Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424

Language ideologies in practice:

Repair and classroom discourse
Aria Razfar
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education,
University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60607, USA
Abstract
This article seeks to explore the practice of repair in classroom discourse from an ideological perspective
of language and literacy. Drawing on ethnographic eldwork conducted in an urban high school with a
predominant English Language Learner (ELL) population, this paper outlines the theoretical foundations
of repair from a conversation analysis (CA) perspective and through the analysis and discussion of the
ndings argues for the necessity of language ideological and ideological frameworks of language and literacy
especially as they relate to pedagogical practices in language instructional settings. After providing a global
view and structural typology of repair, this paper examines the complex contextual features that frame repair
practices and explores howlanguage ideologies, linguistic and cultural authority, communicative competence
and ideology, and student agency are contested and negotiated in the moment to moment interactions of
teachers and students engaged in learning English.
2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Classroom discourse; Repair; Language ideology; Conversation analysis; English Language Learners
1. Introduction
Scholars interested in language minority issues have long contended that decit and cul-
tural deprivation views of English Language Learners (henceforth, ELLs), have contributed to the
inequities experienced by language minority students (Flores, 1982, 1993; Menchaca &Valencia,
1990; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1973; Valencia, 1986, 1991a, 1991b). Researchers argue
that in order to change teacher practices, one must address the language ideologies that mediate
teacher practices (see Razfar, 2003). The ndings suggest that structuralist and discrete
1
ide-
E-mail address: arazfar@uic.edu.
1
Language instruction that emphasizes the formal features of language rather than the situated and contextualized
aspects.
0898-5898/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.linged.2006.04.001
A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424 405
ologies of literacy and learning mediate
2
highly reductive
3
literacy and learning experiences in
ELL contexts. These autonomous ideologies of literacy (Street, 1993) serve to abstract language,
its functions, practices, and purposes away from the cultures and contexts in which they are
situated. In these contexts, language is assumed to be universal and free from variation. Fur-
thermore, the hegemony of mainstream dominant relations to language assumes that students of
linguistic minority groups are to passively assimilate the language forms that are the target of
instruction. An ideological model of linguistic and discourse functions calls for a fundamental
reorientation of this perspective whereby linguistic form, context, and relations of power are
necessarily embedded within interaction frames. This article examines repair practices situated
within language instructional practices in an urban secondary school with a predominant bilingual,
Latina/o population. For multilingual populations engaged in complex code-switching practices
and other cultural, linguistic, and identity issues, the ideological model of literacy is well suited
for understanding the pedagogical practices, especially, the classroom interactions observed in
ELL settings. This article illustrates that the practice of repair can serve as an index of cultural
authority and power thus making it an ideological practice. By looking at repair ideologically
we can better understand how language ideologies are woven into various genres of human inter-
action especially classroom discourse in ELL contexts (e.g. Barton, 2000; Jaffe, 2003; Street,
2001).
In addition to Streets ideological model, this study draws upon the concept of ideologies and
language ideologies (Kroskrity, 2004). Gal (1992) says that ideologies are not only ideas, con-
structs, notions, or representations, they are practices through which those notions are enacted.
When human beings use language they are simultaneously displaying their beliefs about lan-
guage. Thus, ideologies of language are not abstracted from linguistic practices, and discourse
practices such as repair are simultaneous indexes of language ideologies. The eld of language
ideologies (LI) is a relatively new way of looking at how the language practices of individuals and
groups are interwoven with an individuals as well as the nation-states political and economic
interests (Gal, 1998; Gal & Irvine, 1995; Kroskrity, 2000a, 2000b, 2004; Woolard, 1998). This
study is premised on the assumption that literacy strategies contain beliefs, assumptions, and
language ideologies that inevitably affect teacher practice and student learning, and that literacy
practices informed by autonomous or non-critical approaches are neither neutral, nor neces-
sarily benign. Furthermore, all languages/discourses are not equally valued in urban schools;
that literacy practices and languages are inherently embedded within contentious histories of sta-
tus, legitimacy, authority, and power; these factors mediate the present interactions. One way of
examining these assertions is through analyzing repair practices in classroomdiscourse. Repair is
one of many discourse practices prevalent in language instructional classrooms that is inherently
framed by teacher-student, cultural, linguistic, and historical hierarchies. Because the practice
of repair is always predicated on situated notions of correctness and speakers presume a mini-
mal degree of linguistic right and authority to perform it; the act of correcting linguistic form or
usage is fundamentally ideological and a valuable arena for understanding language ideologies in
practice.
2
The term mediate comes from the sociocultural and CHAT approaches to learning and interaction (Cole, 1996;
Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). It is intended to emphasize the multidirectional, multifaceted, and complex connections
inherent in socially situated interactions. It is also used to emphasize the fact that the relationship between language
ideologies and classroom activities should not be understood in a linear, causal sense.
3
Reductive literacy practices reduce the learning of language to its formal and structural dimensions rather than
higher order meaning making.
406 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
2. Ethnographic context
This study takes place in an urban high school with a predominant Latina/o population (over
65%). Nearly one quarter of the entire student population were designated as LEP (Limited
English Procient). Placement into the ESL program is contingent upon two factors: (1) a place-
ment exam administered by the Bilingual coordinator, and (2) arrival time into the United States.
In other words, the ESL program is geared toward recently arriving immigrant students. The
bilingual coordinator also stated that part of the rationale for never placing native speakers of
English in ESL courses (even if they need those skills) is the stigmatization these students may
be subject to as ESL students. The ESL program at this high school consists of four levels
(Early Beginning, Advanced Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced). Most of the advanced stu-
dents are moved into a sheltered course which serves as a transition course for regular English
courses at this school. The sheltered course is also reserved for native English speakers who
have been either been formally classied as LEP or have been placed in the remedial English
track. Thus, the sheltered courses tend to have a combination of traditional, immigrant ESL
students as well as ENL (English as a Native Language) or 1.5 generation students (Portes &
Rumbaut, 2001). Clearly, the larger language policies have affected local practices and language
ideologies; teachers regularly stated that they have felt increasing pressure to mainstream recent
immigrants to the sheltered course in the post Proposition 227 era.
4
A practice that most are
conicted about since they assert that one or two years is just not enough to learn academic
English with several citing the work of Jim Cummins as evidence in addition to their every-
day experiences (see Cummins, 1984). One teacher considered Proposition 227 along with other
propositions recently passed like Proposition 209, which eliminated afrmative action, and Propo-
sition 187, which eliminated public services for illegal aliens, to be part of a larger anti-immigrant
and xenophobic phenomenon. She called Proposition 227 a racist policy from policymakers
who are out of touch with what is best for the students. In fact, this case-study emerged as
part of a larger ve year University of California/K-12 partnership aimed at reforming teacher
instructional and literacy practices as a response to these California laws that were seen as fur-
ther endangering equity and access for language minority and other historically marginalized
populations.
3. Overview of Repair
One of the most pervasive discursive practices that index language ideologies in this case study
is repair, which is the practice of either correcting ones own speech (self-repair) or the speech
of others (other repair). The term repair, as an analytical tool, originates from the work of Con-
versational Analysts (CA) (Sacks, 1984; Schegloff, 1979; Schegloff, 1992; Schegloff, Jefferson,
& Sacks, 1977). Levinson (1983, pp. 339341) denes repair as an alteration that is suggested
or made by a speaker, the addressee, or audience in order to correct or clarify a previous conver-
sational contribution. Historically, the practices of self-repair or other initiated repair have
largely been conceptualized and analyzed as neutral discourse practices used by speakers to main-
tain conversational equilibrium. Speakers initiate repair in order to sustain the conversational ow
4
Proposition 227 also known as English for the Children or Unz Initiative was voted into law in 1998 by California
voters to eliminate bilingual education throughout the state. While it directly affected bilingual programs in elementary
schools, it also signaled larger language ideological shifts throughout the state.
A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424 407
and to clarify misunderstandings (e.g. Drew, 1992; Zimmerman, 1992), hence, maintaining the
semiotic status quo. Within CA literature there has been substantial work on the face-threatening
dimensions of other repair as well as other pragmatic functions such as giving advice and
politeness practices. More recently, there has been a concerted effort to link CA with issues of
power, epistemic authority, identity, and ideology (e.g. Bamberg, 2000a, 2000b; Sidnell, 2005).
Bambergs work is an example of making the link between the analysis of linguistic forms as
espoused by CA and ideological and rhetorical functions such as satirizing, demeaning, blaming,
etc. By linking critical frameworks (i.e. CDA) and CA, researchers have turned their attention
to the analysis of repair practices that occur within participation frames where speakers do
not have equal access to the rights of initiating repair, especially other repair In addition, the
authority to repair is assumed to be contested terrain. Whether teachers, doctors, emergency dis-
patchers, judges, or native speakers for that matter (i.e. when non-native speakers are repaired
or initiate repair of others), these practices are necessarily enveloped within the socially con-
structed epistemic authorities and powers assumed by the speakers who initiate repairs of others.
Thus, the social asymmetry and issues of authority inscribed in the practice of repair makes it
fertile ground for analyzing language practices from an ideological (LI) perspective. This is par-
ticularly salient in instructional contexts, classroom discourse, and especially second language
instruction (Boulima, 1999; Cazden, 1988; Dillon, 1988; Kramarae, OBarr, & Schulz, 1984).
The asymmetric and restrictive nature of classroom talk as exemplied by IRE clearly indexes
the relative status of participants. IRE discourse patterns establish hierarchies of participation
and inequitable index of speech rights (Dillon, 1988). In addition, these patterns establish clear
epistemic boundaries whereby student agency to contribute to the construction of knowledge is
highly constrained. This phenomenon is more visible in second language contexts where restric-
tive scripts may lead to negative input (Boulima, 1999). Given the inherent asymmetry embedded
within all instructional interactions, one might assume that repair practices in instructional set-
tings should be understood as serving instructional rather than conversational purposes especially
in classrooms with second language learners where teachers commonly use repair as an instruc-
tional tool for modeling proper linguistic forms of the target language. While it can be argued
that the data in this study conrms many tenets of this assertion; a more critical interpretation of
the data reveals that not all instances of repair are strictly for instructional purposes. Teachers use
repair to regulate the rules of participation as well as disciplinary and ideological purposes. In
addition, students demonstrate their agency by initiating repair and sometimes resisting (but not
without discursive consequences) teacher-initiated questions and repair sequences. In fact, stu-
dents are able to invoke the linguistic authority to initiate repair sequences of the teacher albeit not
regularly.
The practice of repair, especially in the context of ELL classroom discourse, has rarely been
analyzed as an index of language ideologies rooted in the social and cultural interests of par-
ticipants. The evidence and analysis in this study suggest that the language practices of repair,
especially other repair, are not socially or discursively neutral. In the context of native speakers
and ELLs there is a clear asymmetry in who initiates repair and who gets repaired (i.e. teacher-
student). For the most part, this asymmetry is rooted in the genre of instructional interaction
which asymmetrically positions students and teachers vis a vis each other. While the param-
eters of instructional interaction make it distinct from more naturally occurring conversations
and we would normally expect students, especially ELL students to be more constrained, the
examples in this paper illustrate that ELL students are capable of invoking agency and partic-
ipating in contentious exchanges about linguistic form and the authority to make meaning and
correct usage.
408 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
4. Methodology
4.1. Data collection and participants
The principal methods used to gather data were participant observation, semi-structured inter-
views with the teachers, video recordings of classroom discourse practices, and student surveys.
5
This case study took place over a traditional school year in the classrooms of two experienced
high-school teachers. Ms. Arianas, the Advanced ESL instructor, has more than fteen years of
experience as an English teacher and Mr. Sanders has more than ve years of experience. The
two classes were considerably different with respect to the students length of residency in the
United States and they were relatively heterogeneous with respect to grade level. Nearly all of
the Advanced ESL students were recently arrived immigrants and the Sheltered class had some
recently arrived immigrants but mostly consisted of students who have been in the United States
most of their lives. Each class was observed and video-recorded for a semester (20 weeks). The
following data analysis comes from 34 video-recorded observations (15 Advanced ESL, 19 Shel-
tered English) with most of the classroom discourse being situated in traditional whole class
contexts (30) and four small group sessions where students engaged in Peer Editing activities
in the sheltered course. The unit of analysis for the purposes of this article was repair situated
within observable and recorded classroom interactions.
4.2. Coding
The initial coding of observable instances of repair draws on Levinsons (1983) denition.
Interpretation of the eld-notes and tape-log summaries were done by employing a process of
coding where eld-notes and tape-logs were read several times in order to understand repair
as it is situated in classroom discourse (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Erickson, 1986). The
data was read in the order in which it was collected and every instance of repair, as dened
previously, was marked. In addition, instances that were thematically relevant to repair, such as
proper pronunciation and how it is negotiated, were also coded and analyzed in order to better
understand how the authority of proper language use was locally constructed.
4.3. Coding scheme
The coding used in this paper, where the emphasis is on repair practices, is a branch of the
larger coding tree used for the entire study. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to exten-
sively describe the overall coding scheme, it is important to have a synopsis of how the coding of
repair practices ts within the larger analytic framework. With respect to howlanguage ideologies
mediate and are mediated by the social organization of learning, it was important to differenti-
ate between whole class and small group modes of instruction and interaction. Each of these
participant frameworks was analyzed with respect to discourse features such as IRE sequences
(prominent at the whole class level) and its various components, explicit articulations of the proper
rules of discourse participation, student interjections and unratied responses, and student chal-
lenges to teacher and student ideological stances. Given the cultural historical activity (CHAT)
5
For the purposes of this analysis, students were surveyed to document their awareness of having their language use
corrected by others; thus, their awareness of repair.
A
.
R
a
z
f
a
r
/
L
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
1
6
(
2
0
0
5
)
4
0
4

4
2
4
4
0
9
Table 1
Coding of repair practices
Coding tree and levels Denition Frequency documents
(observations, interviews)
Frequency
instances
1. Language ideologies/language practices/repair Any instance of repair (teacher and student
other repair; self-repair)
29 346
1.2 Language ideologies/language practices/teacher
repair/student
Teacher initiates correction of student 24 335
1.2.1 Language ideologies/language practices/teacher
repair/pronunciation
Teacher repairs student English pronunciation 16 188
1.2.2 Language ideologies/language practices/teacher
repair/word choice
Teacher repairs student word choice. 4 5
1.2.3 Language ideologies/language practices/teacher
repair/tense
Teacher repairs tense markers. 4 9
1.2.4 Language ideologies/language practices/teacher
repair/spelling
Teacher repairs spelling 16 72
1.2.5 Language ideologies/language practices/teacher
repair/grammar
Teacher repairs subject-verb agreement or
syntax.
2 6
1.3 Language ideologies/language practices/repair/student
repair
Student initiates repair (self-repair, teacher
repair, other student repair)
17 36
1.4 Language ideologies/language practices/repair/teacher
repair
All instances of teacher repair, including
self-repair and instances where no repair was
noted.
28 203
1.5 Language ideologies/language practices/repair/teacher
repair/no repair
No repair when repair could have been done. 2 2
Language ideologies/language practices/repair/teacher
repair/self repair
Teacher self-repairs 8 11
410 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
framework for analyzing learning, another domain of coding, Literacy Activities, was used to
identify the organizing activities in which the classroom discourse were situated. For example,
the most prominent literacy activities that mediated classroom discourse and various language
ideological practices were Read Alouds, The Opening Statement (sheltered only), and vari-
ous structuralist literacy activities emphasizing formal features of language (e.g. capitalization,
run-on, fragment activities).
Language ideologies were coded in two domains: (1) Explicit Articulations of language ide-
ologies, and (2) Language practices, including language choice. Explicit articulations of language
ideologies consisted of talk about language, its nature or functions, across the corpus of data. Of
relevance to this paper were the explicit invocations of proper English and English-Only rules
in both small group and whole class interactions.
The second domain of ndings vis a vis language ideologies in ELL contexts was related to the
prominent language practices that participants engaged in to index the pervasive role of language
ideologies in framing classroom discourse life: practices of repair, voicing, and language choice.
Language practices such as repair were coded for the direction of repair, which for the most part
were teacher initiated, and the types of linguistic features that warranted repair (e.g. pronunciation,
spelling, word choice, tense, and syntax). In addition, instances where repair may have been
expected but was not done were also noted. In many instances, as the examples in this paper
illustrate, these practices were intertwined and discursively juxtaposed in relation to each other. A
more detailed look at the coding scheme for repair practices (Table 1) illustrates how the various
repair sequences were identied and distributed. Furthermore, the intersection of repair codes
with the other language practices such as voicing, mock voice, and narrative were particularly
insightful and useful for identifying discourse sequences used to analyze repair as a practice of
language ideologies. Of course the problem with tables and taxonomies, in general, is that it
creates the illusion that repair as an analytic category exists as a discrete entity. The vignettes
in this paper show that the purposes and contexts of repair are varied, multifaceted, and complex.
Once the coding process was completed, illustrative and relevant segments of discourse were
transcribed for the purposes of more detailed analysis using the transcription conventions of CA
(Drew & Heritage, 1992).
5. Findings
Repair practices in language instructional settings are normative assistance strategies employed
by instructors to facilitate oral literacy skills. These typical repair sequences are generally imme-
diate corrections of mispronounced words or other difculties with syntax or morphology, usually
in the context of student Read Alouds. These typical repair practices were evident through out the
case study in both the advanced and sheltered courses (see Fig. 1). The purpose of these charts is
not to qualitatively compare the repair practices in the sheltered and advanced English courses but
rather to establish repair and the various types of repair as a normative practice in ELL contexts
and set the scene for the more nuanced analysis of repair as an ideological practice that follow.
Fig. 1 indicates the total frequency of teacher-initiated repairs of students documented through out
the observations. There was an average of 11.6 instances of repair per observation in the advanced
classroom and an average of 8.5 instances of repair in the sheltered classroom.
Fig. 2 illustrates the different types of repair that were observed in both advanced and sheltered
classrooms. Over 97% of the repairs in both classes related to language use. Only 3% of the total
instances of repair related to procedural sequences typical of classroom interactions such as
assignment directions, mistaken identity, and other administrative tasks. Although procedural
A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424 411
Fig. 1. Frequency of teacher-initiated repair.
repair constituted a small proportion of the total instances of repair, almost all student-initiated
instances of repair of the teacher were of this type. There were eight instances of student-initiated
repair of the teacher through out the data (8/343, 2% of all repairs) whereby seven of them were
procedurally related and one of them related to language use (discussed below).
The majority of all repairs (59%) were corrections of pronunciation in the public space of the
classroom. This particular practice is perhaps the most salient marker of language ideologies in
ELL contexts. This is because correct pronunciation, while related to communicative competence
simultaneously indexes the ideological functions of language as they pertain to status, authority,
and cultural privilege. It is the duality of communicative competence and ideology embedded
within correct pronunciation or any other linguistic form that makes the discussion of repair as
an ideological practice intriguing. Although the populations of the advanced and sheltered classes
varied in terms of the years they had been in the United States, this practice occurred at nearly the
same pace in the two different classes. As the literature shows, accents serve as markers of group
membership (class, ethnicity, nationality, level of education, etc.). Wolfenstein (1993, p. 331) says,
Languages have skin colors. There are white nouns and verbs, white grammar and white
syntax. In the absence of challenges to linguistic hegemony, indeed language is white. If
you dont speak white you will not be heard, just as when you dont look white you will
not be seen.
The social and educational consequences of using such discourses (i.e. acting/speaking
White) further show the reality of these larger power relations (e.g. Ogbu, 1986).
Fig. 2. Types of repair.
412 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
6. Structural repairs and ideological repairs
One of the clearest discourse practices that is mediated by language ideologies is structural
repair, especially the repair of other speakers. This practice was documented in more than 85%of
all observations. The practice of repair through out this case study occurs on multiple planes such
as the overt correction of spelling, pronunciation, syntax, sentence fragments, word choice, and
other grammatical elements. Teacher repair of these linguistic features suggest the prevalence of
language ideologies that emphasize structure and formrather than communicative competence and
meaning. The practices of repair or xing incorrect language uses are necessarily predicated on a
notion of correctness that is rooted in social relationships of status and privilege. In addition, partic-
ipants (whether teacher or student) who utilize this practice must assume a certain degree of author-
ity and legitimacy in order to performthe practice of repair in a culturally appropriate fashion. This
section provides examples of the various linguistic domains in which repair occur through out this
case study. Furthermore, it will examine the multiple ways in which the practice of repair is medi-
ated by the epistemic and cultural authority of the participants who chose to invoke this language
practice.
As Street (1993) has argued, all language practices are fundamentally ideological since they
are socially constituted in the interests and values of human agents. With respect to repair in lan-
guage instructional settings, one might classify most structural repairs as an assistance strategy
for the purposes of basic comprehension. Given that comprehension is always in relation to a
particular discourse community and the use of the correct structure allows for more meaning-
ful and appropriate participation, one might argue that there are more neutral but nevertheless
ideological forms of repair as in the case of minimal pairs. An oft used example in the second
language acquisition literature is the lack of phonemic contrast between /l/ and /r/ in Chinese,
Japanese, and Korean which naturally presents a communicative challenge for ELLs whose pri-
mary language does not make a phonemic distinction between /l/ and /r/ where English does.
Thus, speakers of such languages would have difculty distinguishing between words that differ
minimally such as /rip/ versus /lip/ or right /rait/ versus light/lait/. Thus, repair in these sit-
uations should be considered more neutral because it is used primarily for communicative and
instructional purposes. However, there are also cases where repair does not exclusively serve a
communicative purpose. For example, in some cases, speakers clearly understand what is being
communicated but the manner and form in which it is communicated is unacceptable for various
reasons and a repair sequence is initiated. It is within this domain that the critical, ideological
character of repair becomes more manifest. The examples that follow are not about basic compre-
hension but rather ideology in the critical sense; in other words, the repairs were not necessary to
comprehension.
7. The co-construction of authority: the linguistic rights of repair
In examining the uses of repair by participants (students and teachers) throughout this case
study, it is evident that the practice of repair is ideologically linked to a presumed criterion of cor-
rectness that participants orient to within a particular discourse frame. For the most part, teachers
are repairing in accordance with notions of correct usage (pronunciation, syntax, meaning, etc.)
that are mediated by language ideologies of what is commonly referred to as Standard American
English (henceforth SAE) in most of the literature and as White English by others (hence-
A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424 413
forth WE).
6
In addition, the teachers authority as the arbiter of SAE/WE and their legitimacy to
repair according to the norms and conventions of SAE/WE is recognized and co-constructed by
students on multiple activity planes (e.g. read aloud activities, small group work). While there
was no evidence of ELL students initiating repair sequences of SAE/WE forms, the following
example illustrates how one ELL student initiated a repair sequence of the teachers Spanish.
7.1. Porto Rico or Pwerto Rico?
While the teachers authority to repair in accordance with SAE/WE is regularly co-constructed
through various classroom discourse practices, the authority of students to pronounce or repair
pronunciation of non SAE/WE lexical items further conrms the inextricable link between the
practice of repair (especially pronunciation) and the social authority and linguistic right to perform
it appropriately. The following example from Ms. Arianas Advanced class is embedded within
a read aloud activity and illustrates how students assume the expert and authoritative role with
respect to non-SAE/WE pronunciations. After selecting Pablo to read aloud, Ms. Arianas prompts
Pablo to read the text by reading the sentence (lines 12) containing the word Puerto Rico which
she pronounces with a distinct SAE/WE or anglicized accent Pwerto Ri:co (line 2):
01 Ms. A: u:hm. Lets try Pablo. [reads] Maries
02 boyfriend is in Pwerto Ri:co
03 she shows us his letters
In line 4, Elicia who is a native Spanish speaker interjects and repairs Ms. Arianas pronunciation
of the word
04 E: [Po:rto Ri:co
Ms. Arianas conrms the correctionbyElicia byrepeatingit inanapproximatelysimilar way; how-
ever, the rising intonation marks her uncertainty with respect to its correctness. The questioning
intonation also serves to construct Elicia as the legitimate authority of the authentic pronunciation
of Puerto Rico (line 5) by providing Elicia one more turn to evaluate Ms. Arianas attempt at a
more correct pronunciation which Elicia fullls through a nonverbal gesture (line 6):
05 Ms. A: Porto Ri:co?
E: [Nods]
P: [begins reading text]
In this sequence Elicia assumes the role of arbiter of authentic pronunciation with respect to
Spanish words and it could be assumed that she invokes some criterion of correct Spanish pro-
nunciation. After all, Ms. Arianas pronunciation is still comprehensible. In the context of a read
aloud activity situated within an English instructional class where it is normative for teachers to
assume the expert role in repairing English pronunciation, Elicias act of correcting pronunciation
is counter to the norm. By initiating repair of Ms. Arianas pronunciation of Puerto Rico, Elicia
assumes a social and linguistic right to the authenticity of the term and its proper pronunciation
and in some sense rejects the Anglicized version as improper not on the basis of communicative
competence, but on the basis of a structuralist and somewhat purist language ideology that clearly
6
It should be reiterated that the uses of SAE, AL, or WE are indicative of ongoing language ideological debates and the
use of one term clearly represents a language ideological stance. Since the selection of one over the other may indicate a
preference, for the purposes of this article, SAE and WE will be juxtaposed together as SAE/WE in order to recognize
both stances.
414 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
marks a more acceptable, preferred, and correct form. A more critical and perhaps afrmative
viewsuggests that the language ideology or language ideologies invoked by Elicia at this moment
are multiple and complex whereby Elicia presents her self in relation to a larger socio-cultural
and historical structure by marking a denitive linguistic, social, cultural, and identity boundary
between her and the Anglicized voice echoed by the teacher. Elicias initiation of repair also
reects the agency language learners can invoke and the position of cultural and linguistic power
fromwhich they performit when they assume a correct standard. Ms. Arianas does not ask whether
her pronunciation is considered correct or not. Elicias agency to initiate a repair of the teacher
is indeed an example of counter-script since student-initiated repair rarely happened through out
the observations of the Advanced ESL classroom and it is rarely expected in similar instructional
interactions.
7.2. Negotiating proper pronunciation: Nichai, Nichi Nicheh, or Nixon?
The following vignette from Mr. Sanders sheltered class also illustrates how issues of proper
and correct pronunciation of words of non-English origin can be negotiated by students. One of
the normative practices in Mr. Sanders class was the opening statement activity, which on some
days contained deliberate structural errors that required xing. On other days students were asked
to respond to the content of the statement. On this particular day Mr. Sanders orients the class
to the agenda, which states that the students will be grading essays and participating in small
groups doing peer evaluations. Mr. Sanders rst orients the class to the opening statement from
the late German philosopher Frederick Nietzsche (lines 13) written on the front board, as is the
typical practice, which states:
he who cannot obey himself, will be commanded. This is a need for living creatures, all
living creatures. Frederick Nietzsche
Mr. Sanders begins the sequence by rst trying to get the students attention through the practice
of silencing, then asks a question where he deliberately does not read Nietzsches last name and
asks the class to pronounce it (line 3):
01 Mr. S.: [Whistle] Shh::: Okay:: youre starting today
02 with (.) uhm thoughts from an individual named
03 Fre::drick, whats his last na:me?
In lines 46, students provide various overlapping responses where the tone and tenor of the
responses as well as Mr. Sanders response may suggest they are deliberately being uncooperative
as evidenced by their non-sensical responses:
04 Ss: ]Needts]
05 [Nielson]
06 [Nixon]
Mr. Sanders chooses to single out the student who says, Nixon (line 7) as not a good faith effort
and appears to be surprised and perhaps irritated as evidenced by some of the prosodic elements
of rising volume, intonation, and emphasis (line 7):
07 Mr. S.: [Nixon?]
Students continue to ll the response slot to Mr. Sanders original question, whats his last name?
(line 3) with overlapping responses, until Mr. Sanders positively afrms, through nodding, one
student who says niche (lines 89):
A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424 415
08 Ss: [Overlapping attempts to respond to question]
09 [/Ni ce/] [Mr. S nods]
After the students have provided multiple possibilities of the pronunciation of Nietzsche (some
more legitimate than others), Mr. Sanders elaborates and narrows down the three possible pro-
nunciations to Ni cai (line 10) or Ni ci:: (line 11) or Ni: ceh (line 11):
10 Mr. S.: some people say /Ni cai:/ some
11 people say /Ni ci::/ some people say /Ni: ceh/,
Students once again begin to provide overlapping responses and Petra, the student fromGermany,
has also offered a response that Mr. Sanders chooses to uptake (line 13). In line 13, Mr. Sanders,
silences the non-ratied responses and clears the discourse turn for Petra by orienting the class to
the German woman (lines 1315):
12 Ss: [Overlapping responses]
13 all right, shh:: (.) li:sten to the Ge:rman
14 woman say the mans na::me [gestures to P and
15 board]
Mr. Sanders invocation of Petras national identity constructs Petra as an authentic member of the
Germandiscourse communitywhichgives her the linguistic right anddiscursive legitimacytooffer
the correct pronunciation in the context of multiple contending attempts to pronounce Nietzsche.
Now that Mr. Sanders has selected the appropriate respondent to resolve the dilemma and cleared
a response turn for Petra, Petra offers her correct pronunciation of Nietzsche with a questioning
intonation that both accepts and questions the authority ascribed to her by Mr. Sanders question.
P: /Ni ce/? [rising intonation]
Once Petra responds, Mr. Sanders provides closure and a nal stamp as to the correct way to
pronounce Nietzsche (line 17) which is also afrmed by Petra through the gestures of smiling
and nodding (line 18), and Mr. Sanders begins his commentary on issues of power embedded
within the statement and the philosophies of Frederick Nietzsche (lines 1920):
16 Mr. S.: O:kay. Thats the way it goes.
17 P: [smiles and nods]
18 Mr. S.: (O)kay. Now. [Begins commentary on Frederick
19 Nietzsche]
Mr. Sanders subsequent use of Petras pronunciation further validates the legitimacy and the
authority she has to dene the appropriate form. This sequence exemplies the multiplicity of lan-
guage ideologies that mediate everydayclassroomdiscourse. Initially, Mr. Sanders questionabout
Nietzsches last name orients the class to structural and formal characteristics of language as they
relate to pronunciation while the content and theme of the opening statement itself are put on hold.
Second, the teachers elaboration of the possible ways of pronouncing words indexes a language
ideology of multiple correctness and norms. Of course, not all voices are equally valued as is evi-
denced by the negative stance Mr. Sanders takes with respect to a student who responded Nixon.
However, language ideologies of a unitary correct formare invoked when the voices of multiplicity
are subordinated to the singular, authoritative voice of the German student. Through this practice,
Mr. Sanders assumes a singular, national language for which there is a single correct voice where
Petra is assumed to be a member by virtue of her national origin, and native-speaker knowledge
of German. It is interesting to note that Mr. Sanders initiated the sequence by offering several,
legitimate, and perhaps non-native pronunciations; yet, the possibility of variation is greatly
416 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
reduced by the positioning of Petra as the most dening and authentic voice. Like the example in
Ms. Arianas Advanced ESL, the authority to repair pronunciation is situated in ones discourse
community membership, and since both teachers construct themselves as non-authentic members
of the respective discourse communities, students become experts and become de facto represen-
tatives of their national and/or linguistic/cultural communities through the practice of repair.
7
8. Contestation and repair: why isnt it Childrens?
The following example from Mr. Sanders sheltered class illustrates how students in their
interactions with each other in the context of a peer editing activity use repair to frame and contest
their language ideologies (beliefs about language) and its proper uses. This segment illustrates
how repair is used as a tool to negotiate, navigate, contest, and ultimately settle what constitutes
proper linguistic form. The debate itself is simultaneously framed by language practices such as
code-switching, hybridity, contestation of usage, and assumptions of correctness. The practice
of repair as used by and between peers is once again mediated by a presumed correct form
and the inherent social legitimacy required to perform the practice in socially appropriate ways.
The hybrid language and code-switching practices are represented by the uses of Spanish and
English throughout.
The focal participation framework consists of two males (Francisco and Mario) and one female
(Natasha) engaged in a peer editing activity. In the following sequence, Natasha and Francisco are
contesting the proper use of children. Natasha considers herself bilingual with native uency in
both Spanish and English, while Francisco and Mario are recent immigrants who speak English
as a second language and Spanish as their native language. Francisco has added a nal -s to the
word children and written childrens. However, he does not initially accept Natashas repair
of his usage. Francisco asks about the error that Natasha has marked on his paper (line 2):
01 F: its a capito le:tter, no?
Natasha asks in Spanish (line 2) and Francisco gestures to his paper and also uses Spanish (line
3):
02 N: a donde?
03 F: [Francisco gesturing to paper]punto
Natasha leans over and looks at the paper and initiates her explanation and rationale for the
correction through code-switching in Spanish and English (lines 45):
04 N: [leaning over looking at the paper] No. No. No. porque
05 you put children/z/(.) its supposed to be children
Natasha has not provided a rationale like a morphological rule for this irregular plural form, and
children is the correct form because its supposed to be. Given that we do not consciously
monitor the rules of language use, one might not expect Natasha to formally explicate an appeal
to irregularity instead relying on her common sense of the language. Mario, for whom English
is a second language and perhaps more cognizant of rules as they relate to language learning,
counters Natashas claim by providing an alternative explanation using Spanish that invokes the
pluralization rule of SAE/WE, con /s/ es ni nos (lines 67):
7
Given the prevalence of Spanish speakers from multiple countries, the prominence of national identity and its link to
language use is qualitatively different than Petras lone voice position. The correction of Puerto Rico probably has less
to do with being Puerto Rican and more about being an authentic Spanish speaker.
A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424 417
06 M: [con s
07 es Ni nos
Natasha once again afrms her position by orienting to Mario through eye gaze and placing empha-
sis on the distinction between the correct form, children and the incorrect form, childrenz
without an explanation (line 8):
08 N: chil:dren (.) not chi:ldren/z/ [looking at A]
Francisco contends emphatically by rereading the sentence, taping his pencil on the text and
repeating what he believes to be the correct form (lines 910):
09 F: [reads paper]they used to fry human bones and sacrice
10 (.)chi::ldren/z/[taps with pencil
repeatedly]chi:::ldren/z/
Natasha with a louder voice asserts her position (line 11):
11 N: CHILDREN [louder voice]
Francisco attempts to provide a rationale by orienting Natasha to the paper and using Spanish
(line 12); however, there is no uptake by Natasha who decides to use the teachers authority and
language expertise to mediate a resolution to this language debate about irregular plural forms in
English (lines 1213):
12 F: [mira si mira mira [waving hand]
13 N: ask the teacher ask the teacher
Francisco does not take up Natashas call for the teacher and initiates a rationale for his argument
(line 14):
14 F: aqui they
Natasha does not engage Franciscos argument on her own and repeats her call for the teacher
(lines 1517) where she momentarily forgets the teachers name and another peer not in the
immediate group provides assistance (line 16):
15 N: call the teacher over here Mr. whats his name
16 S: Mr. Sanders
17 N: Mr. Sanders (.) Mr. Sanders
Francisco is undeterred in voicing the linguistic argument of agreement that necessitates a nal
-s after children and uses Spanish to explain (line 18, 20), but Natasha insists on invoking the
teachers authority rather than continue the argument alone (lines 1821):
18 F: its chi::ldren/z/ not children ellos
19 N: well ask him right now (laughs)
20 F: Ni no es uno
After Francisco provides his morphological explanation in Spanish, Natasha uses Spanish to call
upon the teacher and she repeats her call loudly (line 23) until he nally comes to their group
(line 25):
21 N: vamos preguntar (trans: lets ask)
22 (7 seconds)
23 N: Mr. S! I need you here. I need you here
24 (10 seconds)
25 Mr. S: Yes.
418 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
While Natasha is orienting Mr. Sanders to the sentence on the page, Francisco insists that chil-
drens is correct (line 27) and in a sense is trying to align Mr. Sanders with him:
26 N: you see right here
27 F: [that one is chi::ldren/z/ yeah right here
Natasha takes her turn at aligning Mr. Sanders with her position and uses multiple imperatives
such as look (line 28) read (line 28), and tell (line 29) to prompt and lead Mr. Sanders to
what she believes to be the correct response. Francisco makes one more attempt to make his case
(line 31), but Mr. Sanders emphatically interrupts the exchange (line 32):
28 N: Okay. Look. Look. Read this sentence right here (.) and
29 tell me does (.) does this need an s at the end or does
30 it need does (.) like that
31 F: [a
32 Mr. S: QUI::ET: and let me read it:
Mr. Sanders begins to read the sentence aloud for all the participants to hear and as he reaches
the word children, he reads it with emphasis, which is the rst indication to the participants
that this is the correct form (lines 3334). However, Natashas position has not been explicitly
conrmed. The main issue was whether or not children has a /s/ or not and Mr. Sanders repaired
and corrected reading in line 34 apparently does not completely exclude the possibility that
children could have a nal -s. Natasha then constructs a tag question that aims to make the
repair explicit and her stance legitimized by Mr. Sanders which he does verbally and non-verbally
(lines 3637):
33 Mr. S: [reads sentence aloud] they used to fry human bones
34 and sacrice chi:ldren
35 (2 sec)
36 N: No s, right?
37 Mr. S: No s [shakes head]
By framing the question as No s, right? line 36, Natasha elicits the exact conrmatory response
she needs to subordinate Francisco and Marios argument based on the regular morphological
rules of SAE/WE. Natasha displays her affective stance in the ensuing turn by gesturing to both
Francisco and Mario and expressing her triumph as legitimized by the teachers conrmation.
Apparently for Natasha, no rationale is required for the repair because it is not a morphological
rule or an appeal to irregularity that provides the basis for her stance; it is simply the teachers
legitimacy as a member of the correct English discourse community and his authority as a
teacher to dene the correct form and most likely their shared common sense of the language
that is sufcient. Thus, Natasha declares triumph and vindication in the teachers afrmation of
her stance with respect to irregular plurals and, perhaps, triumph over the other participants who
took an opposing stance (lines 3839):
38 N: Tha:nk You. Tha::nk you. [gestures to both M and F]
39 Thank You. Thank You (1 sec) Thank you
While Natasha is apparently satised with the resolution of the language debate, Mr. Sanders
follows Natashas positive uptake with an explanation of the correct form (lines 4051). Mr.
Sanders slightly overlaps Natashas fth Thank you by explaining that children is already
plural (line 40) and states that child is singular (line 41), which Natasha uptakes to further
construct the correctness of her position (line 42):
A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424 419
40 Mr. S: [chi:dren is already plu::ral (.)
41 O:kay. Child [writes] thats one, ri:ght?
42 N: [I rest my case
While Natasha positively uptakes Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sanders addressee is Francisco, who has
not explicitly acknowledged the correctness of the argument thus far. Mr. Sanders repeats the
denition of children using an absolute declarative with emphasis (line 43), chi:ldren is many
children. After making this declaration, Mr. Sanders leaves a deliberate pause, which opens a
response slot awaiting a positive response from Francisco. There is no immediate uptake, so Mr.
Sanders reformulates, more than one (line 43) which is followed by Franciscos uptake in line
44 that is mediated by code switching, and then the s con what:
43 Mr. S: chi:ldren (.) is many children (.5) more than one
44 F: and then the s con what?
45 5 seconds [Mr. S writing]
At this point it seems that Francisco may have accepted that children is plural but still needs
additional elaboration in order to fully understand when to use nal -s. The rationale for not adding
a nal -s is still not clear. Mr. Sanders responds to the question by rst writing on the paper (line
45, apparently the word plural) then restating the rationale in absolute terms (lines 4647):
46 Mr. S: plu:ral. Children is plu:ral. [taps the paper]
In addition, Mr. Sanders provide an alternate explanation for the possibility of nal -s and the word
children in terms of possessive rules (lines 4849). By providing an explanation that legitimizes
the possibility of a nal -s attached to children, Mr. Sanders to a certain degree positively
acknowledges the legitimacy of Francisco and Marios contesting voices. Adding a nal -s to
children is possible with an apostrophe, but the meaning is possessive. Mr. Sanders invocation of
possessive rules serves to effectively mitigate Francisco and Marios rationale for pluralization of
children with a nal -s. In addition, given the polar stances present between participants in this
group and the heated nature of the debate about correct linguistic form, especially between Natasha
and Francisco, this discursive move serves to save face for those who have argued erroneously
with respect to pluralization.
47 Children is plural (.) chi:ld is singular so if you
48 had possessive you would put on an apostrophe s but
49 but there is no possessive form here
50 3 sec
51 you got it.[Mr. S leaves]
As Mr. Sanders leaves the immediate space occupied by the participants, Natasha once again
afrms her position with respect to correct usage and constructs a positive epistemic identity for
herself within the discourse in terms of language, literacy, and even as a writer (lines 5253):
52 N: See:: [taps her head (Im smart gesture)]I know how to
53 write [discussion about correcting follows in Spanish]
The language debate that unfolds in the moment-to-moment life of this sheltered English discourse
community illustrates how ideologies of language mediate everyday discourse. The ideological
stances taken by the participants indexed their status as members of the SAE/WE community
of practice. Francisco and Marios arguments are mediated by their status as second language
learners and novice members of the SAE/WE community of practice. Their orientation to regular
rules and the errors that followas a result of irregular linguistic conventions are typical practices
420 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
whether one is acquiring their rst language or learning a second language. Mario and Francisco
are both recently arrived immigrants who have learned English in grammar-based classrooms that
emphasize syntactical and morphological rules and are often premised on autonomous views of
language and learning. Their invocation of a morphological rule to make a universal claim about
correctness demonstrates the limitations of autonomous ideologies of language in addressing
issues of correctness. Structural rules do not always generate correct and appropriate language
uses. At some level, the debate betweenNatasha, Francisco, Mario, andMr. Sanders is a microcosm
of the debate between autonomous and ideological views of linguistic functions. In this case, it
is not the autonomous pluralization rule that determines correct use, but rather the community
of practice and its expert/competent members who have the discursive power to decide what
constitutes correct and socioculturally appropriate language practice. Because it is discursive
power that ultimately settles this affair, not structural rules, the exchanges are fundamentally
ideological reecting the cultural capital of the participants.
It is important to mention that the discursive power used by Mr. Sanders and Natasha is
situated within a larger social, linguistic, and historical context and it is constrained by those
forces. One could not immediately imagine a scenario where Mr. Sanders and Natasha could
faithfully legitimize childrens. This sequence is an example of how the practice of repair can be
a contested terrain in the moment-to-moment interactions of students where multiple language
ideologies mediate the contestation. It further shows how the practices of repair are not neutral
practices and are mediated by situated notions of status, correctness, and the socially constructed
power to dene what are acceptable or unacceptable language practices. The complexities of these
dynamics are best understood through an ideological framework of language and learning.
9. Repair and regulating student practice: This aint a Math Class
The following discourse segment from the sheltered classroom illuminates further how repair
is more than just the benign correction of linguistic forms, but rather a practice used to regulate
student participation in relation to the norms of participation embedded within language instruc-
tion. This vignette shows how students exhibit agency within prescriptive and rigid discourse
frames and the consequences of those acts. There is a discussion taking place about the age of
a famous author named Ann Beady. In lines 15 Mr. Sanders is orienting the class to different
world, different principles, different ideals of the author (lines 15):
01 Mr S: I think its a good idea so that number one you get a
02 perspective, when did this person live? Ok. If they
03 lived in the eighteen hundreds, youre dealing with a
04 different world, different principles, different
05 ideals. All right. If youre reading something like
In lines 67, the discourse moves toward resolving the issue of Ann Beadys age:
01 this by, uhm, a woman named Ann Beady (.) shes still
02 alive. She was born in 1947. So:: she::s (..)
In line 7, Mr. Sanders delay marks a response slot for the students whereby three students offer
overlapping responses in lines 810:
03 Stud (Natasha): [a hundred]
04 (Francisco): [Shes old]
05 Stud: [forget that]
A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424 421
In line 11, Mr. Sanders interjects the correct response in a louder voice, thus silencing the incorrect
responses (in particular Natashas in line 8). The louder angrier voice marks a negative affective
stance toward the incorrect respondents, and in lines 1214 he singles out Natasha in the public
space of the classroom with an arithmetic question:
06 Mr. S: Shes fty three [louder voice]
07 Now Natasha, do the simple math its 2000, subtract
08 forty seven from two thousand, and tell me what you
09 get?
10 [Other students respond, Overlapping Responses]
In lines 1617, Natasha resists the public interrogation by invoking the subject domain of the
classroom, which is arguably mediated by ideologies of discrete disciplines. In other words, Mr.
Sanders arithmetic question is not appropriate in an English class, and her emphasis on the words
math and class further conrm the point:
11 Nat: This aint a ma::th class
12 [Pause, 2 seconds)
However, in line 18, Mr. Sanders silences the challenge by reformulating Natashas response
into a question and placing emphasis on the word aint. This is a clear invocation of proper
English, which is later conrmed in line 21. The rising intonation that accompanies the word
aint indexes the mock tone which subordinates its use in relation to the proper form. Mr.
Sanders then asks the question in line 18:
13 Mr. S: This aint a math class? Tell me what class it is?
14 [Overlapping Student Voices]
Mr. Sanders has chosen to ask a question rather than simply declaring, This is an English
class. The use of a question rather than a declarative statement mediates Natashas partici-
pation in the discourse. It assures Natashas role in co-constructing the subject domain of the
class and the authoritative voices of both the teacher as well as proper English vernacular.
Natashas response in line 20 serves to co-construct the domain of the classroom as an English
class:
15 Nat: English
Once consent has been established in the public and ofcial space of the classroom, Mr. Sanders
invokes an explicit language ideology of proper English usage in lines 2122. He then directs a
question at Natasha in line 22 for the purposes of usage repair
16 Mr. S: Ok then. Try to speak in English the ri:ght way. Not
17 aint. (.) This what? [Teacher rolling up sleeves
18 and directly gazing at Natasha] [pause]
In lines 2427, the correct English usage is co-constructed by Natasha and Mr. Sanders and the
original arithmetic problem that Mr. Sanders posed to Natasha remains unsolved:
19 Nat: This (.)
20 Mr. S: [This] isnt, right?
21 Nat: [isnt]
22 Mr. S: This isnt a math class.
23 [Pause, 2 seconds] [some laughter]
24 Mr. S: All right, so (.) I think its a good idea to read
25 about the author
422 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
This segment also illustrates how students are aware of their contextual surroundings and the
ideologies that mediate their participation. In this case, Natasha demonstrates her agency within
this context by invoking the ideologies that govern the type of legitimate task she can be called on
to perform by an English teacher. Although she is silenced and ultimately called on to conform
to the teachers request, she still is an active participant in this context by using the embedded
structures to, ironically, resist the structures themselves.
10. Conclusion
The fact that repair practices are a regular feature of discourse in instructional settings with
English Language Learners is not surprising for practitioners and researchers in these contexts.
Furthermore, the regular uses of structural repairs (e.g. pronunciation, grammar, word choice)
with the most prevalent type of repair being the repair of pronunciation may be intuitive as
well. However, an ideological and LI approach to the study of repair, especially as they relate
to pronunciation, rules of participation, classroom management, student identity, and ultimately
learning reframes our understanding of repair in a more critical light, and provides a salient
marker for examining language ideologies in practice. For ELL populations, it would seem that
the correct pronunciation of words is socioculturally critical for communication as in the case
of minimal pairs; nevertheless, the practice of pronunciation repair must be contextualized with
respect to the various communicative purposes proper pronunciation serve such as meaning
making and as an index of discourse community membership. Although the practices of repair
structurally appear to be the easiest to identify and code, examining the multiple contexts and
purposes of repair was a challenge. While onthe surface, it oftenappears, that the practices of repair
are mediated strictly by autonomous ideologies of language and presumed universal notions of
correctness, the analysis once again suggests a more complex picture. The presumption of a correct
standard is always rooted in a particular discourse community; however, it was very difcult,
without making inferences, to determine who was a legitimate, authentic, and expert member
of that correct discourse community. A second theme that emerges is how repair practices are
framedbythe linguistic rights andauthorityof the speakers whoinitiate them. Classroomdiscourse
as a genre of talk clearly positions the teacher for this type of practice especially when it serves as
an instructional tool. The more interesting story is how repair functions as a regulatory practice
of student behavior as well as the various instances of student agency as exemplied by their
counter-script discourse practices. In conceptualizing repair as a practice of language ideologies,
especially as one goes beyond the formal aspects, it is important consider how it is juxtaposed
with prosodic linguistic features such as mock particles or mock voice. The examples discussed
in this paper regularly displayed the intersection of mock voice and repair where the correction of
incorrect forms was clearly more than benign instructional practices. Two examples in this paper
showed how discourse community membership is embedded with linguistic privileges as they
relate to repair and determining proper pronunciation. The students who were assumed to be
authentic members of particular discourse communities were able to exercise the right to repair as
in the case of Elianas correction Ms. Arianas pronunciation of Puerto Rico or framed within the
discourse to offer the correct version of pronunciation as in the case of Petra, the German student,
and the problem of pronouncing Nietzsche. However, in nearly all cases, the teachers assumed
the authority and the right to repair student pronunciation with respect to the assumed correctness
of Standard American English. With respect to certain grammatical choices made by students
such as the uses of aint or double negatives, it seemed that these instances of repair were not only
mediated by language ideologies of purity and ideal form, but also served to mediate the regulation
A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424 423
of proper student behavior. In several of the examples in this study, these practices were repaired in
order to reprimand students for improper behavior or lack of uptake within the ofcial classroom
discourse. For example, if the teacher asked a question and the student responded with aint the
use of aint was mocked and the teacher initiated a public repair sequence as a punitive measure
for not respondingtothe teachers question. While not discussedinthis paper; analytically, it is also
important to consider instances of no repair. The coding scheme revealed instances of no repair
in contexts were structural repairs could have been done which only adds to the complexity of
repair. This dimension points to language ideological shifts towards communicative competence
and meaning rather than form, but whether it is systematic or random needs further investigation.
In cases were repair is done not for the purposes of improved comprehension, but to assert the
superiority and legitimacy of one standard vernacular there may be signicant implications for
ELL students. The implications and consequences may be even more for ELL students who have
been in the United States a majority of their lives. In fact, this demographic of students received
the lowest grades, especially in the sheltered course. Although these students were the most vocal
participants within the ofcial classroomdiscourse spaces, they were evaluated as underachievers.
These students were less likely to align with the structural ideologies of language that mediated
the literacy activities that were ultimately valued most by the teacher. They used incorrect forms
while resisting participation in the ofcial script of the class, which had immediate consequences
in the form of repair. The fundamental questions that the practices of repair cause us to revisit
are: is there a correct standard of language use and whose standard is the correct one? These
questions are fundamentally ideological ones and illustrate the relevance of language ideologies
in addressing teacher practices and policies in ELL contexts, especially with Latina/o students.
References
Bamberg, M. (2000a). Language and communication: what develops?Determining the role of language practices for a
theory of development. In N. Budwig, I. Uzgiris, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Communication: An arena of development (pp.
5577). Stamford, CT: Ablex/JAJ.
Bamberg, M. (2000b). Critical personalism, language development. Theory & Psychology, 10(6), 749767.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context? New York:
Routledge.
Boulima, J. (1999). Negotiated interaction in target language classroom discourse. In Pragmatics & beyond new series,
51. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroomdiscourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational
Books.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cummins, J. (1984). Linguistic minorities and multicultural policy in Canada. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Linguistic minorities,
policies and pluralism (pp. 80105). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage
(Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470520). New York, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic eldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(3rd ed., pp. 119161).
Flores, B. M. (1982). Language interference or inuence: Toward a theory for Hispanic bilingualism. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona at Tucson.
Flores, B. M. (1993, April). Interrogating the genesis of the decit view of Latino children in the educational literature
during the 20th century. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Atlanta,
GA.
424 A. Razfar / Linguistics and Education 16 (2005) 404424
Gal, S. (1992). Multiplicity and contention among ideologies: A commentary. Pragmatics, 2(3), 445449.
Gal, S. (1998). Multiplicity and contention among language ideologies. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity
(Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 317331). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Gal, S., & Irvine, J. (1995). The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social
Research, 62(4), 9671001.
Jaffe, A. (2003). Talk around text: literacy practices, cultural identity and authority in a corsican bilingual classroom.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3), 202220.
Kramarae, C., OBarr, W. M., & Schulz, M. (1984). Introduction: Toward an understanding of language and power. In
Language and power. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.
Kroskrity, P. (2000). Regimenting languages: Language ideological perspectives. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of lan-
guage: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 134). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, James
Currey, Oxford.
Kroskrity, P. (Ed.). (2000). Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American
Research Press, James Currey, Oxford.
Kroskrity, P. (2004). Language Ideologies. In Duranti, A. (Ed.), In Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden,
Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Menchaca, M., & Valencia, R. R. (1990, September). Anglo-Saxon ideologies in the 1920s1930s: Their impact on the
segregation of Mexican students in California. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21(3), 222249.
Ogbu, J. (1986). Class stratication, and schooling. In L. Weis (Ed.), Race, class, and schooling: 17, (p. 22). Special
Studies in Comparative Education Center, Faculty of Educational Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Razfar, A. (2003). Language ideologies in ELL contexts: Implications for Latinos and higher education. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education (Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 241268). SAGE Publications.
Sacks, H. (1984). Methodological remarks. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in
conversation analysis (pp. 2127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self correction in the organization of repair for
conversation. Language, 53, 361382.
Schegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol.
XII: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261288). New York: Academic Press.
Schegloff, E. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in
institutional settings (pp. 100134). New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, J. (2005). Talk and practical epistemology: The social life of knowledge in a Caribbean community. In Pragmatics
& beyond series. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Street, B. (1993). Introduction: The new literacy studies. In B. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp.
121). Cambridge University Press.
Street, B. (Ed.). (2001). Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives. New York: Routledge.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1973). Teachers and students: Report V. Mexican-American study: Differences in
teacher interaction with Mexican-American and Anglo students. Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofce.
Valencia, R. (1986). Minority academic underachievement: Conceptual and theoretical considerations for understanding
the achievement problems of Chicano students. Paper presented to the Chicano Faculty Seminar, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, November 25, 1986.
Valencia, R. (1991a). Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s. New York: Falmer
Press.
Valencia, R. (1991b). The plight of Chicano students: An overview of schooling conditions and outcomes. In R. Valencia
(Ed.), Chicano school failure: An analysis through many windows (pp. 326). London: Falmer Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wolfenstein, E. V. (1993). Psychoanalytic-Marxism: Groundwork. New York and London: The Guilford Press.
Woolard, K. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a eld of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity
(Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 347). New York: Oxford University Press.
Zimmerman, D. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.),
Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 418469). New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.