DAVE YU MILITAR

ENG711M
10.03.17

Amir, Alia. 2013. Doing Language Policy: A Micro-Interactional Study of Policy Practices in
English as a Foreign Language Classes. Linköping University, Sweden.

The study conducted by Alia Amir intends to construct “description of the classroom
practices of doing language policy (Amir, 2013. p.12)” as she examines the micro-level process
involved in implementing the English only policy in an English in Sweden. The researcher asks
the following questions to achieve her aim: 1. What are the general language practices in English
as a foreign language classroom, especially in relation to medium and code switching? 2. What
are the types of practices or methods that do language policy? 3. Who does the language policy
in the EFL classroom? 4. When is language policy done, i.e. the contexts where doing language
policy arises 5. What are the effects of doing language policy? The research intended to interpret
the data gathered from an ethnomethodological perspective thus she utilized Conversational
Analysis (CA).
The utility of CA is apparent with the study of the language; that is – the prime source of
the method’s data, conversation, is the materialization of language. In Conversation Analysis, the
treatment and transcription of the conversation, the examination of its turns and sequences
uncovers the detailed processes of the use of spoken language. However, in ethnomethodology
where CA stems from, the examination of conversation is not to study language but it sees how
conversation, how language reveals the social order of a society or culture (Maynard and
Clayman, 2003).
The ethnomethodological roots of CA stumps my understanding of CA as a data
gathering method. For whatever reason I am unable to separate ethnomethodology and CA that
it confuses me that CA is used for anything other than the study of culture. Thus, at first reading
of the article, it seems to me that the researcher is merely trying to justify her use of CA by
making her study’s framework fit CA’s paradigm: the class is its own culture, the teacher and
students interaction create a micro-level language policy and the emic perspective when
presenting the data (Amir, 2013. p.26). The researcher has also emphasized that her theoretical
framework relies on the ethnomethodological and emic approach, and premised that Swedish
classrooms are “under-researched” (p.11). Due to my simplistic grasp of the aforementioned
concept, I have expected a discussion on language procedures that are unique to Swedish
students. I also surmised that the ethnomethodological element of “breaching the common
sense” cannot be applicable here because the researcher scrutinized occurrences of violation of a
policy not in “common sense” or societal convention.
Using CA, Amir examines English only policy in situ and produces a three step sequence
of language policing and a taxonomy of language policing (Amir 2013 p.52). The usefulness
transcription prescribed by CA is evident in the investigation of codeswitching among students
(p. 44). The principle of not having a hypotheses (p. 31) and turn by turn sequence (p. 28) are
pertinent in creation of the three step model of language policing (p.46). The use of CA was not
crucial when addressing the questions regarding who does the language policy and when does
the language policy occurs. Since videotaping is used in gathering raw data in CA, observation
becomes an inherent procedure. The mentioned questions could have been answered adequately
using observation.
Additional searches on the topic show that there has been numerous studies on language
and language education and learning using CA (Huth 2011, Seedhouse 2005, Wong 2002, Lowe,
20081) because of its applicability of CA to the field of language. I am resistant in accepting that
the “classroom” is considered its own culture the way ethnomethodology defines culture. In the
present context it just seems that researchers justify explaining how the classroom contains
“culture” so they can apply CA. As Huth points out “... instructed language learning settings
emerge as an interactional space in which not only language teaching or learning take place, but
also as an arena in which teachers and students collaboratively construct a variety of social
worlds, negotiate their identities, all while shaping the process of teaching and learning (2011. p.
298).”
If the mechanics of CA is valuable to the study of language, why not use the method in
isolation without having to impose the ethnomethodological background? Seedhouse (2005)
reviews studies using CA and presents three approaches of CA in language research:
ethnomethodological, sociocultural and linguistic approach (p.175). Seedhouse points out that in
linguistic approach of CA has departed from ethnomethodological CA: “There is now a common

1
Lowe reviews Conversational Analysis and Language for Specific Purposes edited by Bowles, H., & Seedhouse, P.
(2007) published by Peter Lang. The book presents 10 studies that employed CA in the field of Language for
Specific Purposes.
misconception among a number of linguists that doing CA is a matter of transcribing talk and
then identifying or coding patters of turn-taking, adjacency pairs, preference organization and
repair, with the ethnomethodological principles and the dimension of social action entirely
absent (p.176).” It is not my position that Amir portrays this misconception. On the contrary, the
researcher’s use of CA mechanics and emic principles is efficacious; a taxonomy of language
policing is produced. There is an expectation of a discussion regarding the implications of the
study’s results to EFL learning but I have to constantly remind myself that the study’s aim is to
discover and depict the dynamics of language policy practices. The researcher addresses this
expectation by discussing the limitations of the study and offering areas for further research that
focuses on pedagogical implications of language policy procedures.
There is still much to understand in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis.
Numerous studies in the field using CA show its applicability to the study of language.
However, a researcher has to be diligent in safeguarding oneself from misemploying a method in
order to put forth a study:
Richards (2005) warns against easy solutions and instant applications
and Seedhouse (2004) points out the pifalls of the increasing prevalent
‘linguistic CA’. Ideally, what the emergent field of CA in language
learning and teaching requires is a period of measured growth produced
by an ever-increasing base of well-trained reaserchers. By contrast, a
suddent ‘boom’ in the superficial studies aimed at immediate
applicability will inevitably lead to the ‘bust” stage of the cycle
(Seedfall 2005 p. 181).

References:
Huth, T. (2011). Conversation analysis and language classroom discourse. Language and
Linguistics Compass, 5, 5, 297-309

Lowe, C. (2008). Book Review: Conversation Analysis and Language for Specific Purposes.
Journal of Pragmatics. 40, 1486-1491

Maynard, D. W., & Clayman, S. E. (2003). Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. The
handbook of symbolic interactionism, 173-202.

Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Language Learning. Language Teaching, 38,
4, 165-187

Wong, J. (2002). "Applying" conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in

English as a second language textbooks. IRAL, 40, 1, 37-60