Cover not available
Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 384–415

Language alternation in the multilingual classroom

Communicative functions and multimodal gestalts

 | Leipzig University
 | University of Potsdam
The aim of this paper is twofold: First, we show that language alternation is an important resource for the accomplishment of actions allowing for participation in classroom activities, and that it can only be understood through careful sequential and multimodal analysis – as proven in IL studies. IL research is thus expanded to the multilingual classroom. The study is based on video-recordings of a classroom setting in which the students make use of Arabic – not the language of instruction, which is German. In addition to the communicative functions of actions realized through language alternation, our study shows the teacher’s strategies of how to deal with the students’ use of Arabic. These observations on “orderly” going-ons are intended to encourage teachers to allow for multiple language use in the classroom.
Keywords: classroom interaction, interactional linguistics, multimodality, language and content integrated learning, language alternation, code-switching, translanguaging, participation, German, Arabic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Code-switching, translanguaging, language alternation
  • 3.Methodological background and data
    • 3.1Applied conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, multimodality research
    • 3.2Data
    • 3.3Methodological procedure
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Negotiating understanding oriented to learning
      • 4.1.1Negotiating understanding in order to accomplish the task
      • 4.1.2Negotiating understanding of terminology
    • 4.2Doing self-talk
    • 4.3Designing talk as “private” conversation
      • 4.3.1Designing “private” conversation oriented to classroom interaction
      • 4.3.2Designed as private conversation oriented to joking
  • 5.Considerations for pedagogy
    • 5.1On the relevance of IL work on language alternation for pedagogy
    • 5.2A teacher’s communicative strategies to deal with students’ language alternation
  • 6.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 26 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.36.14kup
References (42)
References
Albrecht, Rita, and Hans-Jörg Wiesner. 2011. Umschriften in Bibliotheken. Anwendung, Verfahren, Tabellen. Berlin: Beuth.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2011. “Code-switching/mixing.” In The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. by Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone, and Paul Kerswill, 460–478. Los Angeles: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “‘Translanguaging’ or ‘doing languages’? Multilingual practices and the notion of ‘codes‘.” In Multilingual Perspectives on Translanguaging, ed. by Jeff MacSwann, 126–152. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bien-Miller, Lena, Anja Wildemann, Melina Andronie, and Sebastian Krzyzek. 2019. “Handlungsrelevante Überzeugungen zu Mehrsprachigkeit und deren Bedeutung für die Professionalisierung von Lehrkräften.” In Mit Sprache Grenzen überwinden. Sprachenlernen und Wertebildung im Kontext von Flucht und Migration, ed. by Sabine Schmölzer-Eibinger, Muhammed Akbulut, Bora Bushati, 143–162. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2010. “Zur Einführung: ‘Verstehen in professionellen Handlungsfeldern’ als Gegenstand einer ethnographischen Konversationsanalyse.” In Verstehen in professionellen Handlungsfeldern, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Ulrich Reitemeier, Reinhold Schmitt, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 7–26. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Dirim, İnci. 1998. ‚Var mı lan Marmelade?‘ Türkisch-deutscher Sprachkontakt in einer Grundschulklasse. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Egbert, Maria. 1997. “‘Schisming’: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 30, 1: 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipi, Anna, and Numa Markee (eds.). 2018a. Conversation Analysis and Language Alternation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. “Transitions in the Language Classroom as Important Sites for Language Alternation.” In Conversation Analysis and Language Alternation, ed. by Anna Filipi, and Numa Markee, 3–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018c. “From Research to Applications: Pedagogical Considerations in Language Alternation Practices.” In Conversation Analysis and Language Alternation, ed. by Anna Filipi, and Numa Markee, 205–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gafaranga, Joseph. 2018. “Overall Order Versus Local Order in Bilingual Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective on Language Alternation.” In Conversation Analysis and Language Alternation, ed. by Anna Filipi, and Numa Markee, 35–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Ophelia, and Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1978. “Response Cries.” Language 54, 4: 787–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea; and Emma Betz. 2008. “German ‘ach’ and ‘achso’ in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry.” In Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27: 7–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John, Jenny Cook-Gumperz, and Margaret H. Szymanski. 1999. Collaborative Practices in Bilingual Cooperative Learning Classrooms. CREDE Research report No.7, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John, and Jenny Cook-Gumperz. 2005. “Making space for bilingual communicative practice.” Intercultural Pragmatics 2, 1: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, Juliane Schopf, and Beate Weidner (eds.). 2021. Gesprochene Sprache in der kommunikativen Praxis – Analysen authentischer Alltagssprache und ihr Einsatz im DaF-Unterricht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Huth, Thorsten. 2020. Interaction, Language Use, and Second Language Teaching. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang, and Sandro M. Moraldo (eds.). 2015. Interaktionale Sprache und ihre Didaktisierung im DaF-Unterricht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Annika, Pia Nygård Larsson, and Anders Jakobsson. 2019. “Multilingual Students’ Use of Translanguaging in Science Classrooms.” International Journal of Science Education 41, 15: 2049–2069. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupetz, Maxi. 2018. “Gesprächsanalytische Unterrichtsforschung als Möglichkeit einer kasuistischen Lehrer*innenbildung im Bereich sprachsensibler Fachunterricht.” In Sprache im Unterricht – Ansätze, Konzepte und Methoden, ed. by Celestine Caruso, Judith Hofmann, Andreas Rohde, and Kim Schick, 49–67. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
. 2021. “Multimodalität und Adressatenorientierung im DaZ- und fachintegrierten Projektunterricht.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 22: 348–389.Google Scholar
Kupetz, Maxi, and Elena Becker. 2021. “Von Anfängen, Beendigungen und Übergängen: Das prosodische und kinetische Design von okay in Unterrichtsinteraktion.” In Prosodie und Multimodalität / Prosody and Multimodality. Empirische Beiträge der Interaktionalen Linguistik, ed. by Maxi Kupetz, and Friederike Kern, 175–205. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Kupetz, Maxi, Karen Glaser, and Hie-Jung You (eds.). 2019. “Embracing Social Interaction in the L2 Classroom: Perspectives for Language Teacher Education.” In Classroom Discourse 10, 1: 1–122 (Special issue). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyratzis, Amy, and Sarah Jean Johnson. 2017. “Multimodal and multilingual resources in children’s framing of situated learning activities: An introduction.” Linguistics and Education 41: 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene. 1993. “Collectivities inaction: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation”. Text 13, 2: 213–245.Google Scholar
Markee, Numa, and Silvia Kunitz. 2015. “CA-for-SLA Studies of Classroom Interaction: Quo Vadis?” In The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction, ed. by Numa Markee, 425–439. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, Hugh. 1979a. Learning Lessons. Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979b. “’What time is it, Denise?’: Asking Known Information Questions in Classroom Discourse.” Theory into practice 18, 4: 285–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2016. “Conventions for multimodal transcription,” last modified in July 2016. [URL]
. 2018. “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 1: 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montanari, Elke G., and Julie A. Panagiotopoulou. 2019. Mehrsprachigkeit und Bildung in Kitas und Schulen. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, Tom, and Natalia Evnitskaya. 2018. “Language Alternation in Peer Interaction in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).” In Conversation Analysis and Language Alternation, ed. by Anna Filipi, and Numa Markee, 61–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MPI-EVA. 2015. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “Leipzig Glossing Rules,” last modified May 31, 2015. [URL]
Salaberry, M. Rafael, and Silvia Kunitz (eds.). 2019. Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, Paul. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: a Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann. 2009. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402.Google Scholar
Sert, Olcay. 2015. Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron. 2011. “Embodied Interaction in the Material World: An Introduction.” In Embodied Interaction: Language and the Body in the Material World, ed. by Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin and Curtis LeBaron, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiese, Heike, Rosemary Tracy, and Anke Sennema. 2020. Deutschpflicht auf dem Schulhof? Warum wir Mehrsprachigkeit brauchen. Berlin: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar