Search results

While bilinguals frequently mix languages in everyday conversation, these hybrid language practices have often been viewed from a deficit perspective, particularly in classroom contexts. However, an emerging literature documents the complexity of hybrid language practices and their usefulness as an academic and social resource for bilingual students. This chapter examines hybrid language practices among English- and Spanish-speaking high school students in an astronomy/oceanography classroom in southern Arizona. Microethnography, or fine-grained analysis of video recordings from long-term ethnographic observation, is used to reveal what bilingual students accomplished with hybrid language practices in the classroom and to outline implications for teachers who want to engage their students’ hybrid repertoires. Specifically, the analyses reveal that careful attention to hybrid language practices can provide teachers with insights into students’ academic learning across linguistic codes, their use of language mixing for particular functions, and their beliefs about language and identity. The research is necessarily limited in scope because such in-depth analysis can only be done with a very small amount of data. Nevertheless, the findings affirm that hybrid language practices can enrich classroom discourse, academic learning, and social interaction for emergent bilinguals. The chapter highlights a teacher’s story in order to offer practical guidance to other teachers who seek to capitalize on the promise of hybrid language practices in their own classrooms.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a novel conception of embodied entrepreneurial identity. Prior studies conceptualise identity primarily in terms of narrative or discourse. Critiquing the limited focus on linguistic practices, the authors build on the literature by highlighting the role of the non-linguistic. The implications for researching one particular group – entrepreneurs with impairments – are considered.

Entrepreneurial identity is conceptualised as a unique constellation of concerns emergent from the embodied practices of agents committed to new venture creation and management. This new conception draws principally on the embodiment literature, Archer's identity framework and Goffman's ideas on the presentation of self, impression management and stigma.

The entrepreneurial identity literature is underpinned by a number of problematic assumptions that limit understanding of the meaning, formation and influence of identity on action. The body is often an absent presence; it is presupposed, implicit or under-theorised as an influence on identity, producing a disembodied notion of the entrepreneur. Consequently, entrepreneurs are treated as an homogeneous group in terms of the embodied properties and powers, rather than as uniquely embodied individuals. Studies typically assume an able-bodied, as opposed to a differently abled, agent. Entrepreneurs with impairments are largely invisible in the literature as a result.

The approach highlights the role of the body and embodied non-linguistic practices, such as movement, posture, gestures and facial expressions in the formation of identity. Recognising entrepreneurs as differently abled agents, possessing particular embodied properties and powers, is crucial for understanding identity and action.

The purpose of the paper is to explore how professional educators in early childhood education cope with diverse linguistic environments in their daily work. The article addresses this issue by focusing on practices of language use in Luxembourgian nurseries.

The paper is reflecting on empirical data of an ethnographic research project currently conducted in six different day care facilities for children from three months to four years old. The study uses participant observation and videography as data collection strategies. Data analysis was based on field notes and protocols, video recordings, photographs, documents, and artifacts.

On the basis of the ethnographic observations, two different practical regimes of “doing linguistic diversity” are discriminated: an area of “practicing super‐diversity” and an area of “practicing difference”. In the context of the second regime it becomes visible that the use of Luxemburgish as lingua franca for the communication between educators and children produces unequal distributed opportunities for foreign children when participating linguistically in the everyday life of daycare facilities.

The paper raises serious questions about the language policies in the Luxembourgian daycare sector as well as in respect to the supposed inclusion effects of early childhood education and care, effects that both politicians and professionals emphasize regularly. This especially concerns the conceptualization of “the child” which is in use while professionals treat children as foreign language speakers.

This study examines how writing teachers manage linguistic ideological dilemmas (LIDs) around grammar instruction and highlights productive strategies employed by one teacher in an instructional unit on poetry. We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine elementary and middle-school teachers to better understand how they conceptualized and enacted writing pedagogies in urban classrooms. Then, we documented the teaching practices of one teacher during a 9-week case study. We describe three LIDs expressed by the teachers we interviewed: (1) a perception of greater linguistic flexibility in speech than in writing; (2) a sense that attention to grammar in feedback can enhance and/or inhibit written communication; and (3) apprehension about whether grammar instruction empowers or marginalizes linguistically minoritized students. We also highlight three productive strategies for teaching grammar while valuing linguistic diversity employed by one teacher: (1) selecting mentor texts that showcase a range of grammars; (2) modeling code-meshing practices; and (3) privileging alternative grammars while grading written work. We describe how teachers might take up pedagogical practices that support linguistic diversity, such as evaluating written assignments in more flexible ways, engaging in contrastive analysis, and teaching students to resist and rewrite existing language rules.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the post‐colonial literature by addressing the phenomenon of language spread in relation to the spread of languages other than Polish within the Polish society since the end of the eighteenth century until the present.

The subject discussed here is approached from an historical perspective, through reference to literature and secondary data regarding the policies, practices and examples of language spread and linguistic imperialism in Poland throughout the history.

Through a comparative analysis across different periods in history, discussion of the Polish experience of language spread offers insights into its mechanisms and consequences for the society. It also shows how, since the collapse of socialism, Poland's socio‐economic transition has been accompanied by an increasing importance of the English language in the country, and how at present, the knowledge of English and access to it influences and is influenced by the existing social structures.

An awareness of the processes of language spread and of responses to them can help us better understand the historical mechanisms of transition from one set of social relations to another, and contribute to the understanding of post‐socialist change.

By applying the notions of language spread and linguistic imperialism to a geographical context different from that of the former British Empire, and by including, in addition to English, the historical spread of two other languages, namely German and Russian, within the Polish society, this paper contributes to the body of post‐colonial literature.

Three distinctive domains of inquiry in comparative and international education (CIE) point to epistemic fault lines that simultaneously enable and disable the possibilities for social transformation in the cultural ecologies that demarcate, but also entangle, the so-called Global South and the North. Historically, these domains of inquiry – language/multilingualism, education, and development – engage arenas in which ideas about wellbeing, social arrangements, and the politics of knowledge (and of power) are constantly constructed, contested, and renegotiated. This analysis pinpoints some of the discursive technologies, which guarantee that active scholarly innovations and differentiation proceed in ways that ultimately leave intact the territorialized regionalizations of development differences. It reflects on ongoing fieldwork from the South to highlight three spheres of social control, and struggle, illustrative of the coloniality of difference and the expanding institutionalization of learning (as schooling) in an era of global interventionism. These loci – the sources of knowledge traditions, the sites of its enactment, and the power of knowledge transactions – represent overlapping activation points through which education interventions both stimulate and stultify social transformations. Specifically, the sources, sites, and power of knowledge offer empirical and discursive tools for historiographic reconsideration of the role of linguistic diversity and education in social change processes, and, crucially, for shifting critical focus from merely the occidentality of contemporary education traditions to the universalism of its social imaginaries. In this critical reading of new understandings of language(s) as invention, therefore, lies analytic opportunities for rethinking epistemic dilemmas in linking education and “development” in CIE scholarship.

In consideration of the needs of the growing numbers of Spanish-speaking emergent bilingual students in U.S. classrooms who are learning English as a new language, this study explores the teachers’ understanding of instructional practice using a specific pedagogical framework designed for emergent bilingual classroom contexts called Preview/View/Review (P/V/R). A constructivist and a translanguaging lens informed the theoretical framework for this study. One set of qualitative data from interviews was collected from a random sample of teachers who participated in a Master’s program in bilingual education in a border university in South Texas. Interview questions focused on the teachers’ reflections on the planning for and the implementation of the pedagogical structure P/V/R in their dual language contexts. Three findings arose from the data: (a) participants demonstrated an understanding of planning for and implementation of the P/V/R structure as a scaffold to build background knowledge of new concepts in the different disciplines; (b) the P/V/R structure has the potential to facilitate cross-linguistic transfer and the potential to be implemented as a form of translanguaging pedagogy; and (c) the implementation of a well-planned P/V/R structure enhances students’ engagement with the learning in two languages. One identifiable limitation of the study is the small size of the sample. In addition, classroom observations of the implementation of the structure are needed to mitigate the possible over-reporting of P/V/R as a good practice on the part of the teachers. Insights from this study inform teacher educators in teacher preparation programs who are preparing teachers for working with emergent bilingual learners and the professional development of all teachers, including those who teach in bilingual school contexts.

In this chapter, I offer a critique of linguistic field methodology, exploring the contribution that a participant-driven approach to data collection can make to language documentation and description. Bringing together material from linguistic field manuals, project documentation, hand-written field notes, and reflexive accounts of my field experiences, I trace my journey into the field, and through the process of collecting language data for the eventual production of a grammatical description. I establish that the basic field methodology advocated by linguists has traditionally involved tightly structured interviewing (known as “elicitation”). At the same time, I point to a literature in which this methodology is critiqued. While experienced fieldworkers no doubt employ multiple methodologies in the field, novice fieldworkers are encouraged to focus on their research goals. This can mean that elicitation sessions typically become the only way in which fieldwork is carried out.Drawing on my own experiences in the field, I demonstrate that linguistic fieldwork can combine ethnographic participation/observation methodology with community-driven text collection, and context-rich techniques of elicitation. This layered methodology prioritises people and social participation over the goals of academic research. It allows the research record to be shaped by the community, thus permitting the researcher to experience and seek understandings of the symbolic system of language from the perspective of the community. In my experience, such a methodology enhances the sustainability of the field project from both community and researcher perspectives. Crucially, it creates a context in which it is more likely that the linguist will be invited to return to the field and contribute in an ongoing way to a community, on their terms.

In this chapter, we analyze and reflect on how our cultural identities and educational experiences as international students who pursued a doctoral degree in the United States affected and influenced our teaching philosophy and praxis as professors and educators. In this sense, we examine how our cultural identities and experiences help us define and shape our teaching praxis in the contexts in which we teach. We both are professors of color – Latino and Latino-Japanese – who graduated from doctoral programs in the United States. Currently, we work and serve culturally and linguistically diverse students, including first-generation students, in public higher education settings in Chile and the United States. We used a collection of narratives to delve into the significance of these events in our praxis. As theoretical lenses, we analyze these narratives using cultural identity and the reflecting teacher to examine our practices and identities as educators. We both conclude that our reflections, experiences, and cultural identities have been instrumental in the process of developing a professional identity that guides our teaching praxis in ways that are critical and social justice oriented.

In this paper, I compare Theodore Schatzki’s practice theory, the existential phenomenology of Martin Heidegger upon whom Schatzki drew in its formation, and my own theory of institutional logics which I have sought to develop as a religious sociology of institution. I examine how Schatzki and I both differently locate our thinking at the level of practice. In this essay I also explore the possibility of appropriating Heidegger’s religious ontology of worldhood, which Schatzki rejects, in that project. My institutional logical position is an atheological religious one, poly-onto-teleological. Institutional logics are grounded in ultimate goods which are praiseworthy “objects” of striving and practice, signifieds to which elements of an institutional logic have a non-arbitrary relation, sources of and references for practical norms about how one should have, make, do or be that good, and a basis of knowing the world of practice as ordered around such goods. Institutional logics are constellations co-constituted by substances, not fields animated by values, interests or powers.

Because we are speaking against “values,” people are horrified at a philosophy that ostensibly dares to despise humanity’s best qualities. For what is more “logical” than that a thinking that denies values must necessarily pronounce everything valueless? Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism” (2008a, p. 249).