The audible difference : negotiating language ideologies in community-based ESOL classes in Edinburgh

(1)

July 2017

The Audible Difference

Negotiating language ideologies

in community-based ESOL

classes in Edinburgh

Rhona Murray

ID: 11160217

EMAIL: rhona.l.murray@gmail.com

MSC SOCIOLOGY: MIGRATION AND ETHNIC STUDIES DR VINCENT DE ROOIJ / DR RAHEEL DHATTIWALA UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

(2)

1

Acknowledgement

Given this is my first foray into social research, I would like to thank several people without whom this thesis would not have been possible.

Without the agreement of Edinburgh College staff, teachers and learners, it goes without saying that there would have been no ‘field’ in which I could work. Specifically, I wish to thank the CbESOL teacher Nina1_{, who couldn’t have been more welcoming to a stranger} participating in and observing her class each day. And to the learners within the class, who from day one, warmly accepted me into their class.

Thanks also must go to all the teachers and learners who gave up their time to participate in interviews. You shared many more rich stories than I could include in this work and I thank you for openly sharing your CbESOL experiences with me.

To my supervisor Dr Vincent de Rooij, thank you for your reassurance before I stepped into the field, for your encouragement and time during the writing process and for your

continuously helpful and challenging comments. And to Dr Raheel Dhattiwala, my thanks for being so positive towards my proposal and willing to be my second supervisor.

I would also like to thank my dear friend Paja whose company, positivity and caring kept me going through it all.

Finally, a special thanks to my parents who have been there for me and believed in me every step of the way during my studies in Amsterdam.

(3)

2

Abstract

In Scotland English language classes for speakers of other languages (ESOL) are promoted by political discourse to demonstrate to the electorate that the state is actively involved in controlling and shaping the effects of migration (Han, Starkey and Green 2010). Scottish ESOL services are characterised as a public service that meets an instrumental,

communication need for migrants, those already living in settled communities and those who have recently arrived.

Yet this ignores the crucial point that language learning is a complex social practice. Those in Scottish society who hold the most power, have the most ‘say’ in political and educational development, create a discourse about ESOL which is filled with their ideologies (collections of their beliefs and ideas) about the role of language in Scottish society. What should be taught, how it should be taught and how it should be used.

Between mid-April to mid-May 2017, in community-based ESOL classes in Edinburgh I observed nine class sessions and undertook eight interviews in a period of research to find out how teachers and learners negotiate these ideologies within their class. I conducted an ethnographic critical discourse analysis to examine how teachers and learners positioned themselves in relation to dominant discourse on language standardisation, language and nationalism, language progression and equality in language learning. Considering their roles and responsibilities I subsequently looked at how these negotiations affected their situated identifications.

My findings showed that teachers were actively using their autonomy as community-based teachers to mediate the impact of the above ideologies to be able to support their learners in the way that they wished, even although this involved frequently changing stances in class which affected their relational identifications. Given these findings, I suggest several policies which may encourage social change towards the role of language learning and ESOL services in society.

(4)

3

Acronyms

CbESOL Community-based English for Speakers of Other Languages

CLD Community Learning and Development

ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages

SG Scottish Government

SQA Scottish Qualifications Authority

SRC Scottish Refugee Council

(5)

4

Introduction

The Story of a Spanish Learner

Nina shared a story about a Spanish lady who was previously a learner in one of her classes. She was an active participant in class, vocal in activities and helpful to other learners. Soon the Spanish lady’s English proficiency was too good for her current class and she progressed into a higher level class. At this point something changed. Once there, while her reading and writing skills were improving even more, the Spanish learner’s participation fell. She spoke less and less. Then in one class Nina checked a piece of her English writing. She believed it was a very good standard and wanted to share it with the class as a good example. But when asked to read it aloud, the learner refused. However, when asked if Nina could read it aloud, she agreed. In her writing, the Spanish learner wrote about being a singer. One of the other learners asked her if she would sing for them. Given her reluctance earlier, Nina assumed she would refuse, but offered her the space if she wished to do so. Surprisingly, she gave a beautiful performance of a Spanish song.

(Field notes, 25 April 2017) It is possible for every reader to read the narrative above and interpret the story in a different way. What stands out to you? Perhaps, it’s the positivity of the learner’s progression in acquiring English, the teacher’s praise for displays of good English, or the learner’s confident performance of Spanish in contrast to her earlier silence. Perhaps it’s the openness of the teacher towards a musical interruption or the positive reception of another language rather than English in class. Each of these comments might hint at your own beliefs about what is important in the process of learning English as another language.

Each of us holds beliefs about the role of language in society. How language should be taught, learned and used, and by whom, may appear to be solely a matter for education professionals, yet at every level from the community classroom to government chambers ideas about English language learning differ and are often complex and conflicting. Nowhere are these ideas more prominent than when they are voiced about providing ‘English for speakers of other languages’ (EOSL) classes for migrants living in Scotland. It is when these ideas and beliefs are combined into a broader system, an ‘ideology’, and where attempts are made to promote, reproduce and disperse a specific ideology through discourse across all levels of society that it becomes crucial to critically explore just what language ideology is being advanced, by whom and for what purpose. And more specifically, how exactly is this affecting learning in language classes within Scottish communities.

The question of particular interest in this research is, how are such dominant belief systems about language, ‘language ideologies’, negotiated in Scottish community-based ESOL

(8)

7 (CbESOL) classes by teachers and adult learners? What ideologies can be observed in CbESOL classes around the use of first languages, the promotion of standard English, the drive for progress and the expectation to address social and equality issues? How do teacher’s and learner’s stances within class and their positions in relation to each other affect the impact of these ideologies on their identifications? Understanding what the impact of such discourse is in practice, through teachers’ experiences, is key to showing the active tension that characterises teachers’ roles and creating a small space to offer some policy suggestions towards social change.

This research was guided by the following four considerations: whether language ideologies can be observed in CbESOL classes; whether teachers perceive any conflict between personal or wider institutional language ideologies and how they negotiate this; whether learners actively react to language ideologies and whether the ways that teachers and learners respond to the issues suggested above affect their identifications and relationships in the classroom.

With this research I attempt to add to and diversify the literature base on ESOL education in a Scottish context as this remains limited despite a richer Anglo-centric research base south of the border. While the Anglo context is more developed, little is appropriate to the Scottish context given political devolution entails separate domestic policies on communities,

education and migration support. A Mapping and Scoping Study of ESOL Provision (Rice, et al. 2005) was commissioned by the Scottish Government as part of the development of the Adult ESOL Strategy for Scotland (2007), however no further update was undertaken to support the strategy refresh in 2015 and it is clear that the socio-economic and political environment of the country has changed significantly since then. A notable exception to the lack of recent literature is Phipps and Fassetta’s (2015) critical approach to Scotland’s language policies, practices and planning which offers valuable context on current language developments.

The aim of diversifying the literature is two-fold: first many researchers focus on the benefits of ESOL outside the class either in terms of integration or employment (Weishaar 2008; Shubin and Dickey 2013; Mulvey 2013; Johnson and Berry 2014), while not of any less value such approaches overlook the process of language learning in favour of the end product. Second, much has been written about second language acquisition in formal education environments, without due recognition to community learning.

International ethnographies on language learning are more informative for our research, despite the continued formal education focus. In particular how learners negotiate language ideologies in secondary schools in Singapore (De Costa 2010), Flanders and the

(9)

8 Netherlands (Spotti 2008; 2014), California (Razfar 2011) and Australia (Hirst 2007) provides a useful insight into ways of identifying language ideologies, their relation to language

policies and their impact on student identification. From a community learning perspective, studies of adult migrant learners in Japan (Siegal 1996) and Sweden (Rydell 2015) are extremely relevant and insightful for their discussion of identification in the language learning process.

One area recently identified as underdeveloped in its potential to add to the field of language ideologies, learning and identification is the role of the language teacher (Norton 2013). I suggest that my research attempts to make a contribution in this area as, linked to Pennycook’s (2004) idea of teacher agency, it prioritises analysing the performance of CbESOL teachers as they negotiate competing language ideologies from multiple sources to intervene at critical moments in learners’ experiences for positive change.

To share the findings, although I do not promise any concrete answers, I will take the reader on a journey to meet the teachers and learners in the class I worked with and engage with their reflections. Each chapter opens with a specific teacher-learner exchange during a speaking assessment which captures the ideologies at play and is further developed by the rich data from my interviews and observations. The group of learners are part of a low level English class, which is the first stage prior to any ability or thematic streamlining of English classes in higher levels. They differ in their English proficiency, their motivation and

expectations for learning English which affects the actions and reactions of the teachers involved in their learning process.

Chapter one begins by tackling the role of first language (L1) use and linguistic capital in learning English (Bourdieu 1991). We see how teachers grapple with using L1 as a useful support while preventing it from hindering language development. Linked to this I discuss the observed pressure on learners from ideologies of English language standardisation

(Silverstein 1996). Learners’ responses, such as self-imposed silence or deliberate

maintenance of a pronunciation, reveal opposing reactions to this influence. A protectionist stance is also shown to be taken by a teacher experiencing the disciplining effect of

standardisation and the erasure of his skills (Irvine and Gal 2000). In the face of this, some teachers actively oppose the idea of perfect English and engage learners in discussions of ideologies around accents and pronunciation (Gumperz 1982) to combat this barrier to learning.

Following this, the use of L1 leads us to consider in chapter two how nationalism ideologies, relating to both language and culture, are negotiated in classroom interactions. It is clear that a strong sense of Scottish nationalism, reflective of wider political discourse and the framing

(10)

9 of the current ESOL Strategy (Scottish Government and Education Scotland 2015), is not apparent in CbESOL classes due mostly to specific teacher intervention. Yet observations of banal nationalism (Billig 1995) are still present, both through Scots language displays and more surprisingly learner displays of national identification. While mediating the influence of overt Scottish nationalism in ESOL, this independent approach gives primacy to teacher ideologies of nationalism and has implications for learner identifications inside the classroom.

Some language ideologies are easier to mitigate and exclude from CbESOL classes than others, and chapter three explores the tension caused by the prominence of ideologies of progress within language learning (Bernstein 1999). Recognising the idea of continuous academic progression is not always appropriate for or desired by learners, teachers are faced with balancing institutional requirements and societal expectations of publicly funded language services with learner preferences and their own views of appropriate learning experiences. In this case, teacher-learner identifications are affected by a need for support and protective efforts, especially for those who have assumed and internalised linear language progress ideologies that they are then struggling to meet.

Finally, chapter four follows on from this idea of individual learner progress to a broader consideration of progress, outlined in the ESOL Strategy as the promotion of equality and diversity through language learning. Here we ask how teachers are able to support their learners to ensure CbESOL services are the social equaliser that they are promoted to be, especially with regard to learners with additional support needs and low literacy levels. And in relation to this, what the implications are for teacher and learner identifications of the implementation of wider social and equalities driven ideologies in language classes.

To finish up, it is hard to deny that the way language is produced and used serves to support or contest the existing social order and that education structures, such as CbESOL, are a key way of maintaining and recreating ideologies favoured by those in positions of power and influence in society (Allan 2015). Yet it appears that such ideologies do not always filter down to the grassroots, community level, in part due to the higher level of autonomy and agency of the teachers involved. Where ideologies are apparent at the community level, they are at times conflicting with both teacher and learner views of appropriate language learning which results in changing identification within the classroom as individuals attempt to

(11)

10

How to Read my Findings

I have chosen to focus on one particular lesson with the Shell class, in which the CbESOL teacher Nina assessed the learners speaking skills to meet the criteria under “ESOL for Everyday Life”. To pass the assessment, learners were required to show that they:

‘understand basic language spoken in English’ and can ‘communicate orally in English using

basic language’ [original emphasis] (Scottish Qualifications Authority 2015). To do this, Nina

had chosen one of the suggested unit themes for the student pairs to discuss, ‘Planning a Celebration’, which she then made more relevant by asking the learners to talk about planning the end of year class party, held each year in June. Each of the five paired

speaking tests lasted approx. 20 minutes and included 15 minutes of ‘backstage’ preparation and around 5 minutes of recorded conversation.

The excerpts which open the following chapters stem from this one lesson. The subsequent excerpts cover both the official recorded conversations and the conversational interactions in between. These paired speaking tests (a learner-learner conversation), within the presence of a teacher, are rich interactions which reflect the mediation CbESOL teachers must undertake between their own and institutional language ideologies, and that of the learners. It becomes apparent that through this mediation, which is performed in a variety of different ways, the identifications of both teachers and learners are affected.

(12)

11

Theoretical Framework

By understanding the following theoretical concepts, it is possible to use these to explore how CbESOL teachers confront and mediate language ideologies that are present in the classroom through wider societal discourse, learner participation, and their own individual experiences. In doing this, it should be possible to observe how both teachers’ and learners’ identifications are continually changing in these situations. Outlining the concept of

ideologies, then more specifically language ideologies (Woolard 1998), will not aim to come to an agreed singular definition but will clarify what is meant by these terms in the context of this research. I will then discuss performance, specifically ideas about stance (Jaffe 2009) and positioning (Davies and Harre 1990) which are most relevant when exploring language and teaching and everyday interactions (Bucholtz and Hall 2004). To end, I will consider identification as relational and context specific position, using ideas about negotiating a sense of self through language learning in interactions to show how identifications can be continually changing and contribute to opportunities for social change (Norton 2013).

Ideologies – What exactly are they?

While there are multiple descriptions of ideologies, a simple starting point would be to say that ideologies are an individual’s collection of ideas and beliefs which may or may not be held by a wider social group. This leads us to ask whether these ideas and beliefs are made subjectively explicit by an individual or group or whether they are constructively implicit. As JB Thompson argued ideologies are ‘that part of consciousness which can be said’ (1984, 85) by which he meant that ideologies are solely ‘ideas’ that have been explicitly spoken and shared, but in a neutral rather than critical way. Yet this opinion is now not widely supported in the field since the growth of poststructuralism in the late 20th_{century. A poststructuralist} view suggests that ideologies are not always conscious and deliberate, but are derived from an individual’s lived experience in which their actions connect them to like-minded others (Woolard 1998, 6). As such, ideologies become so interwoven in an individual’s life, that the individual believes them to be merely ‘common sense’. If people are to understand and communicate with each other, they must share implicit understandings of certain situations. Every situation that is not explicit in its nature, demands that an individual draws on their ideologies to make sense of the context. As these implicit understandings are shared more widely, such beliefs become embedded and difficult to challenge.

This leads onto a second crucial feature of ideologies which is the link to power. Ideologies are viewed as ideas and beliefs that are used in efforts to gain or maintain power (Woolard 1998, 7). Whereas some may argue that anyone can use ideologies in their move to achieve power, it is usually the dominant social group who are able to utilise their ideologies to

(13)

12 achieve their aims which naturally include constructing other groups as non-ideological or ideological extremists. It is this construction, which whether by human error or intent, serves to distort these relationships and maintain the status quo. It is worth noting that ideologies held by individuals or groups are not always connected. An accumulation of ideas and beliefs should not be assumed to be formed and connected like a spider’s web. On the contrary, sets of beliefs may be entirely unconnected, or even conflicting at times (ibid, 1998, 7).

The degree to which ideologies are explicit and implicit, socially originating and instrumental to the reproduction of power relations in society are all points of continued debate in this field. Yet, the divisions mostly centre on the extent to which ideologies should be considered neutral or negative. I am inclined to follow Bloch and contend that ideologies, both explicit and implicit, should be discussed in a critical sense, as actions and structures which are purposefully used by certain groups to obscure social reality and legitimate a particular society model. Thus, I would also suggest that Kroskrity’s appeal not to lose sight of those naturalised, dominant ideologies which never surface in direct discussion is of great importance, especially when considering ideologies of language (Woolard 1998, 9).

Language Ideologies

Language ideologies, to adapt the idea above, are ideas and beliefs held by individuals or groups specifically about role and use of language in society. Initially, language ideologies theory followed mainstream ideologies theory in emphasising the explicit nature of

ideologies. Silverstein, one of the first proponents of language ideologies, framed this concept as ‘any sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalisation or justiﬁcation of perceived language structure or use’ (Silverstein, Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology 1979, 193). This meant that for language ideologies to be considered part of individual or group beliefs, these beliefs about language must be meta-linguistic, put simply, explicitly spoken about. But he also noted that language ideologies were key to understanding how linguistic structures developed, because language as a social action could be used to promote meaning. By focusing on identifying ideologies in linguistics he began to bridge the divide between linguistic and social theory.

Over time this core concept was developed further and following Heath and Irvine, a critical, social approach to language ideologies is described as ‘self-evident ideas and objectives a group holds concerning roles of language in the social experiences of members as they contribute to the expression of the group’ (Heath cited by Woolard 1998, 4) and ‘cultural system[s] of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests’ (Irvine cited by Woolard 1998, 4). The presence of power is

(14)

13 again implied in these descriptions as discussed in ideologies in general. Any relationship between two social groups who hold different language beliefs to be ‘self-evident’ will likely produce an asymmetric relationship, with one language perspective inevitability being positioned as more superior and more desired by the group which holds the most power (Shannon 1999, 172). The wider the power imbalance the more likely dominant language ideologies become naturalised, an unconscious standard that continues uncontested (Razfar and Rumenapp, Language Ideologies in English Learner Classrooms: Critical Reflections and the Role of Explicit Awareness 2012).

These approaches also imply that language ideologies are as relevant to the macro level of society as to interactions on the micro level, and further that they are interconnected in their effects. For example, language ideologies at the macro level can be found in political, cultural and educational institutions where ideas about language standardisation, national languages, language protection and revitalisation, can be found in government policies, cultural activities, school curriculums and media output (De Costa 2010). Yet, language ideologies are also reproduced or even sometimes created by speakers in their day to day interactions, in classrooms or community activities, which is an area that is under

represented in language research to date (De Costa 2010). In so far as language use is a purposeful act, we can consider ideas around performance to observe how these ideologies are displayed.

Performance: Daily and Staged Displays of Language Ideologies

The use of performance theory to support language orientated research is a recent, but valued, development2_{. Linguistic anthropology takes a broad interpretation of performance} and recognises that it is not only being ‘on stage’ that constitutes a performance, such as an organised event such as a drama or ritual, but also the brief, daily interactions between individuals (Bucholtz and Hall 2004). This is summed up by Coupland who argued for an analysis of performance as communication in any situation where an individual is engaged in communication with another, or a wider group, and assumes this responsibility to

communicate to others, while also accepting that they will be subject to evaluation after their act (Bauman, Commentary: Foundations in Performance 2011, 716).

2_{Performance is a general word which is used across multiple disciplines such as linguistic}

anthropology, education, economics, law and art to describe very different concepts. Here I note that the concept of performance is not used in the educational sense which considers it a way to measure learner progress, especially with regard to language acquisition. As will be seen above, I follow a broad linguistic anthropological interpretation of performance as speech produced in interactions, whether in intentional displays or subconscious daily interactions.

(15)

14 In this broad interpretation, I also consider non-verbal performance such as gesture, facial expressions and body movement as important signs of meaning-making and response construction (Keating and Egbert 2004). This is particularly the case in teaching contexts where activities are often easier to explain or describe by ‘showing’ or ‘demonstrating’ than by speaking. Such non-verbal acts are not immune from the effect of ideologies, especially those related to persuasion, expression and appropriate communication. Like language they are ‘influenced by cultural values and historical tradition’ and ‘usage is adjusted according to the setting, social circumstance, and micro-organization of any given occasion of interaction’ (Kendon, Gesture 1997, 117).

A final aspect of my view on performance in this research, is exploring what remains

unperformed and invisible in interactions and therefore often ignored in analysis. Whether by intention or non-awareness, what is not said, by whom and why, are also actions which have meaning (Kulick 2005). This repression evidences power relations at play which use

language as a resource to repress unwanted expressions and which depend on interaction to achieve this. In this sense, by performing ‘appropriate’ language in a specific context, there is an automatic identification of what is ‘not appropriate’ (ibid 2005, 622).

Identification

An understanding of performance allows us to move from a dominant but problematic understanding of identities as fixed attributes of individuals, to a more nuanced approach which favours identification. Menard-Warwick (2005) hypothesises that learning a language in a particular social context has consequences for the identifications of the language learners. This post-structural approach to language and identification maintains that

language use is one way in which individuals continually negotiate and construct a sense of self in interactions with others (Norton 2013). Each time a language learner engages with their target language, they are engaging in an understanding of who they are and how they fit into the social environment around them at that point in time.

Identification is a relational process through which an individual is transformed by their interaction with another in that specific situation (Kulick 2005). One way of identifying this temporary change is by considering how an individual’s stance changes during an

exchange. In each interaction, individuals are engaged in a process of positioning

themselves in relation to what is being communicated, to the other people present, to the people assumed to be present and to the specific context. Stances can be associated with social roles, ideas of self and social relationships but these are still subject to the specific context and because of this, stance is a useful tool to observe instances of social

(16)

15

Methodology

Situating the Research: A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach

To explore how teachers negotiate language ideologies and the impact of this on teacher and learner identifications, I chose to undertake an ethnographic Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as it is distinctive in its methodological view of the relationships between language and society (Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000). A CDA approach links well to a study of language ideologies as its purpose is to uncover and analyse the role of discourse in the (re)production of social inequality (2000, 448). It is the aim of such critical social research to be prescriptive and suggest proposals for change. To do this I have combined Fairclough’s 3D model of analysis which considers discourse as: text; discursive practice; and social practice, with an ethnographic focus to contextualise the data (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002).

Discourse as Text; Discursive Practice and Social Practice

Discourse as a concept in itself is difficult to accurately define, but for the purpose of this project I view discourse as samples of written or spoken language which can be understood by the way it is produced in interactions between a speaker and addressee and the way it is influenced by the specific context in which the language is used (Fairclough 1992). This interpretation ensures that social theory and language analysis are both considered of equal importance and vital to producing a comprehensive analysis.

Text is one aspect of a discourse analysis. It is the closest in form to linguistic analysis in that it means looking at the linguistic features of the samples of language (either written, spoken or visual) and considering the patterns of vocabulary, grammar and structure (Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000, 448). To analyse the discourse around ESOL as text, I collected the Scottish Government’s ESOL strategy document, progress reports on ESOL learning from Edinburgh City Council and the CbESOL prospectus used by Edinburgh College to advertise the course. While in the field, I gathered all the educational materials which were used during the class sessions I observed and supported this with transcriptions of my classroom recordings and participant interviews. While identifying key themes which may point towards ideological approaches, I checked this by considering the discursive practice.

Discursive practice, as the second aspect of discourse analysis, is about interaction with the text. Simply, how is the text produced (by whom and for what purpose), how is it promoted, how is it distributed and how is it interpreted (by the intended audience, the authors, the unintended hearers) (Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000, 448). I was guided by a focus on the discursive practice which was likely to have influenced some of the text I gathered,

(17)

16 specifically current Scottish Government political approaches to migration, national language policy and adult education. This was evidenced through research commissioned by the Scottish Government on issues of migration (The Impacts of Migrants and Migration into Scotland 2016) and national language policies.

Focusing on discursive practice was an important step as periods of social change and transformation increased the likelihood of intertextuality and interdiscursivity among the materials I gathered (Menard-Warwick 2005, 257). By this I mean that a text will naturally draw on and be influenced by earlier texts and events. This is usually explicitly visible, for instance references to specific policies or well-known slogans. Due to this, within one text there can also be multiple voices and genres, and the ways they are combined or silenced can indicate social change or the maintenance of the dominant social order (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002, 73-74). In a period of rapid change, sometimes this reactive interdiscursivity can reveal contradictory voices within a single text (Menard-Warwick 2005, 257).

Finally, the third aspect in discourse analysis is considering it as a social practice. This means looking at the macro-level of institutions and organisational structures to see how discourse is used as part of a process which promotes certain ideologies to maintain or change the social order. I understand discourse as not just reflective of social relations but also constructive in their development. The development of processes such as

democratisation, neoliberalism and the tech-revolution can all be seen in constructions of text and the reaction of individuals towards this. The way discourse is used to rewrite and represent new ideas and beliefs by those in authority belies a struggle to control the

narrative of our society and resist other powerful actors who aim to do the same (Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000, 449).

Thus, when I refer to discourse I seen this as a combination of these three aspects in which actors are continually negotiating how to achieve their goals and maintain a sense of self. Due to this I deliberately conducted an ethnographic study to see how teachers and learners positioned themselves, and others, on the basis of their own ideologies and other competing claims during their classroom interactions. Such an approach in an educational setting using discourse analysis is an area so far under-represented in current research (De Costa 2010). Having this strong ethnographic focus helped to counter the main critique of CDA which argues it ‘… would benefit from a more attentive stance toward the historical positioning of the events in which the discourse data are set’ (Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000, 461). It also helped to negate the view that CDA continues to have an overly ‘linguistic’ outlook by situating the linguistic practice in a social context (2000, 461).

(18)

17 The ‘rather deterministic view of human agency’ in CDA is a final hurdle to address (2000, 455). To overcome the deterministic assumption in CDA that texts with ideological meaning are imposed upon the individual, I used van Dijk’s (1993, 257) theory of social cognition, in particular the role of models, to reveal how teachers and learners responded to ideological influences through the discourse. The way a person accepts or rejects ideologies, their

social cognition, cannot be assumed to follow the dominant discourse. This is because each

individual is a specific model, whose approach to an issue is shaped, not only by existing and socially shared knowledge, but also by their own memories, their experiences of events and the opinions they have formed of them. Understanding the model, allows us to

understand how, and to what degree, individual actions and interpretations can be linked to the dominant social order (1993, 258). Through the audio recordings of class interactions, I aimed to bring out the personal agency of teachers and learners in negotiating the language ideologies they faced in daily lessons.

Research Question: An Explanation and Interpretation

At first I thought I would explain to what extent teachers’ and learners’ language ideologies influenced their identifications in parallel through their classroom interactions. While the research questions remains:

How do teachers’ and learners’ language ideologies, and their performance styles, influence each other’s identifications?

my interpretation of it has altered. As the research process evolved it became clear that the role of CbESOL teachers was vital in mediating the impact of language ideologies, to a greater extent than learner actions. This was not the parallel exchange of language ideologies that subsequently altered identifications that I had anticipated, perhaps naively, but rather was a complex pattern of exchanges. Teachers were actively engaging and positioning themselves, sometimes greatly altering their identifications to reform the impacts of language ideologies and support their learners when needed. In this way, the teachers and learners were key to informing the process of this research, their discourses both shaping the data and its outcome.

With this in mind, I operationalised the three main concepts of the research question (language ideologies; performance styles and identifications) in the following ways.

Language Ideologies

There are two main approaches to identifying language ideologies in research data. The first approach is explicit and depends on evidence of metalinguistic discourse, simply language about language (Razfar and Rumenapp 2012, 348). But this assumes individuals are

(19)

18 consciously aware of their own ideologies and can accurately convey them out of context, for example by responding to a survey or in an interview. Such an approach can be considered as eliciting evidence which is likely to emerge from a close ethnographic relationship

anyway, which characterises the second approach (Razfar 2012, 77). This relies on observing interactions in specific situations. Advocates of this approach argue multiple language ideologies can impact interactions and are often contested by individuals which gives more opportunity to observe them in use (Razfar and Rumenapp 2012, 361). Critics of this view argue this presumes language ideologies in discourse without explicitly identifying them. However, in using a critical discourse analysis, I can counter this critique because of the substantial way I consider discourse as a concept outlined above. If it is agreed that there is a relationship between language and power, we can argue that not all beliefs have to be articulated to be known (ibid 2012, 348). They can also be shown not only through text, but in discursive and social practice, along with considerations of intertextuality.

While I do not discount explicit metalinguistic discourse as this is clearly apparent in both my interview data and the class interactions, I chose to try and avoid explicitly asking such questions for the reasons outlined above. Such explicit evidence I can describe as references to regional accents and pronunciation, first language use, language rules and thematic reasons for language use such as progress or self-confidence. In my interviews, I initiated the discussion by asking for a brief personal narrative of their experiences leading up to becoming an ESOL teacher which offered initial pointers to values and experiences which may be reflected later in the conversation or in the classroom. I used questions that explored personal views on ‘the role of ESOL’, ‘influences on learning’, and experiences of ‘influences on ideas and opinions’ in the classroom. Because this research specifically concerns language ideologies in a language teaching context, it is understandable that explicit references are fairly common without any prompting which I use as a check and balance to confirm the validity of some more implicit and subtle references in later classroom observations.

Performance Styles

I focus on performance styles to be able to observe language ideologies as more than deliberate or implicit textual references. Performance in the context of this research covers formal speech performances like recording speaking tests as well as non-verbal

performance such as gestures (Haviland 2004), body language, facial expressions and mime (Keating and Egbert 2004) in classroom activities and informal interactions. This includes both deliberate actions and subconscious practices which in a specific context may clarify ideological positions. For teachers this can be a deliberate, staged performance of

(20)

19 delivering a full lesson or activity as well as how they position themselves in smaller

interactions and informal moments. As for learners, this is about their style of participation in class and interaction in smaller groups and non-learning moments.

Identification

To ascertain whether individuals are engaging in changes of identification in specific class interactions I based this on my observations of their stance (Jaffe 2009) and social

positioning (Davies and Harre 1990) at the relevant point in time. Looking at positioning is like seeing individuals as characters in a story. They all have presumed duties and

responsibilities which give meaning to their actions and their actions are continually

changing as they interact with each other (Anderson 2009). In a CbESOL class story, there are assumed notions of what it means to identify as a learner and as a teacher. However, the meanings of these positions are constantly changing either by or in spite of individual agency. This involves considering to what extent their default identification as teacher or learner is altered or enhanced by their language use or behaviour and how this relates to the bank of observations made prior to this moment. While this positioning may seem localised, it is also mediated by an individual’s links to the current social context and as such is likely to be linked to ideological discourse (Anderson 2009).

Setting the Scene

CbESOL Classes in Edinburgh

Local councils in Scotland are legally required to support adult learning in their communities through Community Learning and Development (CLD) partnerships, which include language provision. As a reference, in 2015/16 the City of Edinburgh Council supported over 800 learners specifically within CbESOL classes, run by a variety of organisations (Education, Children and Families Committee 2016, 8). The classes offered included certified courses by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) from levels 2-5; family and female only classes; ESOL for employability; ESOL for low literacy; and preparation classes for the UK citizenship test (ibid 2016, 8).

CbESOL classes are characteristically different in many respects from their College equivalent classes. As it was described by one teacher, the raison d’etre of CbESOL is to ‘take English language classes to the people’ (Interview, 21 April 2016) for whom College, both as an educational institution and physical location, is a barrier to their participation. CbESOL classes cater for learners aged 16 and older and are means-tested to decide the cost for each individual learner. Places are assigned based on an entry interview. The classes are organised to cover literacy or thematic language needs depending on the

(21)

20 resources available in the local area and are usually held daily. Organisation of logistics such as times and locations are made specifically to accommodate learners with childcare commitments, part time jobs and healthcare needs and are held in locally accessible public buildings such as community centres, libraries, schools and buildings of worship (Edinburgh College 2017).

The Shell

3

_{CbESOL Class}

The Shell class is based in an area of high (income and employment) deprivation, which is reflected in the presence of multiple budget retailers, charity retailers and council housing. The local community centre is a well-established community support hub, which is run by a voluntary association in partnership with the City of Edinburgh Council. The centre is used by thousands of local residents each week accessing support services and activity

programmes, including CbESOL classes, hosted in their multipurpose activity rooms. The multiple purpose room that the Shell class uses is a large, bright, white breeze block, room with long rectangular tables arranged in a U-shape with a variety of plastic chairs. A few standard pieces of equipment, including a free standing flipchart, a desktop computer at the front of the room and a wall mounted whiteboard next to it are available for use. The cork pin boards that run the length of one side of the room display a few large, aged posters of the English alphabet and grammar rules, which give the sense that language learning has been an intermittent use for this room for many years. Some people with a more pedagogic focus might be tempted to decry the absence of an aesthetically motivating learning

environment, but this set up most accurately reflects the values of CbESOL as a community service. There is a recognition that learners should have a learning service that fits their needs, is accessible and affordable.

The Shell class was labelled as pre-elementary level, which meant the learners were working towards the Scottish Qualifications Authority National 2 level, however this class was also characterised by learners with low literacy in their first language. The group of learners were approximately two thirds female, one third male and the age range was from 17 – 60, yet heavily weighted above forty years. The learners were diverse in their CbESOL experiences with some having moved up from previous classes, some having attended this level the previous academic year, and some only having joined at the beginning of the current semester. They reflected a range of first languages, mostly Mandarin, Arabic and

3_{The ‘Shell’ class will be used to refer to the specific class in Edinburgh with which I carried out my} research to maintain a degree of anonymity for the teacher and learners involved.

(22)

21 Hindi. Literacy skills were similarly diverse with some learners receiving no education,

disrupted education or low quality education, in their first language in their country of origin.

Data Collection, Transcription and Coding

Between mid-April and mid-May, I joined the Shell class to carry out my ethnographic research as a participant observer and occasional volunteer assistant. My observations covered the morning sessions which ran four days a week, each week providing ten hours of free language tuition. During this period I was able to observe nine class sessions which amounted to 22.5 hours of participant observation, all of which were audio-recorded. Audio recording made it possible to collect the complex interactions in the class enabling me to participate in the class rather than solely record it. In addition to this, I joined one lesson with another CbESOL class by invitation, with a mixed level of National 2 and National 3 level, in a separate local area. I had originally planned to observe twelve sessions, however during this time strike action was taken across the whole of the Further Education sector in Scotland and several classes were cancelled.

Overall I conducted eight interviews lasting on average approximately one hour each which were audio-recorded. Four of these interviews were with CbESOL teachers as a result of snowball sampling from the teacher of the Shell class. I attempted a wider spread of participants with an email to all CbESOL staff, but this was not successful, probably due to the impersonal nature of the interaction and the fieldwork time period which coincided with the exam period. One interview was with an ESOL volunteer teaching assistant, who had also previously been a CbESOL student. Three interviews were with current CbESOL learners, of which one was conducted with a Mandarin liaison interpreter and the rest were conducted in English. With the exception of one, the interviews were conducted in public spaces, either the workplace or a local café.

Additional data included all the materials used in the Shell class during my observations, as well as general materials shared by the teacher including the introductory pack for new CbESOL learners and examples of assessments.

I note here that no system of transcription can show everything and that transcription is not a neutral process but a question of selection and interpretation which is dependent on the specific research question (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002, 80). I fully transcribed all my interview audio recordings and the sections of classroom recordings that corresponded with observations of interest from my field notes. I opted to do a fairly detailed transcription guided by the work of Gumperz and Berenz (1993) on transcribing conversational exchanges. In this way I sought to still reflect natural speech, retaining all natural errors,

(23)

22 pauses, repetitions and overlaps. Also given the research theme the irony of editing other people’s language was too obvious to ignore. Yet, even with this, I understand that my transcripts are only limited representations of the rich interactions I had with my participants which were so much more than the verbal exchange that is shown in print.

In terms of coding my data I started with a limited set of codes based on my research question which covered references to: ideologies of language (language learning, role of ESOL classes, L1 use, literacy skills, social issues); ideologies of teaching (role of ESOL teachers, adult education, pedagogy); performance styles (body language, gestures, mime, participation) and identification (personalities, opinions, types of interactions, relationships). I then engaged in a process of open coding. Although directed by my three key concepts (language ideologies; performance; identification), this was much broader in scope in order to gather all issues rather than those I solely presumed from the start. In particular I was alert for new themes from word or phrase repetitions and narrated stories within one text or across a discourse. My approach was to analytically code by continually asking why what was described in the data was happening and creating a hierarchy within my concepts of related data. In practice, I went through the transcripts and other official documents tracking and colour coding the references mentioned above, which I then collated in an excel

spreadsheet where the rows showed the codes and the column headings the source or participant. I used this to choose appropriate data examples for use in the paper to make sure I could see any exceptions to a code or interesting points to emphasise in the analysis. Following this, through a process of focused coding I identified topics of particular interest that I believed could combine with theoretical insights for the final paper. On finishing this, I wondered was what my data would look like in the hands of someone else. An intriguing question.

Access, Ethics and Limitations

This research adhered to key ethical principles outlined by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (2015) and the Scottish Educational Research Association (2005). The interviews and interactions were based on the principle of gaining voluntary, informed consent, from both teachers and learners. It was also agreed to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of information in line with the Data Protection Act (1998) (2005, 5-7; 2015, 4). While the participants were aware of the broad nature of the research, I tried to avoid detailed conversations on this issue so as to not influence the data collection and minimise the ‘Observer’s Paradox’, affecting the situation or conversation that I wished to observe (Keating and Egbert 2004, 188). I do not believe this project caused any detrimental effects

(24)

23 to the participants, and I recognise and thank them all for the personal time they volunteered to participate (2005, 6).

A point worth noting, and perhaps a research topic for another time, is the difficulty of gaining informed consent from second language learners and those with low literacy levels. My approach was to work with the teacher to achieve this in stages. On the first day, after a brief explanation of who I was and why I was joining the class, the learners as a group verbally agreed to my involvement. Another day, the teacher took some time in the lesson to explain research and consent, and I handed out consent forms in accessible English. I encouraged the learners to also take these forms home so their family or friends could help explain this in more detail. Without the active support of the teacher involved, and her relationship with the learners who trusted her judgement, I don’t think it would be possible to honestly assert that learners had given their ‘informed’ consent.

Permission from Edinburgh College to access the Shell class was requested prior to arriving in the field. This was to ensure future opportunities for research were not harmed by unauthorised conduct and to protect the integrity of the education research community (2005, 11). To gain access to the Shell class, I made initial contact via email with the CbESOL Manager and shared my research proposal, seeking further advice as to what class options would be available at this time. While there was no formal College ethics procedure to follow, I had further email contact with the CbESOL Manager to answer questions about the style of research and any ethical issues. On arriving in the field, I personally met with the CbESOL teacher of the Shell class to introduce myself, my research interest and confirm whether I could join the class at the start of the next semester.

The Researcher Role

Throughout this research I have attempted to weave the data threads together to share a story about the impact of language ideologies in the social space of CbESOL classes in Edinburgh. This is of course fully influenced by my own personal experiences and decisions during this process of what was meaningful and important to me. Yet, the benefit of CDA is that it is a partisan methodology and bringing yourself into your research isn’t frowned upon, actually it is expected (van Dijk 1993, 254).

The personal challenge I faced was based on studying something as ‘natural’ as language. It is difficult to treat your own language ideologies as discourses, which under different

circumstances may have been constructed entirely differently (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002, 21). It was uncomfortable to realise I shared many of the dominant language ideologies

(25)

24 found in the data and critiqued in the literature by nature of living in the social situation which was under study. Such was the effect, it will be difficult to hear the phrase ‘common sense’ again.

(26)

25

Chapter One: Mediating First and Standard Language

Ideologies

Introduction

Language management is a key ideological process whose promotion by political and educational powers influences and varies language learning experiences among individuals, local areas and nations. While this process can be overt and highly visible, for example the creation or absence of language courses (and which types) in the curriculum, of interest in this case are more subtle references to the purpose of language learning for individuals. In Scotland’s ESOL Strategy the purpose of language learning includes “the ability to

communicate effectively” (2015, 2) and the acquisition of “communication skills necessary to contribute” (2015, 4) to society. These references suggest that somewhere in our social hierarchy, someone or some group, have been defined as having the right to evaluate the use and development of language which is appropriate (in their view) to the development of society (Jaffe 2009, 5).

In reality this evaluation means that in our daily interactions others are measuring our ability to make ourselves understood and placing a value on the form of expression that we are using (and in turn we do the same to others). Whether we are members of the same

community or not, we decide through hearing a ‘voice’ to what degree someone’s language and their identification in a specific context mis(fits) the current sociocultural space we share (Spotti 2014, 361). Hymes (1964) termed this communicative ‘competence’ where a

knowledge of linguistic skill is inseparable from the ability to interpret others’ speech (the context) which is full of allusions to values and obligations and local styles of conversation (Gumperz, Discourse Strategies 1982, 209).

With this is mind, it is would be difficult to write about CbESOL teachers’ negotiations of language ideologies without first considering two of the most dominant ways language management ideologies are visible in CbESOL classrooms; ideas about first language (L1) use and language standardisation in English learning.

There is a growth of opinion that suggests L1 use in adult ESOL education, as well as bilingual teaching in other educational contexts, is not only effective but necessary (Auerbach 1993). The recognition of learners’ linguistic resources can help to create an effective learning environment which can realign the imbalance of power in teacher and student interactions while supporting English language learning (1993, 9). This realignment also has implications for teacher identifications and approaches towards the use of L1 and is really reflective of broader ideologies about teacher and learner relationships.

(27)

26 Related to this, if the use of L1 splits opinion on whether it benefits or distracts learners from acquiring English, it is worth asking what the acquisition of English looks like. What type of English language are teachers’ aiming to teach and learners aiming to achieve? A ‘standard’ language has historically been a key goal of any nation or society. This can be traced back to the ideologies of the Enlightenment period which so focused on advancing ‘rationality’, science and ‘independent’ thought, words were considered dangerous for their ambiguous meanings and powerful rhetoric (Bauman and Briggs, Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality 2003). Indeed, Locke’s strong beliefs that discourse (language) was the source of social disorder and conflict led him to promote ‘precise, plain and unadorned, rational ways of speaking’ (Bauman and Briggs, Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality 2003, 7). Of course, with the lack of educational access for the lower classes at that point in history, such purification of language became a mark of social status and a tool by which individuals were accorded the right to participate in public affairs.

And so, under a guise of modernity, the belief that standardising communication would enable efficient exchanges of any kind, social, economic or political was internalised and has been reproduced to this day (Milroy 2001). Non-standard English language is viewed as ‘incorrect’, and those who use it are identified as lacking intelligence or deficient in some way. There is usually no disagreement over standardisation; a phrase such as ‘I seen it’ is judged as obviously wrong. Where an explanation of why is required, usually linguistic, grammatical reasons are given. This obscures the extent to which such decisions are ideologically produced and positively sanctioned by authorities, not that those promoting such standards would agree (Milroy 2001, 536).

In this chapter I explore how teacher ideologies on the role of L1 use in the class vary from using L1 to ensure accessible English learning to a firm maintenance of the ‘English only’ rule. Through these narratives, it is clear teachers’ decisions to invite the use of L1 (or their experiences of L1 in class) challenges their default authoritative teacher identifications and requires them to reposition themselves and realign their identifications to continue the learning activities. While the use of L1 is shown to be both beneficial and disruptive in different language learning contexts, CbESOL teachers are then faced with the impact of language standardisation. I will show how standardisation ideologies are internalised to differing degrees by learners. These either have a substantial effect e.g. silencing English performance, or little effect e.g. resistance to changing pronunciation. Such negative effects also impact a multi-lingual CbESOL home tutor whose English is also an additional language and who self-questions his legitimacy to teach despite his qualifications. In the end, I

(28)

27 language development with his learners and I see this as an encouraging step in tackling what is a behemoth of a challenge. To position yourself against language standardisation may appear futile, but of course that would be the ‘natural’ reaction.

First Language Use for Learning

The Speaking Assessment Scenario

The situation in this vignette occurred during the speaking day assessment as a pair of learners who had just finished their assessment were leaving the room, and the new pair of learners were entering the room for their turn.

Excerpt 1

Rima has finished her speaking test and is standing up to leave, gathering her bag and coat, when Tamas enters the room. He sits down in one of the free chairs opposite Nina. As Rima is about to leave, Nina asks if she can explain to Tamas, who is next to take the test, the key words in their shared first language, Arabic.

Nina: {[sound of door opening and closing] Okay/ so I’ll see you **all on Monday/ (…) 1

Right?//} 2

Rima: {[p] Yes} 3

Tamas: {[walking to sit down] <words in Arabic>} 4

Rima: ={[laugh] <words in Arabic> [sound of door closing]}= 5

Nina: =Hi::= =Hi= (...)

6

Nina: {[Rima walks towards the door] Right/ (..) Ok- eh-} 7

{[f] Rima,} Can you just remind em: Tamas what’s- what’s **why in Arabic? 8

Rima: **why- **why, 9

Nina: {[moves papers to find a new sheet to use] Can you write it in Arabic?} 10

Tamas: ==<word in Arabic> 11

Rima: ==Why/ <word in Arabic> 12

Nina: ==Can you- can you write it (..) in Arabic? Write why in Arabic// <word in Arabic> 13

Tamas: =<word in Arabic>= =<word in Arabic>= 14

Rima: =When=

15

=Eh: <word in Arabic>= 16

Nina: =Just write it here/= 17

Tamas: ==Mhm … 18

Rima: [writes on the paper] <word in Arabic> (..) 19

Nina: Oka::y 20

Rima: =When (..) eh:: …= 21

Tamas: =<words in Arabic>= 22

Rima: =<word in Arabic> 23

Nina: Oka::y 24

(29)

28 Rima: =eh- Where (..) <word in Arabic>

25

Tamas: =Mm. 26

Rima: Bring . eh:: <word in Arabic> (..) <word in Arabic> bring <word in Arabic> 27

Tamas: =Mm. 28

Rima: <words in Arabic> 29

Nina: Yes, exactly, but we’re going to talk about that// 30

Rima: =<words in Arabic> 31

Nina: {[ac] No, no} it’s okay, just, {[ac] wait, wait, wait.} 32

Yeah/ We’ll come back to that. {[ac] Just wait, wait, wait.} 33

Tamas: ={[laughs]}= 34

(Classroom Recording, 4 May 2017, 1:56:14) Tamas and his partner are the fourth pair to whom Nina has to explain the assessment exercise. From previous exchanges, it is apparent that the learners are finding it difficult to remember the key question words ‘Why’, ‘When’, ‘Where’, that they have been taught previously. This means, from the start, that they are not able to access the exercise and perform their best in the test. To pre-empt this from occurring with Tamas, Nina asks Rima to translate these words [line 8] because they share the same L1, Arabic, although they are from different countries. It is clear that this is a spontaneous, unplanned request from Nina because she has already ended her conversation with Rima [line 1-3, 7] and her voice is raised to cover the distance as Rima begins to walk away.

In making this invitation to Rima to use her L1, Nina is openly recognising the value of Rima’s linguistic capital in this situation. To unpack this idea which stems from Bourdieu’s broad theory of practice, a person’s life experiences, their “habitus” (the way the social context and environment they were raised in affects their behaviour), influences how they act and respond in specific situations (Bourdieu 1991). A person’s ‘capital’ (e.g. their finances, relationships, education) and how it is valued by others in a specific situation determines their ability to interact successfully. Linguistic capital then, is how a person’s language (as a product of their habitus) is attributed value when used in a specific context (ibid 1991, 17-18).

From earlier conversations, Nina has revealed an appreciation for and interest in learning languages with abilities in both Spanish and Mandarin from teaching experiences overseas and specific language courses. In this sense her ideologies around first language use as a support for learning are positive and I think this is a strong influencing factor on the value she places on Rima’s Arabic proficiency in this situation. This value is reinforced as the consequence of this approach causes Nina to cede part of her authority and power in this exchange. Nina’s request has repositioned her as a ‘teacher in need’. On the other hand, Rima has superseded her identification as a ‘learner under assessment’ and is now the

(30)

29 ‘interpreter’ due to her linguistic skills. It is not necessarily Rima’s L1 as a linguistic resource by itself that allows better communication between Nina and Tamas, but it is the value and encouragement from Nina to use it in the assessment space that enables them all to carry out their particular roles in the interaction that follows.

Parts of language in all conversations are unconsciously modified by the speaker as they anticipate the likely reaction to their contribution and the value the other may place upon it. I identify this at the start of Rima’s contribution, where she self-censors her contribution to verbal help only [line 9, 12]. While Rima has completed Nina’s request, Nina then expands her request [line 10, 13, 17] for Rima to write the words down. By writing the words down on the paper prompt, this has the effect of retaining the value of Rima’s L1 knowledge without her being physically present. While it is unclear whether there are any institutional policies towards L1 use, this practice ensures that the L1 isn’t visible to the College on the recording. Nina’s approach in this context implies that first language use is acceptable to her in

CbESOL if its role is to aid translation and if it occurs as a response to an invitation.

Yet, it is clear that an unlimited and free use of L1 is prevented by Nina. In the second half of the conversation, as Rima eases her self-censorship in light of the acknowledged (by Nina) value of her contribution, Nina tries to regain control of the conversation and its content. The repeated phrase ‘just wait, wait, wait’ [line 32-33] delivered in quick speech, on two separate occasions, shows Nina’s attempts to stop the conversation which is developing in Arabic and going beyond the boundaries of her request into a discussion, which can reasonably be assumed, is about the content of the exercise. This also prompts a laugh from Tamas [line 34], as he realises Rima has used their first language to share more information than was originally intended. While Nina’s approach mirrors a common ideology which rarely advocates non-discriminate use of L1 in ESOL teaching, but suggests the selective and targeted integration of L1 as a useful teaching method (Auerbach 1993, 21) her actions go further to suggest a comfortable attitude towards L1 use, even when it places her in a position of lesser authority.

Encouraging First Language Use for Learning

Ideologies around English-only learning can be so strong that when L1 is used in classes for communication purposes it can be perceived by teachers as a failure of practice, a negative solution which involves a ‘lapse’ into L1 use (Auerbach 1993, 14). Although Nina values L1 use to achieve accessible learning, this idea of a lapse is also reflected in her view when she confides in an informal conversation at the start of the lesson, “we’ve done these words [the question words] to death” (Field notes, 8 May 2017). Such conflicts show that ideologies are

The audible difference : negotiating language ideologies in community-based ESOL classes in Edinburgh

July 2017