Don't speak like that to her

‘Don’t speak like that to her!’:Linguistic minority children’s socialization

into an ideology of monolingualism1

Martha Sif KarrebækUniversity of Copenhagen, Denmark

It is of general interest to the study of language in society how ideologiesmotivating linguistic hegemony get formulated in the context of increasingdiversity. This includes if and how linguistic diversity surfaces underconditions that are clearly disfavouring it, and why or why not it happens.Also, we need to know how ideologies of language surface at themicro-level, and how they are continuously passed on, shared, negotiatedor contested. These are central issues in this study of socialization into acondition and an ideology of linguistic hegemony in Copenhagen,Denmark. It is illustrated how school-authorities, parents and childrenco-create Danish dominance and a linguistic ideology of monolingualismduring the first school year. The primary focus is on two school-beginnerswith minority language background in a linguistically diverse classroom,and the linguistic registers of particular interest are Danish, the majoritylanguage, and Turkish, an immigrant language. The article builds onfield-notes, ethnographic interviews, video- and audio-recordings. LinguisticEthnography and Language Socialization constitute the methodologicalframeworks, and Silverstein’s ‘total linguistic fact’ forms an analyticprinciple.

Europa karakteriseres af stigende befolkningsmæssig diversitet. Ikkemindst skolerne er dog stadig domineret af ideologier, der motivereretsproget sproglig hegemoni. Det er af stor betydning for studiet af sprogi samfundet, hvordan sproglig mangfoldighed kommer til udtryk underbetingelser, der defavoriserer den, samt hvorfor eller hvorfor ikke det sker.Dette omfatter ogs�a, hvordan sproglige ideologier løbende deles, forhandleseller anfægtes af deltagere. I denne artikel undersøges socialisering til entilstand af og ideologi om dansksproget sproglig hegemoni i København,Danmark. Det demonstreres, hvordan skoleledelse, forældre og børnsamkonstruerer den gældende ideologi over det første skole�ar. Fokus erp�a to skolestartende børn med minoritetsbaggrund i et sprogligtmangfoldigt klasseværelse og p�a relationen mellem dansk, flertalssproget,og tyrkisk, et mindretalssprog. Feltnoter, etnografiske interviews, video- oglydoptagelser inddrages. Sproglig etnografi og sproglig socialisering udgør

Journal of Sociolinguistics 17/3, 2013: 355–375

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

de metodiske rammer, og Silversteins ‘total linguistic fact’ det teoretiskegrundlag. [Danish]

KEYWORDS: Linguistic hegemony, multilingualism, languageideology, classroom interaction, linguistic ethnography, languagesocialization, peer interaction

INTRODUCTION

A monolingual ideology continues to characterize schools in many Europeansocieties, despite their diversifying populations. It is of general interest to thestudy of language in society how ideologies motivating (monolingual)linguistic hegemony are formulated in the European context of diversity,if and how linguistic diversity surfaces under conditions that are clearlydisfavouring it, and why or why not this happens. This article treats thesocialization of school-beginners with minority language backgrounds into acondition of linguistic dominance and a monolingual, hegemonic order in amainstream, yet linguistically diverse classroom in Copenhagen, the capital ofDenmark. Here Danish dominated both public and private talk. This wasregarded as positive by the school principal, the children did not resist it(despite their diverse linguistic backgrounds), and the teachers did not engagewith the issue of linguistic diversity in their daily practice. Through analysis ofdifferent types of data, I will develop these initial observations. I will look athow ideologies of language surfaced at the micro-level, and how they wereshared, motivated and negotiated. I will focus particularly on two girls withTurkish-Kurdish background, Fadime and Merve.Silverstein’s ‘total linguistic fact’ (Silverstein 1985) constitutes an analytic

guiding principle. Silverstein (1985: 221) notes that the ‘real object ofsociolinguistic analysis’ comprises the three dimensions of form, use, andideology, which should all be taken into account in order to arrive at asociolinguistically comprehensive understanding. I present a window into theprocess of Fadime and Merve’s socialization into institutional monolingualismin Danish through the analysis of language choice (Silverstein’s ‘form level’),interactional use of language (Silverstein’s ‘use level’), and metapragmatic orideologically loaded statements by adults – Fadime’s father, the schoolprincipal, and the girls’ main teacher in interviews and conversations – andchildren – in a play situation. The linguistic registers (Agha 2007) of particularinterest are Danish, the societal majority language, and Turkish, characterizedas an immigrant language. There is of course much more to say about thelarger issue of language hierarchies in Danish societies, and in particular aboutthe relation between Danish and English, the high prestige languagepar excellence, yet this falls outside the aim of this article (but see Daryai-Hansen2013).

356 KARREBÆK


Linguistic hegemony and language ideology

Linguistic hegemony is ideologically conditioned linguistic dominance, and itinfluences both what is said and done, and what is not said and done. Thereby,the notion of hegemony is a key to understanding which linguistic registers areselected for communication and which are de-selected. Language ideologiesare, as Kroskrity (2010: 192) writes, ‘beliefs, feelings, and conceptions aboutlanguage structure and use which often index the political economic interestsof individual speakers, ethnic and other interest groups, and nation states.’ Thedominant (hegemonic) use of one register may be motivated by this being‘better suited (for a specific context) than’ or ‘superior to’ other linguisticregisters, and such understandings prevail among both dominated anddominant groups (Suarez 2002). Hegemony could not be sustained withoutthe consent of the governed, and it is spread through persuasion rather thanthrough force and coercion (Anderson 1976; Gramsci 1971; Philips 1998). Inaddition, hegemony is a lived reality and the ‘true condition of hegemony iseffective self-identification with the hegemonic form’ (Williams 1977: 118;italics in original). Yet self-identification may not be easy to detect.The observance of institutional norms does not, in itself, point to theacceptance of linguistic hegemony; standard practices may accompanyresistant consciousness ‘as a form of accommodation to coercion …’ (Woolard1985: 741). In addition, hegemony does not characterize a stable andinvariable situation. Rather it is a constantly negotiated, challenged andmodified process, tied to different but directly experienced life-situations andsettings (Williams 1977, 2005). The individual’s socialization into hegemonydepends on a number of other individuals and we need to conceptualizelanguage socialization ‘in light of (…) multiple, layered arenas, the diverseframes of interpretation and assessment’ (Collins 2007: 12). In order tounderstand individuals’ ideologies and motivations for particular use andnon-use of language, and for the linguistic situation’s development, it isrelevant to look at the three sides of Silverstein’s (1985) ‘total linguistic fact’:the structural, pragmatic, and ideological.

Linguistic hegemony in the Danish educational system

Schools are powerful participants in the socialization of children intostate-licensed ideologies (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977), and in Denmarkyoung citizens with minority language background are met with forcefulpolitical measures and statements. For instance:

• the state abolished its economic support for mother-tongue education in2002 (Kristj�ansd�ottir and Timm 2007: 131ff);

• increasingly powerful legislative moves since the 1990s have ensured thatyoung children with minority background attend pre-schools (Karrebæk2011: 7);

‘DON’T SPEAK LIKE THAT TO HER!’ 357


• some preschools discourage the use of other languages than Danish inminority families (Just Jeppesen and Nielsen 2001);

• in 2000 the (then) vice-president of the Social Democratic Party declaredthat if you are born in Denmark your mother tongue is Danish; and

• use of minority languages may be banned during school recess (foradditional examples see Holmen and Jørgensen 2000, 2010).

It does not, therefore, come as a surprise that the OECD concluded that inDenmark minority languages are not attributed with educational value(Nusche, Wurzburg and Naughton 2010), a lack of recognition well-knownfrom other European countries (Blackledge and Creese 2010; Blommaert,Creve and Willaert 2006; Mart�ın Rojo 2010). In general there is a strongideology of double monolingualism, in which it is considered ideal if linguisticregisters are not blended in language use (Jørgensen 2012). Consequently, theinstitutional socialization into an identity as a competent and respectablestudent more or less equals the socialization into an ideology and a practice ofdouble monolingualism (Holmen 2009).Almost a third of the Copenhagen student body are born, or have parents

that were born, outside of Denmark (Danmarks Statistik 2012). Thesechildren’s linguistic and cultural repertoires include resources not generallyassociated with (standard) Danish which are therefore disfavoured by theeducational system. Thereby, important aspects of the children’s identities,allegiances and linguistic proficiency are ignored or devalued institutionally,and the children are denied an equal opportunity for educational successcompared to their peers with a linguistic mainstream background (Collins2007: 12). Politically (and tragically also by some academics), it is assumed,in Denmark as in many other places, that minority children reach a higherlevel of majority language competence if other language skills aresuppressed, and that improving minority students’ skills in the majoritylanguage is the most effective way of fighting school failure (Egelund, Nielsenand Rangvid 2011; see also Heller and Martin Jones 2001). Members ofminority groups often support this position because they regard standardlanguage competence as an entry ticket into mainstream society (Jaspers2011b: 1267). However, although the majority language focus hasdominated in Denmark for decades, the level of academic achievement inDenmark is much lower for children categorized as second language usersthan for those categorized as native speakers of Danish (Egelund et al. 2011;Nusche et al. 2010).

Minority languages in ethnically-diverse mainstream classrooms

This article is concerned with the use of linguistic resources associated withminority languages in a mainstream school. It has been argued persuasivelythat teachers disregard minority languages for learning purposes, that

358 KARREBÆK


proficiency in such languages does not influence the assessment of children’seducational potential, and that home language use is seen as an impedimentto pupils’ learning of the majority language, at times even to eventual‘integration’ into (mainstream) society (Blackledge 2005; Mart�ın Rojo 2010).The good minority student is seen as a good language learner, and a goodlanguage learner should use the dominant or majority variety only (Cekaiteand Evaldsson 2008: 182). In some schools the use of minority languages isexplicitly prohibited (Jaspers 2005); in other schools teachers just ignorestudents’ non-mainstream ethnic and linguistic backgrounds (Evaldsson2004). With both types of responses to diversity teachers avoid approachingstudents’ fundamentally complex, dissimilar and unequal experiences andlinguistic repertoires. The ‘unmarked’ student is still usually a majoritystudent, the minority student appears ‘different’, and the linguistic attributessignifying difference are treated as undesired. In other words, having aminority-language background can become a social stigma (Goffman 1963)that spoils (or plays a part in the spoiling of) the social identity of the child.This is, of course, highly problematic if one wishes to maximize children’slearning outcomes (Roberts and Sarangi 2001). Recent work concludes thatin primary school settings minority children rarely use minority languages,and particularly not in public or teacher-oriented discourse; this is the caseeven when an institutional adult can understand them (Spotti 2007; Toohey2000). Children believe a home language to be out of context, possiblybecause of an idea of a natural relation between territory and language (Spotti2007). When used, minority-language resources function as learning aids(Mart�ın Rojo 2010) or in byplay and subversive side-activities (Cekaite andEvaldsson 2008). The picture of primary school children’s language choicecontrasts somewhat with that of adolescents in secondary school. Olderstudents draw on a range of linguistic resources for fun, to contest authorities,or to negotiate identities and group associations. They cross (Rampton 1995),stylize, and poly-language (Møller and Jørgensen 2012), at the same time as theydemonstrate an awareness of the institutionally recognized ways of speaking:that is, in a standard / majority-language register (Jaspers 2011a, b).This difference between younger and older students is highly interesting.

The study reported here certainly contrasts strikingly with observations fromschool-leavers in the same school (Ag and Jørgensen forthcoming; Madsen2013; Stæhr forthcoming). Our initial analysis indicates that the turningpoint occurs around middle school (4th–6th grade; years 10–12), yet inorder to answer the essential questions concerning this issue (e.g. whatcharacterizes the trajectory of socialization more precisely, how and why doesthe orientation to different norm-centres develop, what are the consequencesof this linguistic poly-centricity in the longer run, educationally and interms of wide-spread understandings of language in society) we will needadditional data – and more space to discuss them than what I have availablehere.



METHOD AND METHODOLOGY

Data for this article stems from a large project on language socialization andlanguage use in an ethnically and linguistically diverse school in Copenhagen,Denmark. I carried out ethnographic fieldwork, 2009–2012, among a classof school-starters. I did participant observation, audio- and video-recordingsin classes, breaks, and in afterschool centres; children did self-recordings inthe same settings. Most fieldwork took place during the first school year(grade 0), and I concentrate on this year in the following. In this article Ipresent excerpts of fieldnotes, from school and an afterschool centre, audio-recordings of interviews with the principal, a parent and the main teacher,and a video-recorded play session with three girls (Fadime, Merve andSelina). The excerpts have been selected from a large pool of data(approximately 300 hours of audio-recordings, 90 hours of video-recordings,and 20 interviews with teachers, the school principal and parents of childrenin grades 0–1) as they constitute particularly salient illustrations of theprocess of socialization.The class consisted of 17–20 children, aged 5–6. Seven children had

majority Danish background, one child’s father was born in Denmark, hismother in China, and the remaining children’s parents were born in Morocco,Turkey, Pakistan, Iceland, Somalia, or Iraq. Most of these had home languagesother than Danish and were competent speakers of them; some were not, a fewonly used Danish at home.2 No matter their habitual language choice,repertoire and skills, children with both parents born outside of Denmark werecategorized as ‘bilingual’ in agreement with a general national practise. Twomajority Danish female teachers, Louise and Kristine, were in charge of theclass. Kristine had one year of teaching experience, Louise had been a grade-0class teacher for eight years. Louise had attended a short qualifying course insecond language acquisition and intercultural competence, and she was theofficial primary responsible teacher. All participants, except me (MSK), areanonymized.Linguistic Ethnography (Blackledge and Creese 2010; Creese 2008) and

Language Socialization (Kulick and Schieffelin 2004) form the methodologicalbackbone of the study. Ethnography is considered essential for understandingmeanings and relations in the field as well as in data, including theconstitution of ‘the total linguistic fact’ (Silverstein 1985). Linguistically,novice participants’ evolving membership in a social group includes explicit andimplicit characterizations of (language) resources and norms, as well as novices’experiences with particular types of language use rather than others, e.g. with aprevalent use of a majority-language register (Danish). The socialization intohegemony is, indeed, a socialization through the use of language to the use oflanguage, and it is influenced by macro-societal concerns, individual and groupideologies, individuals’ social relations and the specificities of the situation(Collins 2007; Kulick and Schieffelin 2004; Wortham 2005).

360 KARREBÆK


FINDINGS

The use of linguistic resources associated with languages other than Danish

My fieldwork very soon revealed that the children almost never oriented toother linguistic registers than (standard) Danish. The situation was similarinside and outside the classroom, in official and unofficial activities, and itwas accentuated over time. In fact, I found only 23 situations in whichminority-language resources were used in my almost 300 hours of grade-0recordings (covering both class-time and break-time). I overheard (but did notrecord) a few more instances of minority language use and on a few occasionsthe children discussed (and did not use) themes relating to minority languageuse or registers. On this basis it is fair to say that, as a rule, minority languageswere absent among the children in the institutional setting (class, breaks,afterschool centres). The most used minority languages were Turkish (13situations) and Arabic (6 situations).3 Turkish was almost always introducedby Merve, and Arabic by Amira, although other children (€Ozlem, Fadime andBilal) were also designated speakers of these languages. These instances ofminority language use constitute potential counter-examples to the otherwisedominant hegemony of Danish. Yet, in order to understand their significanceand meaning, the general observations need to be qualified by more detailedstudy, and I will focus on a situation in which Merve, Fadime and a third girlengaged in a play activity later in the paper (Karrebæk forthcoming, presentsan analysis of Amira’s use of Arabic).

Perspectives from institutional adults

Schools have a particular approach to pedagogy and understanding ofclassroom morality. Sometimes this is explicitly formulated by the institutionaladults, i.e. the school leadership and teachers, and sometimes it remainsimplicit. In order to uncover the official understandings of the absence ofminority-language resources, I brought up the issue during an interview withthe school principal. In his extensive reply he argued that such an absencecould be a result of the lack of an explicit language policy:

Extract 1:4 ‘Maybe because there is no language policy’ – interview with theprincipal (Pri)

1 Pri: m�aske fordi der ikke er maybe because there isn’t2 en sprogpolitik a language policy3 MSK: s�a der er ikke noget at gøre then there is nothing to4 oprør imod oppose5 Pri: Nej No6 … …



7 Pri: s�a jeg tror det der med so I think that this with8 tryk avler modtryk og action begets reaction9 det der med at tage and this with

10 afstand og s�adan noget dissociating and that11 p�a samme m�ade som øh sort of thing in the same way as12 med tørklæder jeg kan eh scarves I13 garantere dig for hvis vi nu can guarantee you that if14 pludselig ind- we now suddenly15 fører tørklædepolitik introduce a scarf-policy16 og forbud og and restrictions and17 s�adan noget eller taler so on or talk a lot about18 rigtigt meget om det it try to19 prøver at gøre det til make it into20 et problem det vil kun a problem it will only21 blive et større problem become a bigger problem

The principal’s pedagogical approach builds on the assumption that explicitattempts at regimentation through restriction (such as, a ‘Danish only policy’or a ban against headscarves) create opposition (lines 7–10). Therefore, theabsence of minority-language resources in the public domain could bemotivated by the absence of an explicit language policy (lines 1–3). To alarge degree, children have a free choice with respect to what linguistic andcultural resources they will deploy, but the school should provide them withsupport for making the best choices. The principal compares language choiceand the use of headscarves, and his answer shows the understanding that ifyou deny the students the possibility of choosing freely what language theywant to use, they would make a less desirable choice; that is: not to speakDanish.In school, the principal represents the top of the institutional hierarchy, and

he formulates the over-all strategies and image of the school. At the same time,the principal has limited insight into teachers’ understandings and classroompractices. Teachers are delegated institutional authority in the classrooms andthey constitute local knowledge authorities (Pace and Hemmings 2007), atleast officially. Teachers create interactional and cultural environments inwhich specific things are done, others not, specific language use is encouraged,other is not, and specific ways of using language is interpreted as indexical ofspecific social models. Thus, classroom culture is founded on the teachers’values and ideologies. I now turn to Louise, the primary teacher in the grade-0class. In an interview, to illustrate how she formulated her ideas aboutteaching practices, I asked: ‘there are children who come from a lot of differentcultural backgrounds and it isn’t eh a question of whether they are (.) e:h black orwhite or bilingual or not bilingual but do you eh try to incorporate this in yourteaching?’. After a request for clarification (‘you mean differences?’) Louise repliedat length.

362 KARREBÆK


Extract 2: Interview with Louise (June 24; my translation from Danish)

1 Louise: (.) ø:hm (.) jeg vil ik (.) e:h (.) I won’t say2 sige decideret i exactly in our teaching3 undervisningen (.) det (.) I won’t say that I4 vil jeg ik sige jeg gør do that but e:h (.) but5 men æ:h (.) men vi taler we do speak a lot about6 da meget om forskelle differences (.) a:nd eh7 (.) o:g øh (.) om (.) about each other’s8 hinandens sprog hvordan languages how do you9 sir man (.) det og det say (.) this and that

10 p�a dit sprog (.) og in your language and11 hvordan sir man det p�a how do you say it in12 dit og hh og (.) ø:hm (.) mester your language and hh13 jakob den ka and (.) e:hm (.) Frere14 synges p�a rigtig mange Jacques that song can15 sprog og den har jeg s�a be sung in a lot of16 en kopi af der bliver different languages and17 sunget p�a tysk og fransk I have a copy where it18 og alt mulig andet is sung in German and19 (.)[…] men øh men men French and a lot of20 jeg bruger det ik others (languages) (.)21 decideret (.) i […] but I don’t exactly22 undervisningen som s�adan use it (.) in class as23 (.) men vi taler meget such (.) but we talk a24 om det. lot about it.

Louise’s answer begins with a hesitation, which in itself signals dispreference,and she continues with a (mitigated) denial that she works systematically withdiversity (lines 1–4). She then softens her denial even more as she claims toconsider her particular students when they talk about how to say things in thechildren’s languages (‘how do you say (.) this and that in your language and howdo you say it in your language’, lines 8–12). She mentions that she has a song(Frere Jacques) which can be sung in different languages (‘I have a copy where itis sung in German and French and a lot of others (languages)’, lines 13–20). But nochild reports to speak German and French, the languages mentioned, and thespecific song is a trivial standard example. Louise’s interactional work turnsout to be unconvincing in terms of her taking a serious pedagogical view of thecomplex cultural and linguistic situation. In addition, although I would haveliked to present examples demonstrating Louise’s open-minded attitude to thelinguistically complex classroom, I have no such evidence in my data. I neverheard the teachers ask the children what something was called in otherlanguages than Danish, nor did they introduce the issue of different culturalpractices. I have one single recording where a child (Amira) volunteeredinformation about her home language to Louise; this happened during Amira’sfirst days at school and was not used pedagogically at all (for in-depth analysis



see Karrebæk 2012, forthcoming). By not speaking about linguistic diversitythe teachers created a lack of visibility or even erasure (Irvine and Gal 2000) ofit and thereby they achieved the monolingual classroom which media,legislation and the principal represented as the ideal. The children did notquestion Louise’s approach – neither explicitly by confronting her directly norimplicitly by bringing in features associated with other linguistic varieties thanDanish. Thereby, they participated in co-constructing the classroom asmonolingual in Danish. I will return to this. In all, the quotes from theteacher and the principal illustrate how the climate in this school was notconducive to the use of what was regarded as minority-language resources.They were not prohibited, but they were not invited either.

Parents’ perspectives: Fadime’s father

From my interviews with the minority parents it appeared that, with oneexception, none claimed to regret the neglect of their home languages inschool, and none had discussed it with the teachers. Generally, they acceptedthe school as a ‘Danish only’ environment, most of them in silence, but somein a more outspoken way. One of the most ardent proponents of classroommonolingualism in Danish was Fadime’s Turkish-Kurdish father. Extract 3 isa field diary excerpt from our first encounter, a month into the school year,and it condenses what he repeated to me in interviews and during accidentalencounters in corridors, the afterschool centre, schoolyard and classrooms.

Extract 3: Danish makes you active (field diary; September 14; mytranslation)

Fadimes far fortæller mig, at det ikke er vigtigt for ham, at Fadime lærer tyrkisk.Det er dansk, der tæller. Tyrkisk bruger de kun de tre uger om�aret, de er p�a ferie iTyrkiet, og det kan hun alts�a bare lære selv. Dansk derimod vil gøre hende istand til at være aktiv. Det gælder om at være aktiv, han peger igen p�a sit hoved.

Fadime’s father tells me that it is not important for him that Fadime learns Turkish. Itis Danish that counts. Turkish is only used during their three-week summer holiday inTurkey, and she should just take care of her acquisition of that (Turkish) on her own.Danish, on the other hand, will enable her to become ‘active’ as he says.What counts isbeing active, he points to his head again.

Fadime’s father evaluates Danish and Turkish very differently in relationto cognition and education. Danish is important and makes Fadime ‘active’. Heinsisted on this notion on several occasions and explained it as being able touse one’s mental capacities to learn, think and participate in society. ToFadime’s father Danish is better suited for this than Turkish, because Danish isthe societal and school language. Turkish is less important because it is usedrarely and in non-educational contexts, therefore school should not beresponsible for teaching Turkish.5 The researcher is a majority Dane andemployed at university; Fadime’s father is an unemployed, former taxi-driver,

364 KARREBÆK


and an immigrant to Denmark, and the conversation took place in Danish.Clearly the asymmetries could influence the father’s extremely favourableattitude to Danish. Yet, he generally presented himself as self-confident. Theteachers reported that on several occasions he had demanded that they focusmuch more on teaching spoken and written Danish. He also expressed thesame opinions to a Turkish speaking researcher several times.

Peer interaction and the use of minority languages

This section focuses on a video-recorded play activity about a month intothe school year. The participants are the girls Fadime, Merve (Turkishbackground), and Selina (Moroccan background),6 and the situation is aclassic m�enage-�a-trois. Merve and Fadime are about to play with some woodenblocks, Selina joins them but takes the blocks for herself. Fadime tells Selinanot to intrude in the play activity, but does not receive back-up from Merve.Instead, Merve and Selina start competing as to who can build the tallestconstruction; the one who builds the tallest wins. Fadime then plays silentlynext to them.

Extract 4: ‘Don’t speak like that to her’ (September 4; Merve, Selina andFadime)

1 Merve: y::es Selina jeg vundet jeg vundet? y::es Selina I won I won?2 Selina: nej jeg har vundet fordi jeg

har lavet det her.no I won because I havemade this one.

3 (10) ((Selina’s structure falls into pieces.))4 Selina: det alle de her [xxx. it is all these ones [xxx.5 Merve: [jeg vundet. [I won.6 (1) ((Fadime gazes at Merve’s block

construction.))7 Merve: Fatima (.) ben kazandim. Fatima (.) I have won.8 (0.5)9 Selina: la vær med og tal s�adan til

hende.don’t speak like that toher.

10 Merve: jeg vundet. I won.

Although Fadime and Merve were the ratified participants in the original playactivity, Fadime seems to have withdrawn. Merve states in Danish andaddressed to Selina that she won (line 1), and she repeats this to Fadime inTurkish (line 7). Fadime’s lack of response may have motivated Merve’s switchto Turkish. In terms of participation she selects Fadime as the main addressee,and in terms of social relations she foregrounds solidarity or similarity, asTurkish indexes their shared background and a special social relationship.Both aspects of Merve’s change of linguistic register seem to invite Fadime tore-assume a position as a participant in the common activity – or at least toalign with Merve as she claims victory over Selina. At the same time, Merve



appears to deny the significance of any similarity between herself and Fadime.She already ignored Fadime when she wanted the two of them to pair upagainst Selina, and Merve actually emphasizes her own superiority, as she says‘I have won’. It is unclear whether superiority is relevant in relation to Fadime,to Selina or to both but, in any case, Merve’s message is undeniably about whoshe claims to be and how she feels about Fadime (Woolard 2008: 443). Selinadoes not understand Turkish and as a response she tells Merve not to speak‘like that’ to Fadime (line 09). It is unsurprising that Selina prefers Merve tospeak Danish both because of structural participation and comprehensionissues. Yet, it is worth noticing Selina’s use of the adverbial s�adan ‘like that’about Merve’s undesired language use. Turkish is not named but it is pointedout in the same way that gross language, swear words, etc. would be. Also,Selina’s request that Merve speak Danish is unmitigated, and together thisindicates an interpretation of the use of Turkish as transgressive. Mervecomplies with Selina’s request (although she does insist that she won) andrefrains from contesting this understanding.After Extract 4 Selina shifts her attention to Fadime. She accuses Fadime of

mimicking her but Fadime argues that she is building something similar toMerve’s structure, not to Selina’s. Thereby, Fadime emphasizes similarity to –and aligns with – Merve. Merve now says that Fadime is copying (laver efter)which is generally treated as unacceptable. Fadime replies in a similarmoral line.She says that Merve and Selina keep all the blocks to themselves, and that theyare not her friends, thereby introducing the theme of rules for friendship. Despitethe serious accusations, Fadime is ignored, but then she changes her strategy:

Extract 5: ‘She talks like that’

1 Fadime: Merve min er ik det samme somfarve di:g? (.) min er s�adan herxxx.

Merve mine is not the samecolour as you:? (.) mine islike this xxx.

2 Merve: benimki seninkinden daha guzel. mine is nicer than yours.3 (0.3)4 Fadime: ↑duh siger til mig den ik var stor?

(.) ↓duh (.) du snakkers�adan til

↑youh say to me it wasn’t big? (.)↓youh (.) you talk likethat to me

5 mig igen! again!6 ((points accusingly at Merve))7 (2)8 Fadime: hun: sir til mig den ik var stor. she: says to me it wasn’t big.9 Merve: o:kay:.

10 Fadime: hun snakker s�adan. she talks like that.

Fadime goes from claiming similarity to claiming difference as she says that herblock structure has a different colour to Merve’s; difference in their work pointsto difference between them as individuals. When Merve responds in Turkishthat her own block structure is nicer, Fadime attends to Merve’s language

366 KARREBÆK


choice. She partly repeats Selina by saying ‘you talk like that to me again’ (lines4–6), which functions as an accusation (signalled by pitch change andgestures). Then she complains to Selina over Merve’s use of Turkish (lines 4,10), thereby positioning Merve as a bystander. When Selina first policedMerve’s use of Turkish her preference could very well be motivated by the factthat she did not understand Turkish, but Fadime has turned the use of Turkishinto a more general political issue. Turkish becomes transgressive in relationto what is now presented as a norm of language choice, and in terms ofinteractional identities Merve becomes a norm transgresser and Selina a normenforcer. The discussion continues into Extract 6, which falls immediatelyafter Extract 5:

Extract 6: ‘She speaks Danish’

10 Fadime: hun snakker s�adan. she talks like that.11 Selina: Merve la vær med [og xxx

tale til dig (.) la vær med attale s�adan til hende.

Merve don’t [xxx not speakto you (.) don’t speak likethat to her.

12 Fadime: [jegsnakker ik s�adan. jegsnakker ik s�adan der jegsnakker overhovedet iks�adan der.

[I don’t talk likethat. I don’t talk like that Idon’t talk like that at all.

13 Selina: hun taler dansk. she speaks Danish.14 Merve: hey Selina hey gi gi mig (.)

den der.hey Selina hey give give me(.) that one.

According to Fadime, Merve’s use of Turkish is unsolicited. She repeats thatshe herself does not speak ‘like that’ (line 12) and thus denies similarity withMerve. Selina may have used ‘like that’ about Turkish language use becauseshe did not have any term for Turkish but this is certainly not the case withFadime. The avoidance of the term is likely to be a volitional act and validatesthe impression that Fadime distances herself from Merve. Selina supportsFadime (line 11) and adds that Fadime speaks Danish (line 13). This introducesa juxtaposition between a named language – Danish – and a way of speaking‘like that’ – Turkish – and the shift in Danish from s�adan to s�adan der suggestseven further distancing. Merve obeys and switches back into Danish when sheasks Selina to cooperate.Fadime continues to behave as if she is in a vulnerable position. She blames

and accuses Merve and Selina for various things, aligning first with one, thenthe other. Selina then suggests that all of them build a castle, which in herinterpretation means that she is the creative participant and the two othersconstitute the audience. Selina removes the blocks from Merve, Fadime alignswith Selina, but Merve defends her right to do what she wants to. Fadime thenaccuses Merve of lying. A serious conflict seems to be underway when Selinainterferes:



Extract 7: ‘Don’t speak to her like that cos she doesn’t want it’

1 Selina: o:::: (.) vær lige stille værlige stille.

o:::: (.) just be quiet justbe quiet. ((Takes Fadime’sarm to ensure attention.))

2 (5) ((Selina and laterMerve add blocks to theblock structure. Selina putsher arms around thestructure. Then it falls.))

3 Selina: I::: ((Screams.))4 (3)5 Fadime: xxx.6 Selina: n�ar jeg lige gør s�adan (.)

s�a: faldt den ned.when I just do like this (.)the:n it fell down.

7 ((The girls enter into arather agitated high-pitched discussion; mostlyincomprehensible.))

8 Merve: xxx ben koydum buraktimsonra hemen yere dustu.

xxx I have put, let go, andthen they fell downquickly. ((Selina looksintensely at Merve whileshe is speaking.))

9 Selina: la vær med at tale s�adan tilhende (.) fordi hun vil ikha det.

don’t speak like that to hercos she doesn’t want it.((Agitated tone and withvivid gesturing.))

10 Selina: hvorfo:r er der kun lidt dervar me:↑get.

why: is there only littlethere was a lo:↑t.((Looking at the blocks allover the table.))

11 Merve: hihi.

Selina interrupts Merve and Fadime’s explicit disagreement by telling them tobe quiet (line 1) and it ends rather noisily when the block tower falls. After anagitated discussion, Merve explains to Fadime in Turkish what she thinkshappened (line 8), and for the third time Merve is told that her choice oflanguage is not appropriate: Selina says that Merve should not speak to Fadime‘like that’ because, importantly, Fadime does not want it (line 9).Merve, Fadime and Selina’s classroom was characterized by a near absence

of minority-language resources. Excerpts 4–7 are from one of the fewsituations where the children actually did use such resources; in itselfpotentially interesting. Also, the girls’ social negotiations during aninteractional trajectory clearly feed into larger semiotic processes of valueascriptions to and enregisterment of languages, here Danish and Turkish,through a process of fractal recursivity (Irvine and Gal 2000). Turkish is

368 KARREBÆK


explicitly judged to be the inappropriate and illegitimate, and Danish theappropriate language, and the arguments of why reflect and co-createthe social relations, particularly the relations between Merve and Fadime.The utterance ‘don’t speak like that to her’ is damaging to Merve’s face (Goffman1967), and more generally the use of Turkish becomes an attribute that spoilsMerve’s identity – a stigma (Goffman 1963). Fadime, on her part, denies hermembership in the group of Turkish speakers and thus (strategically) distancesherself from Turkish-ness as well as from the (social effects of) stigma. Thisseems to back up the more general tendency in the classroom of minoritychildren’s home cultural backgrounds being ignored, erased, nameless, andsuppressed.Jumping to a larger scale, it points to the relationship of this one situation to

the general social, political and educational context, and particularly to therelative value of Danish versus minority languages. In other words, in thissituation the (social) issues of status, solidarity and similarity clearly fallswithin the area of ideology and consciousness (Woolard 1985) and they areplayed out linguistically in intricate ways, through issues of language choice,participation status, framing of the speech activity, speech act value and degreeof explicitness. What happened here also fits into the larger portraits of Fadimeand Merve. Although they shared a Turkish repertoire, and although they bothused it at home,7 they displayed a different orientation to Turkish in school.Merve almost always initiated their Turkish conversations; Fadime oftendisplayed reluctance. I never heard Fadime speak Turkish with any children,not even her younger sister, nor with her father; Merve used Turkish with hersiblings. This linguistic orientation was influenced by the girls’ interpersonalrelations which unfolded in particular sequences and over longer stretches oftime. In the situation analysed, Fadime’s interactional strategy and stancetowards Turkish was influenced:

• by Selina, from whom she wanted acceptance as a play participant;

• by Merve, who had rejected her as a privileged play partner and whocontinued to belittle her;

• by her father, whose negative attitude to the use of Turkish in publicspaces was pronounced and who often criticized her Danish skills; and

• by her teachers, whose linguistic ideology she most probably sought tocomply with in order to present herself as a promising student.

Thus, the prevalent monolingual norm fed into Fadime’s interactional project,and the linguistic identity that she performed – as a Danish (only) speakingminority student – resulted from both interactional affordances and prevalentlinguistic norms and ideologies. Signs gain sign-value through co-occurrencewith other signs (Agha 2007: 148) and they should be interpreted in context.In this situation Selina and Fadime co-created a specific meaning of Turkish,and Merve validated this meaning when she complied with their requests.Although Merve and Fadime had used Turkish in prior situations where it



went unnoticed, their use of Turkish became increasingly rare. I cannotconclude that the situation analyzed constituted a turning point, but its importshould not be underestimated. That there were so many sources of oppositionto the use of Turkish in school, some of which were authority figures, was mostprobably consequential.

DISCUSSION

It is unsurprising that a condition of linguistic hegemony reigns in a Danishmainstream classroom like the one in which I conducted this fieldwork.‘Mainstream’ means – precisely – the adherence to societally prevalent anddominant ideologies, and modern nation-states, including Denmark, arefounded on the understanding of a natural relation between a delimitedterritory, a delimited linguistic register (‘a language’), and a delimited group ofpeople (Heller 2007; Irvine and Gal 2000; Makoni and Pennycook 2007). Themonolingual ideologies prevail even when the population (and here: thestudent body) diversifies, and I have documented how linguistic hegemony isadministered, understood, motivated, shared, negotiated and passed on in justsuch a contemporary context.Collins (2007: 12) admonishes us that we should be concerned with the

relationship between the wider ethnolinguistic dynamics (school, community,region, nation) and the classroom. In my study, the teachers may have beeninfluenced by prevalent discourses about the importance of Danish culture andlanguage and this wider world enters the classroom in exchanges betweenstudents and teachers (cf. Woolard 1985). It is also reflected in children’sconversations, and we have seen how negotiations of language ideology wereembedded in, and disguised as, negotiations of face-work. For the children,exclusion was a very immediate concern, and minority language affiliationbecame a stigma. The play situation analyzed, ended up as an arena forestablishing and validating a language hierarchy in which a minority languagesuch as Turkish was placed very low. The classroom reflected the principal’sorientation to middle-class values and a monolingual and mono-culturalhabitus. The minority child was compared to a (normative) majority child, andthe use of minority languages could always be contested, criticized andsanctioned. The children soon learned that a competent and obedient school-child was expected only to draw on linguistic features associated with standardDanish.Sociolinguistically, this is a problematic situation with important educational

implications. When the special competences and experiences of certain (groupsof) children are not recognized, it presents these children with a more difficultacademic learning task and a reduced possibility of participation(cf. Mart�ın Rojo 2010; Thomas and Collier 2002). Schools are sites ofsocialization into, among other things, institutionally recognized knowledge,and at the same time teachers are committed to constructing positive learning

370 KARREBÆK


environments in order to maximize students’ opportunities. This can surely bea contradiction in terms. The identity as ‘different’, ‘less resourceful’, or‘bilingual’, does not aid children in seeing themselves as, and in becoming,academic high-achievers. This was pointed out by the OECD who also statedthat ‘immigrants’ and their children represented an ‘underused potential’ inDenmark (Nusche et al. 2010: 16), and that there was a ‘widespreadperception that immigrants’ knowledge of several languages is not recognisedand valued as an asset in the school system, and in society more broadly’(Nusche et al. 2010: 35). School is one of the arenas in which mainstreamsocietal ideologies tend to dominate entirely. However, it is important torecognize a much wider range of linguistic experiences and linguisticrepertoires. Students need to have the possibility of defining themselvespositively rather than negatively (i.e. ‘not a white middle-class mainstreamchild with Danish as my first language’). It is essential that schools find ways toinvite the dramatically diversifying ‘wider world’ into the classrooms.

NOTES

1. The research reported in this article was financed by The Danish Council forIndependent Research, grant number 09-066462/FKK. I am grateful forcomments made to an earlier version of this paper by Luisa Martin-Rojo, twoindependent reviewers and the editor, Allan Bell.

2. For various reasons I never tested the children’s linguistic competences. This istherefore based on the information that the parents gave me.

3. The remaining situations included: Somali – two situations; Urdu and Icelandic– one situation. In addition there were two instances of English and one of(mock) Spanish.

4. Transcription conventions:underline Turkishroman Danishitalics English translation[…] erased material(.) short pause(()) comments↑ shift to high pitched voice↓ shift to low pitched voice? rising intonation. final (falling) intonation

5. Fadime’s mother speaks very little Danish. She speaks Kurdish and Turkish withher children. According to the parents, the children used mostly Danish amongsteach other.

6. According to her mother, Selina did not speak Arabic.7. They both claimed to speak Turkish at home; neither of their mothers spoke

Danish.



REFERENCES

Ag, A. and Jens Normann Jørgensen. Forthcoming. Ideologies, norms, and practicesin youth poly-languaging. International Journal of Bilingualism.

Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Anderson, Perry. 1976. The antinomies of Antonio Gramsci. New Left Review I/100:5–78.

Blackledge, Adrian. 2005. Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World. Amsterdam,The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Blackledge, Adrian and Angela Creese. 2010. Multilingualism: A Critical Perspective.London: Continuum.

Blommaert, Jan, Lies Creve and Evita Willaert. 2006. On being declared illiterate:Language-ideological disqualification in Dutch classes for immigrants in Belgium.Language & Communication 26: 34–54.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Societyand Culture. London: Sage Publications.

Cekaite, Asta and Ann-Carita Evaldsson. 2008. Staging linguistic identities andnegotiating monolingual norms in multiethnic school settings. InternationalJournal of Multilingualism 5: 177–196.

Collins, James. 2007. Migration and multilingualism: Implications for linguisticanthropology and education research. Working Papers in Urban Language &Literacies No 47. London: King’s College.

Creese, Angela. 2008. Linguistic Ethnography. Last accessed 13 February 2013 athttp://www.ling-ethnog.org.uk/linguisticethnography.html

Danmarks Statistik (The Danish Census Bureau). 2012. Last accessed 1 May 2012at http://www.kk.dk/FaktaOmKommunen/KoebenhavnITalOgOrd/StatistikOmKoebenhavnOgKoebenhavnere/Noegletal/Uddannelse/EleverOprindelse.aspx

Daryai-Hansen, Petra. 2013. Begegnungen mit fremden Sprachen: Ein Instrumentariumzur Analyse von Sprachhierarchien und Sprachrepr€asentationen am Beispiel desd€anischen und deutschen sprachenpolitischen Diskurses. Tubingen, Germany: NarrFrancke Attempto Verlag.

Egelund, Niels, Chantal Pohl Nielsen and Beatrice Schindler Rangvid. 2011. PISAEtnisk 2009: Etniske og danske unges resultater i PISA 2009. Last accessed 6 July2011 at http://www.akf.dk/udgivelser/container/2011/udgivelse_1041/

Evaldsson, Ann-Carita. 2004. Elevers flerspr�akiga aktiviteter och dominerandeenspr�akiga former f€or kommunikation. In Jakob Cromdal, Ann-Carita Evaldssonand Finn Aarsæther (eds.) Ett vardagsliv med flera spr�ak. Sweden: Liber AB. 66–85.

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. London:Penguin Books Ltd.

Goffman, Erving. 1967. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in socialinteraction. In Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behaviour. Chicago,Illinois: Aldine Pub. 5–46.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence andWishart.

Heller, Monica. 2007. Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In Monica Heller (ed.)Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan. 1–22.

372 KARREBÆK


Heller, Monica and Marilyn Martin-Jones. 2001. Introduction: Symbolicdomination, education, and linguistic differences. In Monica Heller and MarilynMartin-Jones (eds.) Voices of Authority: Education and Linguistic Difference.Connecticut/London: Ablex Publishing. 1–28.

Holmen, Anne. 2009. Multilingualism in education: In favour of a dynamic view oflanguages. In Ole Kolbjørn Kjørven, Bjørg-Karin Ringen and Antoinette Gagn�e(eds.) Teacher Diversity in Diverse Schools: Challenges and Opportunities for TeacherEducation. Vallset, Norway: Oplandske Bokforlag. 32–55.

Holmen, Anne and J. Normann Jørgensen. 2000. Har vi en dansk sprogpolitik?Om holdninger til sproglig mangfoldighed i Danmark. In J. Normann Jørgensenand Anne Holmen (eds.) Sprogs status i Danmark�ar 2011. Københavnerstudier itosprogethed bind 32. Copenhagen, Denmark: Københavns Universitet. 75–90.

Holmen, Anne and J. Normann Jørgensen. 2010. Skærpede holdninger til sprogligmangfoldighed i Danmark. In J. Normann Jørgensen and Anne Holmen (eds.)Sprogs status i Danmark �ar 2021. Københavnerstudier i tosprogethed bind 58.Copenhagen, Denmark: Københavns Universitet. 121–135.

Irvine, Judith T. and Susan Gal. 2000. Language ideology and linguisticdifferentiation. In Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities,and Identities. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press. 35–84.

Jaspers, J€urgen. 2005. Linguistic sabotage in a context of monolingualism andstandardization. Language & Communication 25: 279–297.

Jaspers, J€urgen. 2011a. Strange bedfellows: Appropriation of a tainted urban dialect.Journal of Sociolinguistics 15: 493–524.

Jaspers, J€urgen. 2011b. Talking like a ‘zerolingual’: Ambiguous linguisticcaricatures at an urban secondary school. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1264–1278.

Just Jeppesen, Kirsten and Anne Nielsen. 2001. Tosprogede sm�abørn i Danmark.Copenhagen, Denmark: Socialforskningsinstituttet.

Jørgensen, J. Normann. 2012. Ideologies and norms in language and educationpolicies in Europe and their relationship with everyday language behaviours.Language, Culture and Curriculum 25: 57–71.

Karrebæk, Martha S. 2011. At blive et børnehavebarn – en minoritetsdrengs sprog,interaktion og deltagelse i børnefællesskabet. Københavnerstudier i tosprogethed bind62. Copenhagen, Denmark: Københavnerstudier i tosprogethed.

Karrebæk, Martha S. 2012. Authority relations: The mono-cultural educationalagenda and classrooms characterized by diversity. Naldic Quarterly 10: 33–37.

Karrebæk, Martha S. Forthcoming. ‘I am lucky I can speak Arabic’: A linguisticminority child’s socialization into an ideology of double monolingualism insuper-diversity. In D. Duncker and B. Perregaard (eds.) Creativity and Continuity:Perspectives on the Dynamics of Language Conventionalization. Amsterdam, TheNetherlands: John Benjamins.

Kristj�ansd�ottir, Bergth�ora S. and Lene Timm. 2007. Tvetunget uddannelsespolitik –dokumentation af etnisk ulighed i folkeskolen. Frederiksberg, Denmark: ForlagetSamfundslitteratur.

Kroskrity, Paul V. 2010. Language ideologies – evolving perspectives. In J€urgenJaspers, Jan-Ola €Ostman and Jef Verschuren (eds.) Society and Language Use.Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John BenjaminsPublishing Company.



Kulick, Don and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 2004. Language socialization. In AlessandroDuranti (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.349–368.

Madsen, Lian Malai. 2013. ‘High’ and ‘low’ in urban Danish speech styles. Languagein Society 42: 1–24.

Makoni, Sinfree and Alastair Pennycook. 2007. Disinventing and reconstitutinglanguages. In Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook (eds.) Disinventing andReconstituting Languages. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters. 1–41.

Mart�ın Rojo, Luisa. 2010. Constructing Inequality in Multilingual Classrooms. Berlin,Germany/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Møller, Janus Spindler and Jens Normann Jørgensen. 2012. Enregisterment amongAdolescents in Superdiverse Copenhagen. Tilburg Working Papers in Culture Studies28. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University.

Nusche, Deborah, Gregory Wurzburg and Breda Naughton. 2010. OECD Reviews ofMigrant education: Denmark. Available at www.oecd.org/denmark/44855206.pdf

Pace, Judith and Annette Hemmings. 2007. Understanding authority in classrooms:A review of theory, ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research 77: 4–27.

Philips, Susan U. 1998. Language ideology in institutions of power: A commentary.In Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.) LanguageIdeologies: Practice and Theory. New York/Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.211–225.

Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London:Longman.

Roberts, Celia and Srikant Sarangi. 2001. ‘Like you’re living two lives in one go’:Negotiating different social conditions for classroom learning in a furthereducation context in Britain. In Monica Heller and Marilyn Martin-Jones (eds.)Voices of Authority: Education and Linguistic Difference. Westport, Connecticut:Ablex. 171–192.

Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the culture of gender: At the intersectionof structure, usage, and ideology. In Elizabeth Mertz and Richard Parmentier(eds.) Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives. New York:Academic Press. 219–259.

Spotti, Massimiliano. 2007. ‘What lies beneath?’: Immigrant minority pupils’identity construction in a multicultural Flemish primary classroom. Journal ofLanguage, Identity and Education 6: 31–51.

Stæhr, Andreas. Forthcoming. Languaging on the Facebook wall: Emergent normsof language use on Facebook. In Max Spotti, Karel Arnaut and Martha S.Karrebæk (eds.) Language and Superdiversity. Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.

Suarez, Debra. 2002. The paradox of linguistic hegemony and the maintenance ofSpanish as a heritage language in the United States. Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development 23: 512–530.

Thomas, Wayne P. and Virginia P. Collier. 2002. A National Study of SchoolEffectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long-Term Academic Achievement.Santa Cruz, California: Center for Research on Education, Diversity andExcellence, University of California-Santa Cruz.

Toohey, Kelleen. 2000. Learning English at School: Identity, Social Relations andClassroom Practice. Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.

374 KARREBÆK


Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Universitypress.

Woolard, Kathryn A. 1985. Language variation and cultural hegemony: Towardan integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. American Ethnologist 12:738–748.

Woolard, Kathryn A. 2008. Why dat now?: Linguistic-anthropological contributionsto the explanation of sociolinguistic icons and change. Journal of Sociolinguistics12: 432–452.

Wortham, Stanton. 2005. Socialization beyond the speech event. Journal ofLinguistic Anthropology 15: 95–112.

Address correspondence to:

Martha Sif KarrebækDepartment of Scandinavian Studies and Linguistics

University of CopenhagenNjalsgade 120 DK-2300 Kbh. S

Copenhagen 2300 Kbh. SDenmark

[email protected]



Documents

Don't speak like that to her