Sociolinguistics and Language Education.pdf

100 Part 2: Language and Society
and school experiences), tended to see the ELs as linguistically and
cognitively defi cient. In this way, the social and educational context often
positions English learners in particular ways, frequently as defi cient
learners.
Duff’s (2002) study is helpful in examining the manner in which peer
dynamics is infl uential in matters of identity. Duff’s study focuses on language
use and socialization in a Canadian Social Studies class composed of
Canadian students of various ethnic backgrounds and immigrant English as
a Second Language speakers, many of whom were Mandarin and Cantonese
speakers. Class discussions were quite common, as were topics dealing with
Chinese culture. In examining several class discussion excerpts, Duff found
that the contributions of ELs tended to be ‘short, muted, tentative, and
inaccessible to others. As a result, they forfeited – or resisted – opportunities
to convey aspects of themselves, their knowledge, interests, and opinions
to others, or to make the personal connections for others’ (Duff, 2002: 305).
When asked in an interview context about their participation, nonlocal students
said that they were afraid of being laughed at or criticized by their
peers for their comments. This presented them with a signifi cant dilemma.
Silence protected them from humiliation. However, interactional
withdrawal attracted disdain from local students (who confi rmed
this), for whom silence represented a lack of initiative, agency, or
desire to improve one’s English or to offer interesting material for the
sake of the class. The NNES students were therefore caught between
what appeared to be two unfavorable options: silence or mockery and
hostility. (Duff, 2002: 312)
Gee (2004) argues that teaching and learning English language and literacy
is not just about teaching and learning English but also about teaching
and learning specifi c social languages. He maintains that what students
need to get right is not just the language but what he calls Discourse,
that is, ‘multiple ways of acting-interacting-speaking-writing-listening-
reading-thinking-believing-valuing-feeling with others at the “right”
times and in the “right” places so as to be recognized as enacting an
“appropriate socially-situated identity”’ (Gee, 2004: 25). Although there is
little doubt that the nonlocal students referred to in Duff’s (2002) study
needed to adopt the ‘right’ way of acting in order to be accepted members
of the social studies class, the question is whether or not the nonlocal students
had the desire or language ability to do this. As Duff (2002) points
out, what is clearly needed is more investigation of
the extent to which students actually want to display their identities and
personal knowledge in class or to conform to the dominant, normative
local sociolinguistic behaviors – that is, whether they consider those
behaviors and disclosures as signs of competence or incompetence, of