
    2009 Zooming in and zooming out: A package of method and theory to study work practices. InOrganizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexity of Everyday Life, S. Ybema , D. Yanow , H. Wels & F. H. Kamsteeg (eds), 120–138. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446278925.n7
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446278925.n7 [Google Scholar]
  33. Norde, M. , De Clerck, B. & Colleman, T.
    2014 The emergence of non-canonical degree modifiers in non-standard varieties of Dutch: A constructionalization perspective. In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, R. Boogaart , T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds), 207–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pérez-Milans, M.
    2015 Language education policy in late modernity: (Socio)linguistic ethnographies in the European Union. Language Policy14 (2): 99–107. doi: 10.1007/s10993‑014‑9354‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-014-9354-7 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2016 Reflexivity and social change in applied linguistics. AILA Review29 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rampton, B.
    1995Crossing. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2001 Critique in interaction. Critique of Anthropology21 (1): 83–107. doi: 10.1177/0308275X0102100105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X0102100105 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2003 Hegemony, social class and stylisation. Pragmatics13 (1): 49–83. doi: 10.1075/prag.13.1.03ram
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.13.1.03ram [Google Scholar]
  39. 2005Crossing. Language & Ethnicity among Adolescents. New York NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2006Language in Late Modernity. Interaction in an Urban School. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486722
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486722 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2010 Linguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics and the study of identities. InApllied Linguistics Methods: A Reader, T. L. Coffin & K. O’Halloran (eds), 234–250. London: Routledge/Open University.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Rampton, B. , Tusting, K. , Maybin, J. , Barwell, R. , Creese, A. & Lytra, V.
    2004 UK Linguistic ethnography: A discussion paper. www.ling-ethnog.org.uk
  43. Silverstein, M.
    1993 Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. InReflexive Language. Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, J. A. Lucy (ed.), 33–58. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004 [Google Scholar]
  44. Smet, P.
    2011 Samen taalgrezen verleggen. Conceptnota. www.ond.vlaanderen.be/nieuws/2011/doc/talennota_2011.pdf
  45. Van De Mieroop, D. , Zenner, E. & Marzo, S.
    2016 Standard and Colloquial Belgian Dutch pronouns of adress: A variationist-interactional study of child-directed speech in dinner table interactions. Folia Linguistica50 (1): 31–64. doi: 10.1515/flin‑2016‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0002 [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Lancker, I.
    2016 Standardizing and destandardizing practices at a Flemish secondary school. A sociolinguistic ethnographic perspective on Flemish pupils’ speech practices. Taal en Tongval64.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Vandekerckhove, R.
    2005 Patterns of variation and convergence in the West-Flemish dialects. InModerne Dialekte – Neue Dialektologie, E. Eggers , J. E. Schmidt & D. Stellmacher (eds), 535–552. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Vandenbroucke, F.
    2007 De lat hoog voor talen in iedere school. Goed voor de sterken, sterk voor de zwakken. www.coc.be/files/publications/.88/talenbeleidsnota_.pdf
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aila.29.05van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.29.05van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error