To ensure smooth communication and collaboration, here are some troubleshooting tips to address common issues:
Check Internet Connection: Verify that you have a stable and reliable internet connection. Use a wired connection when possible, as it tends to be more stable than Wi-Fi. If using Wi-Fi, make sure you have a strong signal.
Update the Browser or App: Ensure that you are using the latest version of the web browser. Developers frequently release updates to address bugs and improve performance.
Clear Browser Cache: Sometimes, cached data can cause conflicts or issues. Clear the browser cache and cookies before joining the meeting.
Test Audio and Video: Before the meeting, check your microphone and camera to ensure they are working correctly. If you are a speaker, you can click on "Start Practice Session" button test to ensure audio and video devices are functioning.
Close Other Applications: Running multiple applications in the background can consume system resources and lead to performance issues. Close unnecessary apps to free up resources for the Dryfta meeting platform.
Restart Your Device: If you encounter persistent issues, try restarting your computer or mobile device. This can help resolve various software-related problems.
Use Supported Browsers: Ensure you are using a browser supported by the meeting platform. Recommended browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Brave.
Allow Necessary Permissions: Make sure the Dryfta meeting platform has the required permissions to access your microphone, camera, and other necessary features.
Disable VPN or Firewall: Sometimes, VPNs or firewalls can interfere with the connection to the meeting platform. Temporarily disable them and see if the issue persists.
Switch Devices: If possible, try joining the meeting from a different device to see if the problem is specific to one device.
Reduce Bandwidth Usage: In cases of slow or unstable internet connections, ask participants to disable video or share video selectively to reduce bandwidth consumption.
Update Drivers and Software: Ensure your operating system, audio drivers, and video drivers are up to date. Outdated drivers can cause compatibility issues with the Dryfta meeting platform.
Contact Support: If none of the above steps resolve the issue, reach out to the platform's support team. They can provide personalized assistance and troubleshoot specific problems.
By following these troubleshooting tips, you can tackle many common problems encountered on Dryfta meeting platform and have a more productive and seamless meeting experience.
Rahmenanalyse als Instrument zur Untersuchung von Sprachideologien/Spracheinstellungen an (deutschen) Schulen
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel10:15 AM - 01:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 11:15:00 UTC
Despite many years of efforts to promote multilingualism in schools, it can be said that this has not been successful. The main reason for this is the monolingual habitus, which is still prevalent in German schools (Dirim, 2017; Bredthauer, 2018; Mast & Sachse, 2021). The school is therefore caught between the increasing multilingualism of the students, the monolingual habitus of the school and a deeply rooted ideology of monolingualism, despite the propagated inclusion of non-prestigious languages (Gantefort & Maahs, 2020: 5). Research into this problem area has a practical benefit insofar as teachers must be sensitized to dealing with languages other than German and prestigious languages in order to guarantee equal educational and professional opportunities. In this context, the method of frame analysis - also for a context-sensitive research and in combination with other methods - seems to be advantageous because it does not influence the research results. Frame analysis can be used directly in the field as well as in corpus linguistic research (e.g. corpus ApaeK). Combinations with other research methods also appear productive. Examples should illustrate how frame analysis can be used to explore language ideologies and attitudes towards language.
Trotz langjähriger Bemühungen, Mehrsprachigkeit (gemeint sind v.a. Herkunftssprachen) im schulischen Rahmen zu fördern, kann behauptet werden, dass „die Forderung nach dem Umgang mit bzw. der Einbeziehung und Förderung von Mehrsprachigkeit […] weiterhin als uneingelöst gelten [kann]" (Lengyel, 2016: 507), was diverse Studien auch belegen (vgl. bspw. Dirim, 2017; Bredthauer, 2018; Mast & Sachse, 2021). Als Hauptursache hierfür wird der monolinguale Habitus, der an deutschen Schulen immer noch vorherrschend ist, gesehen (Gogolin, 1994; Oomen-Welke, 2000; Mast & Sachse, 2021). Der assimilative Ansatz, der mit Spracheinstellungen der Lehrkräfte nicht immer einhergeht, soll aus sprachideologischer Sicht einem besseren sozialen Zusammenhalt und Integration zuträglich sein (vgl. König, 2014; Piller, 2020). Die Schule befindet sich demnach im Spannungsfeld zwischen der zunehmenden Mehrsprachigkeit der Schülerschaft, dem monolingualen Habitus der Schule und einer trotz propagierter Einbeziehung von nicht prestigeträchtigen Sprachen, tief verwurzelten Einsprachigkeitsideologie (vgl. Gantefort & Maahs, 2020: 5). Die Erforschung dieses Problemfeldes hat insofern einen praktischen Nutzen, als (angehende) Lehrkräfte für den Umgang mit anderen Sprachen als Deutsch und Prestigesprachen im Sinne der Gewährleistung von gleichen Bildungs- und Berufschancen sensibilisiert werden müssen. In dem Zusammenhang scheint die Methode der Rahmenanalyse - auch für ein kontextsensitives Untersuchen und in Kombination mit anderen Methoden - vorteilhaft zu sein, da sie die Untersuchungsergebnisse nicht beeinflusst. Das Rahmen-Konzept von Goffman (1977) wird in der Forschung als Analyseinstrument für eine systematische Untersuchung der Unterrichtskommunikation angesehen und angewendet, idem insgesamt drei Rahmen für jede Unterrichtsbeschreibung destilliert werden (Bräuer, 2011). Der gegenstandsbezogene Rahmen behandelt die Inhalte, der interaktionsbezogene setzt sich mit den Beziehungen auseinander und der institutionsbezogene legt den Fokus auf den Unterricht und folglich auf die Institution (Schule) als Rahmen, der zwar sprachideologisch von dem monolingualen Habitus geprägt ist, jedoch Fremd-, Herkunftssprachen und DaZ beinhaltet. Mit Hilfe der Rahmenanalyse lässt es sich identifizieren, analysieren und reflektieren, welche Rolle Sprachideologie und Spracheinstellungen (der Akteure) dabei spielen. Davon ausgehend werden sämtliche Änderungen erfasst und prognostiziert. Rahmenanalyse kann sowohl unmittelbar im Feld wie auch bei korpuslinguistischen Untersuchungen (bspw. Korpus ApaeK) eingesetzt werden. Fruchtbar erscheinen auch Kombinationen mit anderen Untersuchungsmethoden. An Beispielen soll veranschaulicht werden, wie die Rahmenanalyse für die Untersuchung von Sprachideologien und Spracheinstellungen eingesetzt werden kann.
Literatur (Auswahl):
Bräuer, Christoph (2011): Die Unterrichtsrahmenanalyse – ein Beobachtungsinstrument für die praktische Forschung wie die forschende Praxis. In: Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie. Kommunikation und Interaktion im Unterricht, 80, 13-31. Eichinger, Ludwig M.; Plewnia, Albrecht; Schoel, Christiane & Stahlberg, Dagmar (Hrsg.) (2012). Sprache und Einstellungen. Spracheinstellungen aus sprachwissenschaftlicher und sozialpsychologischer Perspektive. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag. Gantefort, Christoph & Maahs, Ina-Maria (2020). Translanguaging. Mehrsprachige Kompetenzen von Lernenden im Unterricht aktivieren und wertschätzen. https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/ prodaz/gantefort_ maahs_ translanguaging.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen am 21.06.2022). Goffman, Erving (1977): Rahmen-Analyse. Ein Versuch über die Organisation von Alltagserfahrungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. König, Katharina (2014). Spracheinstellungen und Identitätskonstruktion. Göttingen: De Gruyter. Mecheril, Paul (2001): Pädagogiken natio-kultureller Mehrfachzugehörigkeit. Vom „Kulturkonflikt" zur „Hybridität". In: Diskurs 10 (2001) 2, 41-48. Piller, Ingrid (2020). Sprachideologien und ihre gesellschaftlichen Konsequenzen. In Gogolin, Ingrid; Hansen, Antje; McMonagle, Sarah & Rauch, Dominique (Hrsg.). Handbuch Mehrsprachigkeit und Bildung. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Presenters Dennis Tark Wiss. Mitarbeiter, Universität Rostock
The Standard vs. Nonstandard Continuum as (Un)necessary Analytic vis-à-vis Semiotic Assemblages : The Cases of Luxembourg and the German-speaking Community of Belgium
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel10:15 AM - 01:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 11:15:00 UTC
"Standard" is used as an adjective and a noun in sociolinguistics to denote a register resulting from a process of institutionalization mediated by competing ideologies. However, does the enregisterment (Agha, 2005, 2007, 2015) of a standard imply an overarching formation under which every other register becomes nonstandard? Through a comparative empirical study of language policy processes of design and implementation in Luxembourg and the German-speaking Community of Belgium (GCB), this paper aims to problematize and, perhaps, to go beyond the reified standard vs. nonstandard continuum under regimes of commoditization (Agha, 2011). Language policy in Luxembourg and in the GCB is assumed to be a collection of script-artifacts and actions from individuals mediated by distinct ethno-metapragmatics (Silverstein, 1979; Agha, 2007), the two chosen settings being characterized by varying degrees of institutional multilingualism. By answering the question of whether Luxembourgish and 'Belgian' German are regimented and commoditized as standard registers, I seek to show how the continuum "standard" vs. "nonstandard" is, in its current state, an unfit analytic for the study of ideology in semiosis. Following Pennycook (2021) and Kroskrity (2021), I argue that the study of ideology as semiotic assemblages requires, minimally, embedding the standard vs. nonstandard analytic in text-level indexicality (i.e., the co-occurring signs in interaction) or, maximally, redefining it altogether in the face of the challenges posed by semiotic assemblages as a recent analytic. For the outlined purpose, a diachronic analysis of the enregisterment of the standard through policy texts is complemented by a synchronic analysis of current policies and metapragmatic data in the form of interviews with teachers and policymakers. The data are defined as series of events in a semiotic chain. Cross-event linkages are analyzed following the discourse analysis of linguistic anthropology (Wortham & Reyes, 2020; Gal & Irvine, 2019).
Bibliography: Agha, A. (2005). Voice, Footing, Enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 38-59. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.38 -------------(2007). Language and Social Relations. Cambridge University Press. -------------(2011). Commodity Registers. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 21(1), 22-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1395.2011.01081.x -------------(2015). Enregisterment and Communication in Social History. In A. Agha & Frog (Eds.), Registers of Communication, (pp. 27-53). Studia Fennica: Linguistica. Gal, S. & Irvine, J. (2019). Signs of Difference: Language and Ideology in Social Life. UK: Cambridge University Press. Kroskrity, P. V. (2021). Language ideological assemblages within linguistic anthropology. In A. Burkette and T. Warhol (Eds.), Crossing Borders: Making Connections: Interdisciplinarity in Linguistics, (pp. 129-141). De Gruyter. Pennycook, A. (2021). Reassembling linguistics: Semiotic and epistemic assemblages. In A. Burkette and T. Warhol (Eds.), Crossing Borders, Making Connections: Interdisciplinarity in Linguistics, (pp. 111-128). De Gruyter Mouton. Silverstein, M. (1979). Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In P.R. Clyne, W.F. Hanks, & C.F. Hofbauer (Eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, (pp. 193-247). Chicago Linguistic Society: University of Chicago. Wortham, S., & Reyes, A. (2020). Discourse Analysis Beyond the Speech Event (2nd ed.) Routledge.
Language Policy and Language Ideology in Times of Euregionalising Borderlands: The Case of Secondary Schools’ (Extra-)Curricular Investments
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel10:15 AM - 01:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 11:15:00 UTC
This contribution explores why secondary schools in the Belgian-Dutch-German borderland invest -or not invest- in language education and cross-border language contact events such as pupil exchanges. As a theoretical perspective, language ideology highlights the often conflicting values that are discursively constructed during these decision-making processes. On the one hand, there are national educational policies which assign a certain value to language education in general, and specific languages in particular, typically the national language(s) plus English. On the other hand, there are Euregional policy actors who, often with financial support from the European Union through so-called INTERREG programmes, assign special value to the education of what they call "neighbouring languages" (in this case: Dutch, French, and German). Besides that, technological developments, labour market developments, the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsidy programmes such as Erasmus+ significantly impact the possibilities for language education and cross-border language contact events. Within this context of stimuli and constraints, secondary schools gather diverse directors, deans, teachers, pupils, and parents, all of whom have specific backgrounds and priorities. By exploring why these schools invest in certain language education and language contact events, or not, this contribution thus simultaneously puts a spotlight on the characteristics of the language-ideological discourse that emerges in times of Euregionalising borderlands, and on the relation between this discourse and other aspects of secondary schools' decision-making processes. In this way, the research adds to conceptual discussions on the relation between language ideology and language policy (Hovens 2021; Johnson 2013; Shohamy 2006; Spolsky 2004). The contribution is primarily based on about 30 interviews with teachers, deans, and directors from secondary schools in the Belgian-Dutch-German borderland (i.e., about 10 interviews per country), most of which are conducted online (using MS Teams) by the author in 2022. The interview sample is not supposed to be representative, but to reflect a diverse spectrum of existing perspectives in this borderland. Regarding the perspective of pupils, the contribution makes use of findings from a representative survey among secondary school pupils from the Dutch province of Limburg (i.e., the Dutch part of the borderland), which is conducted by a group of scholars from Maastricht University in the same year. Furthermore, the survey makes use of the findings from a focus group pilot study in the Dutch province of Limburg, which the author conducts towards the end of 2022 in order to deepen the understanding of the survey results. The author's research is partly financed by the INTERREG project EMRLingua, which aims to stimulate the education of "neighbouring languages" in the Belgian-Dutch-German borderland. Rather than taking this situatedness as a given, the author aims to reflect upon the role of INTERREG projects such as EMRLingua, as well as his own research, in broader language-political and language-ideological developments. Hence, besides the contribution's conceptual goal, the author also aims to discuss his research at the level of application, i.e., how the findings might be used for language-political and/or language-ideological purposes.
Language Beliefs of English language teachers in Norway in times of change
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel10:15 AM - 01:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 11:15:00 UTC
In evolving multilingual spaces, schools try to systematically develop multilingual competencies through teaching languages, including English. Still, teachers struggle to adjust their practices to align with inclusive teaching practices (Alisaari et al. 2019; Erling and Moore 2021) in times when conceptualizations of language and the English language are evolving (Berthele 2021; Cogo et al. 2022). In 2020, a new national curriculum in Norway granted ideological and implementational spaces for multilingualism to be viewed as a resource and English as a multilingua franca for the first time. Still, while English teachers in Norway generally express positive attitudes towards multilingualism and linguistic and cultural diversity, their teaching practices tend to reflect monolingual ideologies (Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Flognfeldt et al. 2020). This research explores these tensions and aims to identify the language beliefs and ideologies (Woolard 2020; Kroskrity 2010) of English teachers in multilingual classrooms in Norway and the factors that influence these. An ecological view is assumed and language teacher cognition used as the theoretical frame (Borg 2006) in this mixed methods, explanatory sequential study. Phase 1 was a survey study (N=110) with results suggesting a complexity of beliefs and practices in which conflicting beliefs co-exist, and that the age of the teachers and the learner age group were significant factors for some beliefs. Phase 2, the focus of this presentation, is a longitudinal, qualitative study of teachers in grades 1-10 (N=6) in their school contexts. Teachers were interviewed multiple times during the span of one school semester and classroom observations made. The data is analyzed through considering the macro-, meso- and micro-contextual levels that impact teachers' language beliefs, and through discourse analysis. Initial results will be presented and discussed.
Alisaari, Jenni, Leena Maria Heikkola, Nancy Commins, and Emmanuel O. Acquah. 2019. Monolingual Ideologies Confronting Multilingual Realities. Finnish Teachers' Beliefs about Linguistic Diversity. Teaching & Teacher Education 80: 48–58. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.003. Berthele, Raphael. 2021. The Extraordinary Ordinary: Re-engineering Multilingualism as a Natural Category. Language Learning 71: 80–120. doi:10.1111/lang.12407. Borg, Simon. 2006. Teacher Cognition and Language Eeducation: Research and Practice. London: Continuum. Cogo, Alessia, Fan Fang, Stefania Kordia, Nicos Sifakis, and Sávio Siqueira. 2022. Developing ELF Research for Critical Language Education. AILA Review 34: 187–211. Erling, Elizabeth J., and Emilee Moore. 2021. Introduction–Socially Just Plurilingual Education in Europe: Shifting Subjectivities and Practices through Research and Action. International Journal of Multilingualism 18: 523–33. doi:10.1080/14790718.2021.1913171. Flognfeldt, Mona Evelyn, Dina Tsagari, Dragana Šurkalović, and Theresé Tishakov. 2020. The Practice of Assessing Norwegian and English Language Proficiency in Multilingual Elementary School Classrooms in Norway. Language Assessment Quarterly: 1–22. dio:10.1080/15434303.2020.1827409. Kroskrity, Paul. 2010. Language Ideologies - Evolving Perspectives. In Society and Language Use. Edited by Jürgen Jaspers, Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Krulatz, A., and A. Dahl. 2016. Baseline Assessment of Norwegian EFL Teacher Preparedness to Work with Multilingual Students. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching 7: 199–218. Woolard, Kathryn A. 2020. Language Ideology. In The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology. pp. 1-21.
Presenters Therese Tishakov PhD Student, OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University Co-authors Åsta Haukås Professor, University Of Bergen
Dennis Tark
Therese Tishakov
Åsta Haukås
