24

Click here to load reader

Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Language Learning42:4, December 1992, pp. 593-616

Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Deborah Poole San Diego State University

This paper examines the kinds of cultural messages a second language teacher displays through classroom interac- tion. The study analyzes teacherhtudent interaction in two beginning ESL classes in light of the language socialization perspective articulated by Ochs and Schieffelin, (1984; cf., Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a; 1986b; Ochs 1988). This approach views the acquisition of linguistic and sociocultural knowl- edge as integral to one another, and points to the pervasive influence of cultural norms and ideologies on various forms of expert-novice communication. The data demonstrate that routine interactional sequences in these classrooms are con- sistent with a number of Ochs and Schieffelin’s interpreta- tions of middle class American caregiver language and sug- gest that a teacher’s language behavior is culturally moti- vated to an extent not generally acknowledged in most L2 literature. Discussion will focus specifically on how class- room discourse features encode cultural norms and beliefs with respect to (a) expert accommodation of novice incompe- tence, (b) task accomplishment, and (c) the display of asym- metry.

I am grateful for the helpful comments of Martha Bean, Ann Johns, Elinor Ochs, and an anonymous reviewer on earlier versions of this paper.

Requests forreprints maybe sent to the author at Department ofLinguistics and Oriental Languages, College of Arts and Letters, San Diego State Univer- sity, San Diego, California 92182. Internet: [email protected]

593

Page 2: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

594 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

This paper investigates ways in which implicit cultural messages are conveyed through routine interaction in the second language classroom. The analysis interprets ordinary teacherhtudent interactional sequences as motivated and per- vaded by underlying cultural ideologies. In so doing, it suggests that attention to cultural issues is necessary for full under- standing of second language classroom processes.

In approaching classroom data from a cultural perspec- tive, the present study draws from current theory and research within the fields of anthropological linguistics and the ethnog- raphy of communication. This body of work takes the relation- ship between language and culture as its primary focus and has elucidated in great depth ways in which they interact.’ In the following discussion, I will bring a small but significant portion of this literature to bear on the domain of second language classroom discourse. Specifically, interactions in two ESL classrooms will be analyzed in light of Ochs and Schieffelin’s recently articulated version of language socialization (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; Ochs, 19881, a framework that derives from the extensive ethnographic work of both researchers. This perspective, with Heath (1985), considers that “all language learning is culture learning” (p. 5 ) and that the acquisition of linguistic knowledge and sociocul- tural knowledge are integral to one another. Language social- ization research focuses on the asymmetrical interaction of novice and expert, especially recurrent discourse features of that interaction, and views language as “a repository of local meanings” (Ochs, 1988, p. 210) through which cultural informa- tion is conveyed to novices. Language socialization assumes that socialization is a lifelong process and that there are many contexts of secondary socialization such as school, work, and new living environments. Within the language socialization framework, then, the second language classroom would consti- tute a powerful context of secondary socialization, particularly when it exists outside the learner’s culture of origin.

In Ochs and Schieffelin’s view, language socialization

Page 3: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 595

encompasses two fundamental processes: socialization to use language and socialization through language. Both processes point to the interdependence of language and culture and to the profound role language plays in the socialization process.2

Socialization to use language is the more explicit but less pervasive of the two, and refers to interactional sequences in which novices are directed to use language in specific ways, as, for example, when caregivers direct their children to “say thank you” (Ochs & Schieffelin 1984). Socialization through lan- guage, on the other hand, concerns the use of language to encode and create cultural meaning.3 From this perspective, cultural knowledge is implicitly conveyed to novices through language forms and practices. Particular linguistic forms and the sequential organizations within which they occur are seen to bear “socio-cultural information on acts and activities, iden- tities and relationships, feelings and beliefs and other domains [which] must be inferred by children and other novices” (Ochs, 1987, p. 10). This implicit, inferential form of language social- ization is considered more pervasive in this framework and will represent the primary focus of the present study.

A compelling example of socialization through language is Ochs’ (1982, 1984, 1988) study of clarification styles among Samoan and white middle class American (WMCA) caregivers. This study demonstrates the relationship of caregiver dis- course practices to a wide range of behaviors and beliefs in the two societies. For example, in Western Samoa there is a strong dispreference for speculating as to the mental states of others, which represent a domain beyond the limits of what one can know. Ochs demonstrates how Samoan caregivers do not expand or guess the meaning of young children’s unclear utterances. Instead, they ask for repetition. This interactional style (termed the minimal grasp) is interpreted as a means of socializing novices into the knowledge that mental states of others are not appropriate objects of conjecture. This is the converse of middle class American caregivers, for whom a primary mode of clarification with children is the expansion or

Page 4: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

596 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

expressed guess, a mode corresponding to the common Ameri- can practice of guessing what others are thinking. Ochs additionally demonstrates the relationship of these preferred clarification strategies to phenomena such as the tendency for experts to accomm,odate or assist novices in WMCA society (hence, in the expansion the caregiver helps the child to say what she or he cannot), and the tendency in Samoa for those in higher status positions to expect lower status persons to make whatever adjustments are required (in the minimal grasp clarification strategy, the responsibility is on the child to make him- or herself clearL4

In the discussion to follow, I will consider the interactional sequences of two beginning level ESL classrooms in light of these and other observations within the language socialization framework. In particular, the interaction ofthe two classes will be viewed from the perspective of Ochs and Schieffelin’s inter- pretations of WMCA caregiving practices, with an eye toward understanding the kinds of cultural messages conveyed in the classroom context. The analysis will focus on ways in which the asymmetry between teacher and student is keyed or indexed through classroom discourse sequences, and particularly on how those sequences reflect social norms of asymmetry in mainstream American sociocultural contexts.

Viewing L2 teachedstudent interaction in this light as- sumes a nonprescriptive stance toward the phenomenon of teacher-talk, seeking to explain its underlying social predispo- sitions rather than critiquing its inadequacies. Second lan- guage teachers are seen here as fundamentally tied to cultural assumptions that may at times constrain and override popular notions of what constitutes good teaching. The sequences to be discussed are routine and unremarkable ones, recognizable by many language teachers and cited repeatedly in the classroom discourse literature (e.g., Griffin & Humphrey, 1978; Mehan, 1979; Long & Sato, 1983; Cazden, 1988; Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Lemke, 1990; Poole, 1990). The purpose here is to demon- strate that these phenomena-previously observed as perva-

Page 5: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 597

sive in the classroom setting-are reflective (and constitutive) of cultural beliefs and practices.

DATA COLLECTION

Following the lead of Ochs, Schieffelin, and other an- thropological linguists, the present study follows a qualitative line of research that uses transcript data as the basis of analysis. In ethnographic terms, these data are ecologically valid in that, to the extent possible, given the presence of an observer and tape recorder, the context has remained unaltered for the purposes of research.

The data for the study were collected in a beginning level ESL class at a large private American university. This was the first class in a four-course sequence, although only a small percentage of entering students placed into it. The eight students attended class 27 hours per week and were taught by four teachers, all female, who typically met once each week to plan and confer on student progress. The teachers advocated and attempted to implement a communicative syllabus orga- nized around thematic units. Among them, there was a high degree of concord with respect to classroom methodology and syllabus organization.

As one of the four teachers, I functioned as a participant observer with sustained, in-depth knowledge of both the stu- dents and teachers who participated in the study. In other words, the data used for the study are grounded in long-term participation and knowledge of the context from which they derive. It was largely because of this understanding of setting, in addition to the willingness and interest of the teachers involved, that this class was chosen as the focus of data collection.

Approximately 10 class hours were observed and audio- taped for the study. In each class, a cassette tape recorder was placed near the front of the room, positioned so as to record as

Page 6: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

598 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

many student utterances as possible; I sat to the side or back, observing and taking notes regarding participants, interaction, spatial organization, and type of lesson. Because of my famil- iarity with both students and teachers, my presence seemed to intrude little on the nature of class activity. Two of the class periods were selected for transcription and analysis, and the tapes were transcribed using a modified version ofthe Jefferson conventions (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; see Appendix A). The choice of these classes was motivated in a number of ways. Each of the two teachers (henceforth, Teacher 1 and Teacher 2) was highly valued by the institute as being both knowledgeable and effective. In addition, the two lessons were marked by a high degree of student verbal participation and seemed, a t least impressionistically, representative of the basic ideologies of communicative language teaching ( CLT).5 More importantly, each was representative of typical classes at this instructional level. This is critical in a study of language socialization, which argues that novices are socialized to cul- tural norms through participation in routine, repeated interac- tional acts, and sequences.

The activities undertaken in the two classes also contrib- uted to their being selected as data sources. The first class (that of Teacher 1) included journal writing and a speaking activity in which students were to organize a scrambled picture story chronologically. In the second class, termed “Video”on the class schedule, students wrote weekly skits that were then practiced and recorded on video. In the particular class transcribed, students engaged in both the practicing and videotaping phases of this activity. The most fundamental difference between the two classes is represented in the spatial organization and resultant roles of teacher and students. The first class was arranged with students seated in a semicircle, with the teacher in front directing the interaction. In the second, however, students occupied center stage, while the teacher sat on the sideline acting as a kind of coach or director, The selection of these two activities was thus directed toward having represen-

Page 7: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 599

tative and successful lessons, but ones that differed in terms of “participant structure”(Philips, 1982). In this way, the cultural predispositions proposed by Ochs and Schieffelin could be investigatedin two distinct but similar classroom contexts, and consideration given to the effect of participant structure on the display of cultural information.

A final critical feature of these classes is that the teachers were white, middle class American females. These character- istics are not only common to many ESL classroom settings throughout the U.S., but in the discussion below provide a convenient point ofcomparison with the kindof WMCAcaregiver talk analyzed in the language socialization literature.

DISCOURSE ACCOMMODATION

Among Ochs and Schieffelin’s observations of middle class American socialization contexts, perhaps the most fundamen- tal is that asymmetrical interactions are consistently marked by the accommodation of expert to novice. In the environments of both home and school, such accommodation is achieved, in part, through use of the simplified registers commonly termed baby-talk and teacher-talk. This view interprets simplified registers as a culturally influenced form of interaction in which the expert or caregiver simplifies to help the child communi- cate.6 In the data considered here, discourse accommodation typifies both classes, although it is manifest in ways that reflect their differing participant structures.

COCONSTRUCTED PROPOSITIONS

In the class of Teacher 1, interactional accommodation or assistance is particularly evident in a set of sequence types which, according to Ochs and Schieffelin, allow learners to participate in the verbalization of propositions beyond their level of competence. The most typical of these is initiated with

Page 8: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

600 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

a test-question (also termedknown-information or display ques- tion, Ochs, Schieffelin, 8z Platt, 1979; Long & Sato, 1983). Questions such as What color is the ball? or What does the doggie say?, for example, are routinely used in conversations with young children. In this familiar discourse form (Example l), often contrasted with information or referential questions, the expert asks a question to which she or he already has an answer in mind.

1. Test question7 Teacher 1: How many people are in your picture? Netal: Two boys. Teacher 1: Two boys? Netal: (two boys) Teacher 1: Okay.

The language socialization interpretation of test questions differs from a pedagogical view that often negatively assesses such sequences (e.g., Long, 1981; Long & Sato, 1983; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and suggests that important cultural predis- positions underlie its pervasiveness. Ochs, Schieffelin and Platt (1979) analyze the test question as a form of discourse accommodation from expert to novice. They have characterized this sequence as a “proposition across utterances and speakers” (p. 251). From this perspective, the test question andits answer represent two parts of the same proposition. In Example 1, for instance, the question “How many people are in your picture?” and its answer “Two boys”can be viewed as constituting a single proposition, paraphrased as “There are two boys in the picture”. In other words, novice and expert contribute to the overt coconstruction of the same proposition, allowing novices to participate in the verbalization of propositions beyond their level of competence.

At least two other sequence types common to simplified registers in WMCA contexts, incomplete sentence frames and expansions, similarly constitute overtly coconstructed proposi- tions. An incomplete sentence frame represents a syntactic variation to the test question, with the teacher or expert

Page 9: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 601

constructing a kind of fill-in-the-blank utterance that the nov- ice completes (as in Example 2).

2. Incomplete Sentence Frame Teacher 1: And you say he’s- (..I he’s carrying, Fatma: box Teacher 1: a box.

Expansions, as noted above, constitute a type of clarification sequence particularly characteristic of WMCA caregiver speech (Ochs 1982, 1984, 1988). They also represent a form of dis- course accommodation to the beginning ESL student. In Example 3 below, for instance, the teacher attempts to more fully articulate a student’s unclear utterance.

and (..I can I say (on) the paper?

yes on the paper: (..) is DOWN=

3. Expansion Dalal: Teacher 1: uh yeah- you can- paper is:: (..) Dalal: Teacher 1: [is very Dalal: = (..I floor.

-->Teacher 1: oh there’s paper on the floor.

As analyzed in Ochs’ study of clarification, expansions bear a complementary relationship to the kinds of test question and incomplete sentence frame sequences referred to above. Just as an expansion indexes that the mental states of others are appropriate objects of conjecture, so the test question and incomplete sentence frame demand novice participation in such conjecturing; that is, students have to know or guess what the teacher is thinking to answer the question. Hence, these sequences can be interpreted not only as accommodation forms but also as socialization contexts through which novices partici- pate in the interactional display ofa cultural view ofknowledge.

In many instances these overt cross-speaker propositions- test questions, incomplete sentence frames and expansions- occur contiguously across longer stretches of discourse. The resulting sequence or scaffold (Bruner, 1975; Cazden, 1988) represents the expert’s interactional efforts to render a novice capable of completing a task beyond his or her level of compe-

Page 10: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

602 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

tence. Scaffolding can include a wide variety of interactional forms, but is often characterized by strategies such as rephras- ing a question to reduce the linguistic complexity of a desired response. In Example 4, for instance, the succession of teacher questions simplifies the task in a manner that allows a student to convey more about the picture than she or he is capable of doing alone.

4. Scaffolding a. Teacher 1: Masa (.) Ok.

b. Netal: ((laughs)) c, Masa:

(..I

[um:: (..) small boy (..I and (big boy) stand- ing (..I

(..)

(..I does he look?

d. Teacher 1: Ok::. What is the big boy doing?=

e. Masa: urn:

f.

g. Masa: ( ) h. Teacher 1: You don’t know. Ok. (..I Angry? i. Masa: um: maybe (..) um: j. Teacher 1: sortof-sortthe youngboyis,(..) what’sthe

k. Masa: reading. 1.

Teacher 1: =is he looking at his brother or: (..I how

young boy doing?

Teacher 1: reading. (..) He’s reading. (..) and what’s the important thing in that picture? (..I

m. Masa: (huh?) n. Dalal: Khhh) 0. Teacher 1: the imPORtant thing in that picture.

(..I p. A. ( >= q. Masa: =candle. r. Teacher 1: yeah. Something‘s going to happen here.

The sequence types in Examples 14-test questions, incomplete sentence frames, expansions, and scafTolding- represent similarities between interaction in this ESL setting

Page 11: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 603

and other asymmetrical contexts in WMCA society. Their presence here is consistent with two powerful domains of children’s language socialization-caregiver-child and teacher/ student interaction-and is posited to contribute to the display of a t least two social messages: (a) They demonstrate that expert accommodation to novice is both appropriate and perva- sive, and (b) they interactionally instantiate the belief that the mental states of others are appropriate objects of conjecture.

ACCOMMODATION IN A STUDENT-FRONTED CLASS

The sequences types exemplified above pervade the class of Teacher 1, but are rare in that of Teacher 2-a difference that derives from the varying spatial arrangements of the two classes. The participant structure of the first class is reflected in typical teacher-fronted interaction such as that seen in the previous four examples (cf. Poole & Patthey-Chavez, 1991). In the second, students take center stage; the teacher maintains an accommodating stance, but does so through a different type of interactional sequence. Rather than posing questions or eliciting answers, the teacher accommodates performance by offering help when students seem uncertain of what to say, as in Examples 5-7. In other words, accommodation here is led by the student, rather than the teacher, as in the previous examples.

5. Teacher2 ((knock at door)) ((no response))

Teacher 2: What are you gonna say. Come in! N: Come in! F: . Comein!

T: Dala1,youcan ask whatha-whathappened.= D: =what happened,

D:

6. Teacher2

7. Teacher2 and what time ((to T)) do you leave your house? like,

Page 12: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

604 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

T:

D:

urn-hmm:. what time DID you leave your house. what- what (.4) your time did you leave your house.

Ochs (personal communication, December 1986) suggests that the video activity represents a typical WMCA accommodation context in that, on the one hand, students are asked to do somethingbeyond their level of competence (i.e., perform a skit in a language they are only beginning to learn), while on the other, they are provided with the assistance necessary to accomplish it. In her view, the practice of asking novices to perform beyond their current competence and then accommo- dating that performance is a fundamental characteristic of WMCA novice-expert interaction (cf. Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984).

In these data, accommodation remains a salient factor in both class settings, although it is manifest through different types of teacherlstudent interactional sequences. With respect to cultural orientations discussed below, however, the organi- zational differences between the two classes do not exert the same interactional effect, and the teachers’ linguistic expres- sions will be seen as far more similar.*

TASK ACCOMPLISHMENT

In addition to the claim that discourse accommodation in WMCA contexts is pervasive in the novice-expert domains of home and school, Ochs and Schieffelin also argue that there is a disjuncture with respect to accommodation because tasks are viewed as being individually accomplished. In their interpreta- tion, mainstream American children are typically given the entire credit for completing a task that they obviously per- formed with assistance (cf. Duranti & Ochs, 1986). In the classroom transcripts analyzed here, this social information is most powerfully manifest through the contrast between open- ing and closing sequences of specific activities.

For instance, the opening sequences in Examples 8 and 10

Page 13: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 605

below each include numerous instantiations of first person plural markers we, let’s, and our (marked as #). In the closing sequences ( Examples 9 & 11) of the same activities, however, these markers are absent, as the teacher has seemingly shifted her point of view. Here students are individually recognized (in some cases by name) and pronominal markers are consistently in the second person. The closing evaluation (Example 9) is particularly notable for the fact that the preceding 30 pages of transcript were dominated by examples of scaffolding, such as that seen in Example 4 above.

8. Opening [Picture Description] Teacher 1: Well-we (..)-Ihave somepictureshere. (..I

This is a story. (..I but (..) as you see they’re not in the right order. ok? (we have) six students and six pictures. (..) and DONT show your picture to anybody else. ok:? (..I but - after you look at your picture (..I ( ? each of us is going to SAY: what we# see in the picture.=

Dalal: =describe (it) Teacher 1: yeah. describe the picture and see if we can

make a story out of it.

9. EvaluatiodClosing [Picture Description] Teacher 1: GOOD WORK, YOU GUYS! That’s hard!

You-you did a good job. I’m impressed.

10. Opening [Video Activity] a. Teacher2: Ahm (.6) wherewhere should we put

um (.8) where should we have th-the things in the room. Netal what do you think? It’s going to be your (.4) stereo that’s stolen W h )

b. (Fatma): (umhmm) c. Teacher 2: how should-how should we fix this room.

I think it’s (.6) we need to do something umm (.8) who can help me. Masa will you helpme move some things?(.4)howshould we set everything up. (.8)

Page 14: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

606 Language Learning VoE. 42, No. 4

d. Masa: uh (no idea) e. Teacher 2: no idea? ((laughs)) NOBODYhas an idea,

all right. I think that um (3) if the man films it here, (.4) then people can come in the door (.4) and that would be good. So let’s move this screen over and all these other things, ok? and we’ll move the table here (2) ok? all right so (.4) can you-can you come and help me (.4) yeah Zhang thanks. Anybody who wants to help let’s (.4) move things around,

a. Teacher 2: (OK) Very good! ((laughs and claps)) heh 11. EvaluatiodClosing

heh ((Ss walk back to their desks))

b. Dalal: I’m sorry I’m- c. Teacher 2: That’s ok. That was a good ending, Netal

d. N 8z F: ((laughing)) e. Teacher 2: Ha. it was very good. ((to CAM)) (Ok) can

f. Cam: Ye&

and Fatma. The security was not good.

we see it now?

g. Teacher 2: Great. Thank you. There’s (.4) I hope - You were much better about being loud too. Everybody was good. Masa that was great!

In these sequences, the repeated use of first person plural in the openings and second person in the closings constitutes a linguistic means of encoding cultural information about task. That is, the we in Examples 8 and 10 seems to announce that novice and expert will accomplish the task together. Similarly, its absence in the evaluation indicates that the novice is viewed as having accomplished the task alone. In other words, the shift of perspective represented in the person markers of these sequences can be interpreted as an implicit display of beliefs and norms regarding task accomplishment.

Page 15: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 607

AVOIDING THE OVERT DISPLAY OF ASYMMETRY

A final dimension ofWMCA asymmetrical relationships to be discussed here is the tendency for caregivers and experts to suppress the display of power differences (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984). This tendency is represented in a number of ways in the opening sequences of the present data. That this would be the case is not surprising, given that activity openings represent a context in which asymmetry is largely unavoidable-that is, the teacher must tell the students what to do. In Brown and Levinson’s (1987) terms, the directives of the openings repre- sent various negative face-threatening acts, or threats to the students’ desire not to be imposed upon. The extensive repre- sentation of first person plural markers referred to above constitutes one means of reducing the force of such directives. By including the teacher among those referred participants who will engage in the activity, these forms serve to mitigate the face violation represented by demands to participate. The paradox of the first person plural marker in contexts such as this, however, is that it simultaneously indexes asymmetry while lessening the force of its overt display (Poole, 1990).

The tendency to avoid the overt display of asymmetry is further represented in the opening sequences through stress signals such as pauses, false starts and filler words. In contrast, the closing evaluation sequences (Examples 9 & 111, in which the teacher voices approval, are marked by an emphatic intona- tion and fluidity. The absence of stress markers in the closings suggests an ease of praise-giving in these asymmetrical rela- tionships, whereas -their presence in the openings indicates that a particular difficulty lies in giving directives.

The cultural orientation toward the display of asymmetry finds its most salient expression in sequences in which the teachers solicit student opinions regarding how to proceed with the activity a t hand. In Example 10 above, for instance, the teacher repeatedly asks for student input with respect to

Page 16: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

608 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

arranging the room in preparation for the video filming. (The relevant segments are repeated below.)

10a. Where should we put the thingsin the room. Netal what do you think?

1Oc. How should-how should we fix this room. How should we set everything up.

In Example lOe, however, she verbalizes her own preconception of how the room should be organized.

10e. NOBODY has an idea, all right, I&h& that um (.8) if the man films it here, (.4) then people can come in the door (.4) and that would be good.

In Example 12 below, a similar phenomenon occurs: 12. Opening [Journal Writing1

a. Teacher 1: So how are you? you look so SERIOUS. Everybody looks REALLY serious. (3.8) (Are you happy?)

b. S: No c. Teacher 1: you’re not (.8) happy. (1.8) Wanna talk

about it? ((laugh)) (6.4) I know what you can do. You can write about it. ((laughs)) Let’s- uh - let’s do our journals. (4.2) What would be a goo:d thing to write about in your journals today? (1.6) Some- body have a good idea? (2.8) you feel like writing about? (10.4) You feel like complaining? (1.4) Do you know what it means to complain?

d.

e.

In Example 12c the teacher asks if students “wanna talk about it” and in Example 12d solicits topic suggestions for the journal writing activity. As in Example 10, however, when these requests for student input are viewed within the surrounding linguistic context, it becomes clear that the teacher’s agenda lies very close at hand. The teacher first states her plan in Example 12c (‘‘I know what you can do. You can write about it.”). Then, following the questions in Example 12d, which ostensibly serve to solicit student input, she again reveals her agenda to have the students “complain”.

Page 17: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 609

The sequences in Examples 10 and 12 indicate that these teachers have agendas but avoid implementing them in a direct manner, so that the overt asymmetry between teacher and student is reduced. In other words, the cultural preference for suppressing power differentials is interactionally encoded in these activity openings, in which students are invited to offer their opinions and influence the course of subsequent class activity.

Such an opinion may, however, conflict with the teacher’s unexpressed agenda, as in Example 13 below. The opening of this activity(Examp1e 10) was replete with requests for student suggestions. Here, however, when an opinion is actually offered, it is assessed as being “too complicated” and ultimately rejected as a class option.

13. (Context: students areperforminga skitabout arobbery. Zhang, who is to play the robber, is supposed to steal someone’s purse from her apartment. He suggests stealing a stereo instead.) Teacher 2: . . . and maybe when you come in the door you

can look around to see if anybody is watching you.

maybe lil-lid stereo Zhang: [stereo

Fatma: ((laughing)) (hhh) stereo! Teacher 2: Let’s make it a purse= Zhang: [oh Teacher 2: =because I think it’s too complicated. We

don’t have a stereo:. So we’re going to make it a =

Zhang: [yeah Teacher 2: = purse.= Zhang: ,lpu:rrl 1pu:rl Teacher 2: =ok? Just what it is.

In sum, although the teachers in these events exercise a good deal of control, they do so in a manner consistent with WMCA norms, employing a variety of interactional strategies to avoid asserting it directly,

Page 18: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

61 0 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION

This discussion has demonstrated that some of the social messages interactionally conveyed in these classrooms are consistent with those of other WMCA asymmetrical contexts. In other words, culturalinformation is constituted here through the implicit meanings encoded in teacherhtudent interactional sequences. The analysis suggests that second language con- texts include cultural dimensions that powerfully and neces- sarily affect both the teaching and learning processes. Further- more, these cultural aspects of setting and interaction do not represent peripheral details but are the primary vehicles through which message content is conveyed.

The application of language socialization theory to the ESL classroom points to a complex relationship between lan- guage and culture across the many variable contexts in which second languages are taught. This is particularly the case for foreign language settings, in which interactional norms may more closely resemble those of a local population than those of native speakers of the target language. Such complex issues are beyond the scope of the present paper;g however, the data indicate the importance of acknowledging an interactional cultural milieu through which language teaching is accom- plished.

The issues raised by a language socialization approach also call for cross-cultural research that would investigate the kinds of meanings conveyed through classroom discourse pat- terns in settings beyond the middle-class American context. In one similarly motivated study, for example, Chick (1988) ana- lyzes interactional sequences characteristic of Zulu classrooms in South Africa. Chick argues that the teacher-initiated cho- rusing typical in these settings constitutes a culturally moti- vated sequence that allows student participants to save face in a manner consistent with Zulu societal norms. The interac- tional features identified in Chick's study contrast with the classrooms analyzed here, in which chorusing would represent

Page 19: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 61 1

an alien form of interaction (to the teachers, if not to the students), and point to the kinds of variability that might be investigated in cross-cultural comparisons of classroom inter- action.

CULTURAL CONSTRAINTS IN TEACHER-TALK

In addition to demonstrating that the role of cultural factors in second language classroom interaction is more perva- sive than is generally acknowledged, a related motivation of this study is to increase understanding of the teacher role as culturally constrained and motivated. To this end, the focus of discussion has been the relationship between cultural predis- positions toward asymmetrical relations and the everyday scripts of many ESL classrooms. In the classes examined here, the language choices signify cultural meanings consistent with other novice-expert settings in white middle class American society. In other words, the language of these classrooms can be understood as largely societal in origin, and teacher scripts as representing, in Bakhtin’s (1981) terms, the voice of a social role.

The language socialization perspective requires that teacher language be considered in terms of cultural motivations and constraints, and has ramifications for the sometimes pejo- rative scholarly conceptualizations of everyday classroom lan- guage. From this perspective, changes in the discourse pat- terns of the classroom potentially represent changes in deeply rooted cultural practices. Scollon and Scollon (19811, for ex- ample, argue that

the discourse system is closely tied to an individual’s concept of identity. Any change in the discourse system is likely to be felt as a change in personality and culture. . . . If we suggest change we have to be very aware that we are not only suggesting change in discourse patterns. We are suggesting change in a person’s identity. (P. 55)

In other words, changing the script of teaching is likely to be

Page 20: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

612 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

concomitant with change in an individual’s self-perception, both as teacher and cultural member. The conceptualization of classroom language as cultural symbol explains in part why teacher behavior has historically seemed so difficult to change (Sarasen, 1971; Long, 1981; Long & Sato, 1983; Cazden 1988; Tharp & Gallimore, 19881, as teachers in this view fulfill a culturally prescribed role. And whereas it is important that such a perspective not be deterministically interpreted (see note 21, the language socialization view does point to the need for a broader conceptualization of phenomena affecting the varieties of teacher-talk that characterize classroom language in many L2 contexts.

NOTES

‘In adopting such a theoretical frame, I am also arguing for the relevance of an ethnographic perspective to second language related disciplines, a perspective that remains largely underrepresentedin current L2 literatures (although see, e.g., Chick, 1988; Sato, 1982; and Van Lier, 1988). T h e definition of socialization assumed here (and in the Ochs & Schieffelin framework) is taken from Wentworth’s (1980) historical analysis of socializa- tion theory. Wentworth argues that the inadequaciesof traditional approaches to socialization arise from the assumption that sociali zation necessarily implies internalization. In his view, the difficulty with this perspective is that novices donot internalize culture equallyorin the same way. Wentworth proposes that the concepts of socialization andinternalizationbeseparuted, and socialization viewed as “an actual interactional display of the sociocultural environment” (p. 68). It is this definition of socialization as interaction that I assume in this study. In other words, the issue here is not the extent to which learners internalize cultural norms and values, but the constitution of those norms and values as displayed through classroom interaction.

Such a view precludes a deterministic relationship between language and culture, because novices act as agents who internalize the display to varying extents. Moreover, the interactional characteristic of socialization allows that novices can influence the process. In these ways, as well as the focus on discourse rather than grammatical features, the language socialization view is distinct from a more Whorfian approach (see esp. Schieffelin & Ochs 1986afor discussion of this issue). 3The notion that interaction creates (as well as encodes) cultural meaning is critical to this view. That is, not only does novice-expert interaction symboli- cally represent cultural beliefs and implicit ideologies, but through such interaction those beliefs come into being, are recreated, and altered.

Page 21: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 613

*&hs relates clarification sequences to other cultural ideologies as well. For example, the importance of b t e n b in the assignment of meaning in WMCA society is seen as reflected in the expansion or expressed guess. That is, when caregivers expand the unclear utterances of children and novices, they assign an intent to what the child says. (See Ochs 1984,1988 for full discussion.)

With respect to the kinds of comparisons being made here, Ochs and Schieffelin note that cultural discourse practices vary principally with respect to the distribution and frequency. In other words, sequences which typirjl one societymayoccurrelativelyrarelyin another, or may occurin different settings. It is not generally the case, however, that a sequence type which pervades interaction in one society will never occur in another. Rather, the frequency of that form or the contexts of occurrence will differ. 5Classroom-based ethnographic research has come under some criticism from educational quarters for being too ready to point out educational failings (see, e.g., Cazden, 1983) without being willing to adopt an insider‘s, or emic, perspective. In choosing lessons that appear successful in terms of student affect and task completion, the present study hopes to focus on the routine constitution of such lessons without falling into the trap of facile criticism. This view of caregiver registers also derives from the language acquisition studies of Ochs (1982) in Western Samoa and Schieffelin (1990) in Papua New Guinea. In these societies caregivers do not engage in baby talk or simplified speech with their charges. This phenomenon is reflective of the fact that pre- verbal children are in most instances not treated as conversational partners. These contexts are similar to the black working class community of Trackton (Heath 1982,1983), in which Heath reports adults and older siblings surround infants in a rich verbal environment, talking about, but rarely to, the child. 7All student names used in this report are pseudonyms. 8Alikely cause of this difference lies in the fact that the data in the subsequent discussion are primarily taken from the opening and closing sequences of the two classes, where the accommodation data derives from portions of the lessons actually being carried out. 9See Baelens Beardsmore (1982) and Agar (1991) for discussions of the relation- ship between second language and second culture learning.

REFERENCES Agar, M. (1991). The biculture in bilingual. Language in Society, 20,167-181. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, Texas:

Baelens Beardsmore, H. (1982). Bilingualism: Basic principles. Clevedon,

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals of language

University of Texas Press.

Avon: Tieto.

usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 22: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

61 4 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

Bruner, J. S. (1975).Theontogenesisof speechacts. Journal ofchi ldhnguage, 2,l-19.

Cazden, C. B. (1983). Can ethnographic research go beyond the status quo? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 14,3341.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, New Jersey: Heinemann.

Chick, J. K. (1988, March). Contribution of ethnography to applied linguistics and to the in-service education of English language teachers. Paper pre- sented to the 22nd Annual TESOL convention, Chicago, Illinois.

Duranti, A, & Ochs, E. (1986). Literacy instruction in a Samoan village. In B. B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The acquisition of literacy: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 213-232). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York, New York: Metheun.

Griffin, P., & Humphrey, F. (1978). Talk and task. In R. Shuy & P. Griffin (Eds.), The study ofchildren's functional language and education in the early years. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics. (Final report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York)

Heath, S. B. (1982).Whatnobedtime storymeans: Narrative skillsathomeand school. Language in SocietyJ 1,49-77.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1985). The cross-cultural study of language acquisition. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 24,1-21.

Lemke, J . (1990). Talking science. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H.

Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Science (pp. 259-278). New York New York Academy of Science.

Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Formsand functions of teachers' questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-286). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Ochs, E.(1982).Talkingtochildrenin WesternSamoa.LanguageinSociety, 11,

Ochs, E. (1984). Clarification and culture. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), GURT '84: Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications ( p p . 325341). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Ochs, E. (1987). Indexicality and socialization. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California, Department of Linguistics, Los Angeles.

Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and

77-104.

Page 23: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

Poole 61 5

language socialization in a Samoan village. New York: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In R. A. Shweder & R.A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion (pp. 276- 320). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E., Schieffelin, B. B. & Platt, M. (1979). Propositions across utterances and speakers. In E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Deoelopmental pragmatics (pp. 251-268). New York: Academic Press.

Philips, S. U. (1982). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman.

Poole, D. (1990). Contextualizing IRE in an eighth-grade quiz review. Linguis- tics and Education, 2, 185-211.

Poole, D., & Patthey-Chavez. G. (1991, March). The effects of participant structure on teacher-student interaction. Paper presented at TESOL. New York.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50,69&735.

Sarasen, S. B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

Sato, C. (1982). Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL '81: Rest of the title (pp. 11-24). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). Thegive and take ofeveryday life: Language socializa- tion of Kaluli children. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986a). Language socialization.Annuu1 Review ofAnthropology, 15,163-191.

Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (198613). Language socialization across cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. B. K. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988).Rou..sing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. New York: Longman.

Wentworth, W. M. (1980). Context and understanding: An inquiry into social- ization theory. New York: Elsevier.

Page 24: Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom

616 Language Learning Vol. 42, No. 4

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

Overlapping utterances Contiguous utterances High rising intonation Low rising intonation Falling intonation Transcriber doubt Unintelligible utterance Extension of sound or syllable Timed pause (in tenths of a second) Untimed pause Contextual information Cut-off word Stressed speech Deleted word64 Increased volume

(cf. Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974)