A Linguistic Ethnography of Laissez Faire Translanguaging in Two High School English Classes
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A LINGUISTIC ETHNOGRAPHY OF LAISSEZ FAIRE TRANSLANGUAGING IN TWO HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH CLASSES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATION DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN SECOND LANGUAGE STUDIES MAY 2020 By Anna Mendoza Dissertation Committee: Christina Higgins – Chairperson Betsy Gilliland Graham Crookes Sarah Allen Georganne Nordstrom ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Christina Higgins, Dr. Betsy Gilliland, Dr. Graham Crookes, Dr. Sarah Allen, and Dr. Georganne Nordstrom for having my back through this whole process and being so collegial with each other. A dissertation is already an immense challenge; you did not make it any more difficult. On the contrary, you made the dissertation fun to write and revise (in the sense that such a process can be) and of high quality. I would also like to thank the College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature for funding this research with the 2019 Doctoral Dissertation Research Award. It is not only the financial award but the knowledge that others find my study important that I find encouraging. I am grateful for the invitation to present a keynote lecture at the 2019 College of LLL Conference to share my research with the public. I am most thankful to the principal, teachers, and students at the school where I did my study, who for reasons of confidentiality cannot be named here. I am amazed at the teachers’ curricular and extracurricular dedication, the creative and critical projects they shared at conferences. I also thank my Ilokano translator, Mario Doropan, who made this study possible. Graduating is bittersweet given the members of the SLS ‘ohana who made it a pleasure to live here for four years: colleagues from Critical Pedagogy Group, SLSSA, Multi‘olelo, Saturday Writers’ Group, and fellow graduate student instructors such as the occupants of Moore 586. My thanks go to my friends Jayson Parba, Jiamin Ruan, Jiaxin Ruan, Huy Phung, Ha Nguyen, Yuhan Lin, Maiko Ikeda, and from afar, Sumin Fang. Also, I owe much professional growth to the trust of Kenny Harsch and Priscilla Faucette. Finally, I would like to thank my family—Gil, Elizabeth, and Miguel Mendoza; Donna, Dave, and Jana Olsen; Win and Roy McClure; and Kent Olsen—for their steadfast support. ii ABSTRACT This study investigated the multilingual practices in two high school English classrooms that can be described as “laissez faire translanguaging” since they emerge when teachers permit the use of languages other than English but do not explicitly teach students to harness these as learning resources. Under such conditions, it is necessary to investigate how students use languages other than English, which individuals benefit more from this classroom language policy and why, and what learning affordances and limitations can be found in the multilingual practices students perform in the absence of deliberate bi/multilingual pedagogy. Over a school year (2018-19), I used linguistic ethnography and interactional sociolinguistic analyses (Copland & Creese, 2015; Rampton, Maybin, & Roberts, 2015) to investigate the following questions in an English 9 and an ESL 9/10 class, where some recently- arrived students spoke non-English languages as their first languages and some who had mainly grown up in the U.S. had varying levels of proficiency in their heritage languages: 1. What kinds of multilingual language use can be heard in high school English classes where non-English languages are permitted but not part of official pedagogical practices? 2. How do students benefit from or experience challenges under a laissez faire language policy? For instance: 2a. How does being in the classroom linguistic majority or minority play a role? 2b. How does being a relative newcomer or a resident multilingual impact individual experiences? My purpose was to capture how this language policy in English classrooms interacted with students’ uptake and contextual factors, shaping opportunities to learn. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ii Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. iii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………iv List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………… vi List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………….. vii List of Excerpts……………………………………………………………………………… viii Transcription Conventions…………………………………………………………………….. x Chapter 1. Why Study (Laissez Faire) Translanguaging?………………………………… 1 1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 2 1.2 Why Study the Multilingual Practices of Under-Researched Students?……………. 8 1.3 The Research Context……………………………………………………………… 13 1.4 The Historical Context……………………………………………………………... 16 1.5 The Research Aims………………………………………………………………… 18 1.6 Researcher Positionality…………………………………………………………… 23 1.7 Outline of the Dissertation…………………………………………………………. 31 Chapter 2. Literature Review……………………………………………………………… 33 2.1 Types of Mixed Language Use in Classroom Interaction…………………………. 33 2.2 Translanguaging-to-Learn…………………………………………………………. 35 2.3 Ludic Translanguaging…………………………………………………………….. 40 2.4 Code-Switching to Organize Activity……………………………………………... 44 2.5 Multilingual Talk as Identity Negotiation…………………………………………. 53 2.5.1 Self- and Other-Stylization…………………………………………………53 2.5.2 Language Crossing………………………………………………………… 57 Chapter 3. Methodology……………………………………………………………………. 64 3.1 What is Linguistic Ethnography?…………………………………………………...64 3.2 Why use LE to Research Bi/Multilingual Classroom Talk?.……………………….68 3.3 Methods of Data Collection………………………………………………………... 74 3.4 Methods of Data Analysis…………………………………………………………..78 3.5 The English 9 Class………………………………………………………………... 82 3.5.1 The English 9 Curriculum…………………………………………………. 82 3.5.2 Juan’s Educational and Professional Background………………………… 84 3.5.3 English 9 Class Dynamics…………………………………….…………… 86 3.5.4 English 9 Focal Students…………………………………….…………….. 90 3.6 The ESL 9/10 Class………………………………………………………………... 93 3.6.1 The ESL 9/10 Curriculum…………………………………………………. 93 3.6.2 Kaori’s Educational and Professional Background………….…………….. 94 3.6.3 ESL 9/10 Class Dynamics………………………………….……………… 96 3.6.4 ESL 9/10 Focal Students………………………………….……………….. 98 3.7 Positionality in the Research Environment………………………………………..102 Chapter 4. Types of Mixed Language Use Observed in the Two Classes……………… 107 4.1 Translanguaging-to-Learn………………………………………………………... 107 4.2 Code-Switching in Classroom Learning Activities………………………………. 113 4.3 Ludic Translanguaging (Polylanguaging)………………………………………... 120 4.4 Self- and Other-Stylization……………………………………………………….. 126 iv 4.5 Language Crossing……………………………………………………………….. 131 4.6 Limits of Spontaneous Multilingual Practices (Laissez Faire Translanguaging)… 135 Chapter 5. Majority, Minority, Singletons: The Challenges of Ethnocentrism……….. 141 5.1 Ethnocentrism in Activities Reflecting the Cultural Mainstream…………………142 5.2 Ethnocentrism in Activities Inviting Students to Talk About Their Cultures……. 152 5.3 Ethnocentrism in Activities Intended to Foster New Cultural Awareness……….. 158 5.4 The Translanguaging of Classroom Minorities and Singletons…………………...164 5.5 Code-Switching, Code Choices, and Inclusion/Exclusion………………………...169 Chapter 6. Individual Students within Translanguaging Networks…………………….181 6.1 English 9 Students’ Individual Responses to the Language Questionnaire……….182 6.2 Literary Analysis: Translanguaging Kix, Reluctant Jhon…………………………185 6.3 Dramatic Performance: Translanguaging Jhon, Reluctant Kix…………………... 190 6.4 Translanguaging (Dis)(En)Abled by Available Models and Discourses………….194 6.5 ESL 9/10 Students’ Individual Responses to the Language Questionnaire……….198 6.6 Flow-G and the Loud Filipino Boys……………………………………………… 201 6.7 Juliana and the Girls Subtly Challenge the Class Hegemony……………………. 210 6.8 More Research on Translanguaging at the Individual Level?……………………. 215 Chapter 7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….. 220 7.1 The Research Gap This Study Has Addressed…………………………………… 220 7.2 Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………...224 7.3 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………………. 228 7.4 Study Limitations and Future Research Directions………………………………. 236 Appendix A: Language Background Questionnaire………………………………………... 241 Appendix B: Semi-Structured Student Interview Questions………………………………...242 Appendix C: Semi-Structured Teacher Interview Questions……………………………….. 243 Appendix D: Sample Data Handout…………………………………………………….244-245 References. ………………………………………………………………………………….. 246 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Thematic Analysis of Classroom Data…………………………………………... 78-79 Table 2 Sampling of Lessons in English 9………………………………………………...83-84 Table 3 Students in English 9…………………………………………………………….. 88-89 Table 4 Sampling of Lessons in ESL 9/10………………………………………………...93-94 Table 5 Students in ESL 9/10…………………………………………………………….. 97-98 Table 6 English 9 Students’ Responses to Language Questionnaire…………………... 182-183 Table 7 ESL 9/10 Students’ Responses to Language Questionnaire………………………...199 Table 8 Filipino vs English Talk……………………………………………………………. 201 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Locating Laissez Faire Translanguaging among Other Translingual Pedagogies…... 5 Figure 2 The Multilingual Mind as an All-Terrain Vehicle…………………………………... 9 Figure 3 Cartoon from the Honolulu Star Bulletin by Corky Trinidad (2005)……………… 25 Figure 4 Languages in the Philippines………………………………………………………. 29 Figure 5 Types of Mixed Language Use in Oral Classroom Interactions…………………… 34 Figure 6 Contextualization Cues as Described in Auer (1996)…………………………….... 67 Figure