LANGUAGE REGULATORY PRACTICES IN THE ESL CLASSROOM: AN ANALYSIS OF LESSONS IN SOME PUBLIC SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN GHANA

Rose Asantewaa Ansah, Charlotte Fofo Lomotey

Abstract


Language regulation is perceived as positive because it makes learners more aware of their errors and allows for learner-generated repairs. Despite this evidence, studies in language regulation place little emphasis on language regulation in the classroom. This study examined the practices of language regulation in the ESL classroom. Using purposive sampling, data consisted of classroom lesson recordings and interviews from 8 classrooms (360 students; 24 teachers) in senior high schools in the Koforidua township. The findings showed that second language speakers reject the notion of “anything goes” and take on language expert roles, resulting in explicit and implicit regulation of language. Based on the findings, it is argued that teachers should design a system that provides learners the opportunity to practice English in the form of negotiating for correctness and acceptability within and outside of the classroom.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


language regulation, explicit, implicit, accommodation, language expert

Full Text:

PDF

References


a) Journal articles

Adaba, H. W. (2017). Exploring the practice of teacher-student classroom interaction in EFL to develop the learners’ speaking skills in Tullu Sangota primary school grade eight students in focus. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 8(4), 1-18.

Albert, S., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2018). Repair: The interface between interaction and cognition. Topics in cognitive science, 10(2), 279-313.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. Second Language Writing, 37(2), 322-329.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of student writing. Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.

Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 59-93.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.

Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 33, 27-42.

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.

Lyster, R., & Ranta. L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66.

Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2003). Conversational repair as a role-defining mechanism in classroom interaction. Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 375-390.

Manju, G. (2015). Effectiveness of communication accommodation theory (CAT) in teaching of English as a second language in India. GNOSIS, 1(3), 224-234.

Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as a lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123-150.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.

Mortensen, J. (2018). Language regulation in collaborative student writing: A case study. Language and Education, 32(6), 529-547.

Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330-339.

Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511-548.

Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269-292.

Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(1), 361–83.

Suputra, D. P. R., Ramendra, D. P., & Swandana, I. W. (2020). The analysis of communication accommodation strategies used by students of English language education of Ganesha Univeristy of Education. Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Undiksha, 8(1), 5-12.

van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2014). Metacognitive skills and intellectual ability of young adolescents: A longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29, 117-137.

Xie, Q., & Yeung, C. (2016). An investigation of implicit verses explicit oral corrective feedback on Chinese pupils’ use of past tense. Language Education and Assessment, 1(2), 59-75.

Yi-Rung, T., & Wenli, T. (2015). Accommodation strategies applied by non-native English-mediated instruction (EMI) teachers. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 399-407.

Zar, D. M., Arkoh, E. A., & Appiah, J. M. (2019). The fidelity approach to the teaching of core English language in Bompeh Senior High School-A case study. The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies, 7(8), 230-241.

b) Thesis

Cogo, A. (2007). Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: A case study. PhD Thesis, King’s College London.

Kurhila, S. (2003). Co-constructing understanding in second language conversation. PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki.

c) Online documents

Martinot, C. (2015). La reformulation: de la construction du sens à la construction des apprentissages en langue etsur la langue. Corela, HS-18, placed online on 15th November, Accessed: 17th January 2022.

d) Books

Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (Eds.) (2008). Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barton, G. (2017). Using accommodation theory and semantic code theory to facilitate content comprehension and explore the teaching of register in English for specific academic purposes. London: UAL.

Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus‐driven investigation. New York: Continuum.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, S. Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Giles, H., & St. Clair, R. (1979). Language and social psychology: Language in society. Blackwell.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hynninen, N. (2016). Language regulation in English as a lingua franca: Focus on academic spoken discourse. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter

Kurhila, S. (2006). Second language interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education. A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.

Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

e) Book chapters

Bremer, K., & Simonot, M. (1996) Joint negotiation of understanding, procedures for managing problems of understanding. In K. Bremer, C. Roberts, M-T. Vasseur, M. Simonot & P. Broeder (Eds.), Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters (pp. 181–206). London: Routledge.

Brouwer, C. E., Rasmussen, G., & Wagner, J. (2004). Embedded corrections in second language talk. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 75-92). London: Continuum.

Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings (pp. 254-273). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communication accommodation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Giles H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication accommodation theory. In B. B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Expaining communication: Contemporary theories and examplars (pp. 293-310). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Elbaum.

Giles, H., & Powesland, P. (1997). Accommodation theory. In N. Coupland, & A. Jawarski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 232-239). New York: Macmillan.

Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In: G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86-100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kaur, J. (2009). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen & E. R. (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings (pp. 107-123). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Knapp, K. (2002). The fading out of the non-native speaker: Native speaker dominance in lingua-franca-situations. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp. 217-244). Berlin: Peter Lang.

Knapp-Potthoff, A., & Knapp. K. (1986). Interweaving two discourses: The difficult task of the non-professional interpreter. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp. 151-168). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Knobloch, L. K. (2008). Uncertainty reduction theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 133-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form, theory, research and practice. In. C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prasad, G. Building students’ language awareness and literacy engagement through the creation of collaborative multilingual identity texts 2.0. In C. Hélot, C. Frijns, K. Van Gorp & S. Sierens (Eds.), Language awareness in multilingual classrooms in Europe: From theory to practice (pp. 207-234). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v6i1.404

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.

Copyright © 2018-2023. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies (ISSN 2602 - 0254 / ISSN-L 2602 - 0254). All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.