Cover not available
Article published In:
Reflexivity in Late Modernity: Accounts from linguistic ethnographies of youth
Edited by Miguel Pérez-Milans
[AILA Review 29] 2016
► pp. 114–140

The reflexive imperative among high-achieving adolescents

A Flemish case study

| Ghent University, Belgium

The socio-cultural conditions of late modernity induce a “reflexive imperative” amongst young people, which also results in metapragmatic and metalinguistic behaviour, as has been demonstrated by linguistic ethnographers (LE). However, recent LE studies on reflexivity in Western European settings have mainly focused on how groups of socially low-status, geographically mobile and multilingual youth are involved in creative linguistic processes in which the disapproval of their linguistic hybridity is denounced. In this paper, based on a linguistic-ethnographic study, I will uncover the influence of the reflexive imperative on a different group: six high-achieving, white, elite, male, adolescent pupils in Flemish Belgium. Through a micro-analysis of their metacommentaries and speech practices, I describe the subtle metalinguistic and metapragmatic moves of the pupils, which demonstrate their attitude towards standard language use at school. An analysis of these boys’ linguistic reflexivity demonstrates a complex attitude towards Standard Dutch and Standard Language Ideology: at first sight, they seem to incline towards linguistic equality, resulting in a relaxation of the standard norm. However, an analysis of the more indirect metapragmatic practices of these boys reveals how they strategically use the symbolic capital of Standard Dutch, a practice which echoes the Flemish language-in-education policy and might serve to preserve (or prepare) their (future) elite position in society.

Keywords: language and education, linguistic ethnography, Flanders, Standard Language Ideology, linguistic reflexivity
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 7 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.29.05van
References
Archer, M. S.
2012 The Reflexive Imperative in Late Modernity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, R.
1987 The role of performance in the ethnography of speaking. Working Papers and Proceedings of the Center for Psychosocial Studies 111: 3–12.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J.
2007 On scope and depth in linguistic ethnography. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (5): 682–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P.
1991 Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2001 Science de la science et réflexivité. Paris: Raisons d’Agir.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M.
1999 “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28 (2): 203–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 White Kids. Language, Race, and Styles of Youth Identity. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Coupland, N.
2001 Dialect stylisation in radio talk. Language in Society 30 (3): 345–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N. & Kristiansen, T.
2011 SLICE: Critical perspectives on language (de)standardisation. In Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, T. Kristiansen & N. Coupland (eds), 11–35. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
D’Amato, J.
1993 Resistance and compliance in minority classrooms. In Minority Education: Anthropological Perspectives, E. Jacob & C. Jordan (eds), 181–207. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
D’hoker, M. & Henkens, B.
2005 Van segmentering naar convergentie. Structuur en karakter van het secundair onderwijs in België in de 20ste eeuw. In Paradoxen van pedagogisering. Handboek pedagogische historiografie, M. Depaepe, F. Simon & A. Van Gorp (eds), 159–176. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Delarue, S.
2013 Teachers’ Dutch in Flanders: The last guardians of the standard? In Language (De)standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies, T. Kristiansen & S. Grondelaers (eds), 193–226. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Delarue, S. & De Caluwe, J.
2015 Eliminating social inequality by reinforcing standard language ideology? Language policy for Dutch in Flemish schools. Current Issues in Language Planning 16 (1–2): 8–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delarue, S. & Van Lancker, I.
2016 De kloof overbruggen tussen een strikt onderwijstaalbeleid en een taaldiverse klaspraktijk: Strategieën van Vlaamse leraren en leerlingen. TNTL 132 (2): 85–105.Google Scholar
Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W.
2003 Germanic Standardizations. Past to Present [Impact: Studies in Language and Society 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A.
1991 Modernity and self-identiy. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
1981 Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S. & van Hout, R.
2011 The standard language situation in the Low Countries: Top-down and bottom-up variations on a diaglossic theme. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23 (3): 199–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, M.
2008 Doing ethnography. In Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism, L. Wei & M. Moyer (eds), 249–262. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D.
1964 Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist 66 (6): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaspers, J.
2005 Tegenwerken, belachelijk doen. Talige sabotage van Marokkaanse jongens op een Antwerpse middelbare school. Brussel: VUBPress.Google Scholar
2006 Stylizing Standard Dutch by Moroccan boys in Antwerp. Linguistics and Education 17 (2): 131–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Strange bedfellows: Appropriations of a tainted urban dialect. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15 (4): 493–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Stylisations as teacher practice. Language in Society 43 (4): 371–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, J. N.
2008 Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism 5 (3): 161–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lybaert, C.
2014 Het gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen: Percepties en attitudes van een spraakmakende generatie. Gent: Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
Madsen, L. M.
2014 Heteroglossia, voicing and social categorisation. In Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy, A. Blackledge & A. Creese (eds), 41–58. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Rojo, L.
2010 Constructing Inequality in Multilingual Classrooms. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H.
1985 The structure of classroom discourse. In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 3: Discourse and Dialogue, T. A. van Dijk (ed.), 119–131. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, J.
2001 Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4): 530–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L.
1985 Authority in Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolini, D.
2009 Zooming in and zooming out: A package of method and theory to study work practices. In Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexity of Everyday Life, S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels & F. H. Kamsteeg (eds), 120–138. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., De Clerck, B. & Colleman, T.
2014 The emergence of non-canonical degree modifiers in non-standard varieties of Dutch: A constructionalization perspective. In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds), 207–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Milans, M.
2015 Language education policy in late modernity: (Socio)linguistic ethnographies in the European Union. Language Policy 14 (2): 99–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Reflexivity and social change in applied linguistics. AILA Review 29 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rampton, B.
1995 Crossing. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
2001 Critique in interaction. Critique of Anthropology 21 (1): 83–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Hegemony, social class and stylisation. Pragmatics 13 (1): 49–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Crossing. Language & Ethnicity among Adolescents. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
2006 Language in Late Modernity. Interaction in an Urban School. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Linguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics and the study of identities. In Apllied Linguistics Methods: A Reader, T. L. Coffin & K. O’Halloran (eds), 234–250. London: Routledge/Open University.Google Scholar
Rampton, B., Tusting, K., Maybin, J., Barwell, R., Creese, A. & Lytra, V.
2004 UK Linguistic ethnography: A discussion paper. [URL]
Silverstein, M.
1993 Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In Reflexive Language. Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, J. A. Lucy (ed.), 33–58. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smet, P.
2011 Samen taalgrezen verleggen. Conceptnota. [URL]
Van De Mieroop, D., Zenner, E. & Marzo, S.
2016 Standard and Colloquial Belgian Dutch pronouns of adress: A variationist-interactional study of child-directed speech in dinner table interactions. Folia Linguistica 50 (1): 31–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, I.
2016 Standardizing and destandardizing practices at a Flemish secondary school. A sociolinguistic ethnographic perspective on Flemish pupils’ speech practices. Taal en Tongval 641.Google Scholar
Vandekerckhove, R.
2005 Patterns of variation and convergence in the West-Flemish dialects. In Moderne Dialekte – Neue Dialektologie, E. Eggers, J. E. Schmidt & D. Stellmacher (eds), 535–552. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Vandenbroucke, F.
2007 De lat hoog voor talen in iedere school. Goed voor de sterken, sterk voor de zwakken. [URL]
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Rosiers, Kirsten, Inge Van Lancker & Steven Delarue
2018. Beyond the traditional scope of translanguaging. Language & Communication 61 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Shahri, Naseh Nasrollahi & Valeriya Minakova
2021. Reflexive engagement with social meanings through registers. Linguistics and Education 64 ► pp. 100926 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 august 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.