Critical Language Pedagogy

Godley, Amanda; Reaser, Jeffrey

doi:10.3726/b13148

Cited by 57 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite these challenges, many linguists continue to engage with teachers in designing pedagogical materials, websites, courses, and readings that focus on variation and attitudes to language (e.g. Cheshire & Fox 2016; Giovanelli & Clayton 2016; Godley & Reaser 2018), as well as the innovative content of the post-sixteen ‘A-level’ English language qualification in the UK, which has sociolinguistics at its heart (e.g. AQA 2015).…”

Section: Discussion Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What such language touches on is the notion of register , namely that language varies according to the social context and situation in which it is used. ‘Appropriateness’ and ‘context’ were recurring themes used to justify policies, and although these are indeed more in line with the aims of descriptive linguistics as opposed to the prescriptive discourse of macro-level curriculum policy, they are still often used in meaningless ways in order to give the impression of policies that are sociolinguistically astute (see Godley & Reaser 2018:34 and Fairclough 2013:33–56 for a critical discussion on language ‘appropriateness’). What discourse such as this suggests, then, is that meso-level policy arbiters are unaware of the ‘situated creation of social meaning’ and the role that language plays in this, in how different social spaces can provide speakers with opportunities to draw on different linguistic repertoires in order to build inter-group relationships and identity profiles (Snell 2018b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Macro-level policies are one factor in a complex assemblage of mediating factors, from the typically limited level of teachers’ linguistic knowledge (e.g. Cajkler & Hislam 2002), a general lack of criticality within educational linguistics (see Godley & Reaser 2018), to other pressures faced by schools such as the ‘performativity agenda’ (Ball 2003). In this, schools operate within a competitive, marketised system of high-stakes regimes that include the cross-comparative judging of schools in terms of examination results.…”

Section: Discussion Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The policy and policing of language in schools

Cushing

2019

Lang. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates cases of language ‘policing’ as educational language policies, and the way that these are represented across different policy levels. Focusing on UK schools and using discursive approaches to language policy as a theoretical framework, I critically examine the motivations and justifications that institutions provide for designing and implementing policies whereby nonstandardised forms are ‘banned’, and how these are reported in metalinguistic discourse. Drawing on a range of data including media discourse, policy documents, teacher interviews and linguistic landscapes, I textually trace how educational language policies (re)produce prescriptive and linguicist ideologies, often using metaphors of crime, and often using language as a proxy for social factors such as academic achievement, employability, and standards. Overall, I argue that micro- and meso-level language policies are a partial product of the linguistic conservatism as found within current macro-level educational policy. (Language policy, language policing, schools, language ideologies)*

show abstract

Section: Discussion Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The policy and policing of language in schools

Cushing

2019

Lang. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This contrast suggests that additional factors outside the teachers’ control exert a pressure on teachers’ understandings of language. The literature points to factors such as standardized testing and traditional grammar curricular materials that rely on a narrow version of correct English (Godley and Reaser, 2018). The expectations of administrators, other teachers, and even parents are additional external sources of this dominant school narrative (Delpit, 2006; Myhill, et al , 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accommodating linguistic prejudice? Examining English teachers’ language ideologies

Metz

2019

ETPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to support the integration of scientifically grounded linguistic knowledge into language teaching in English Language Arts (ELA) classrooms through building an understanding of what teachers currently know and believe about language. Design/methodology/approach In total, 310 high school English teachers in the USA responded to a survey about their language beliefs. Statistical analysis of responses identified four distinct constructs within their belief systems. Sub-scales were created for each construct, and hierarchical regressions helped identify key characteristics that predicted beliefs along a continuum from traditional/hegemonic to linguistically informed/counter-hegemonic. Findings Key findings include the identification of four belief constructs: beliefs about how language reveals speaker characteristics, beliefs about how society perceives language use, beliefs about how language should be treated in schools and beliefs about the English teacher’s role in addressing language use. In general, teachers expressed counter-hegemonic beliefs for their own role and their view of speaker characteristics. They expressed hegemonic beliefs for societal perceptions and the dominant school language narrative. Taking a linguistics class was associated with counter-hegemonic beliefs, and teaching longer was associated with more hegemonic beliefs. Practical implications The findings of this study suggest that the longer teachers teach within a system that promotes hegemonic language practices, the more they will align their own beliefs with those practices, despite having learned linguistic facts that contradict pervasive societal beliefs about language. The Dominant School Language Narrative currently accommodates, rather that disrupting, linguistic prejudice. Originality/value A current understanding of teachers’ language ideologies is a key step in designing teacher professional development to help align teaching practices with established linguistic knowledge and to break down a socially constructed linguistic hierarchy based on subjective, and frequently prejudicial, beliefs.

show abstract

“…For many participants, the place of non-standard English had been marginalized as a result of macro-level policy, with few, if any, opportunities for engaging in work of a more critical, sociolinguistic nature, where issues such as perceptions towards language varieties might be explored (Godley and Reaser, 2018). Daisy’s turn in the previous section touched on some of these issues, in her idea that “the sentences on the tests […] are so false and just invented for those tests […] so fake and just so far away from how my pupils actually use language”.…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prescriptivism, linguicism and pedagogical coercion in primary school UK curriculum policy

Cushing

2019

ETPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper is a critical reflection on the linguistic conservatism as found within current curriculum policies and assessment regimes in the UK, arguing that they represents a form of linguicism which serves to entrench linguistic social injustices. This paper aims to trace the “trajectory” of policy across different levels, discourses and settings, with a particular focus on how linguicism is conceptualised, defended and resisted by teachers. The author draws connections between language ideologies within policy discourse, language tests and teacher interviews. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts a critical approach to examining educational language policies and assessments. It begins with the assumption that policies and tests are powerful political and ideological tools, which can steer teachers into making certain decisions in the classroom, some of which they may not believe in or agree with. Data are drawn from policy documents, test questions and teacher interviews, with a focus on how teachers talk about language and pedagogies in their classrooms. In total, 22 teachers were interviewed, with this data being transcribed and thematically indexed. Findings The findings reveal how linguicism is embedded within UK education policy, and how this comes to be replicated within teachers’ discourse and practice. There are three main findings: that teachers can come to operate under a form of “pedagogical coercion”, whereby language policies and tests have a powerful hold on their practice; that teachers see current policy as championing standard English at the expense of non-standardised varieties, and that teachers often see and talk about language as a proxy for other social factors such as education and employability. Research limitations/implications This study provides a critical perspective on language education policies in the UK, arguing for greater awareness about the nature and dangers of linguicism across all levels of policy. Data generated from classroom interaction would be a useful avenue for future work. Originality/value This paper offers an original, discursively critical examination of language education policy in the UK, with a particular focus on the current curriculum and using original data generated from teacher interviews and associated policy documents.

show abstract

Critical Language Pedagogy

Cited by 57 publications

References 0 publications

The policy and policing of language in schools

The policy and policing of language in schools

Accommodating linguistic prejudice? Examining English teachers’ language ideologies

Prescriptivism, linguicism and pedagogical coercion in primary school UK curriculum policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About