• The Conference
  • Home
  • Programme
  • Venue & directions
  • Organizing Committee
  • Scientific Committee
  • Exhibitors & sponsors
  • Satellite events
  • Conference Party
• Past & future
  • Previous symposia
  • Finland 2014
  • Spain 2016
• About FU Berlin
  • University homepage
  • Humanities at FU

Programme: accepted abstracts

Abstract ID: 1087

Part of Session 108: Negotiating communicative practices in school (Other abstracts in this session)

The construction of ‘academic language’ in German classrooms: The negotiation of communicative practices and linguistic standards in ‘morning circles’

Authors: Kern, Friederike; Lingnau, Beate; Paul, Ingwer
Submitted by: Lingnau, Beate (Universität Bielefeld, Germany)

The term ‘academic language’ (or ‘Bildungssprache’, cf. Gogolin/Lange 2010), refers to a specific linguistic register that is considered vital for the students’ educational success. According to Schleppegrell (2004), this register differs from everyday oral language insofar as it is more decontextualized, explicit and complex on all levels of linguistics description.

In our paper, we take a constructionist approach to ‘academic language’ and furthermore aim to examine the communicative classroom practices that provide social environments for its learning. As the starting point of our analysis we chose the ‚Morgenkreise’ (‚morning circles’) in two classrooms of Year 1 and Year 2 students, many of whom speak languages other than German in their families. In our analysis, we will focus on the collective construction of linguistic standards that bear resemblance to what has become known as ‚academic language’.

The ‘morning circle’ (‚sharing time’) as a ritualized interactional event provides specific prerequisites for the negotiation of communicative practices and – more important – for linguistic standards connected to them. The nature of students’ participation in the circle is defined by a specified agenda (available as written documents in the classroom): On a rotational basis, it requires the respective participants to present questions to the class they had designed prior to the event. The predictability usually inherent in these questions facilitates verbal performance and the recognition of linguistic norms. Therefore, the highly ritualized form relieves the students from pressure, and at the same time increases the level of social control through mutual attention. In this respect, the final round, intended for self-evaluation (“what have I done well” – “what could I have done better”), is particularly noteworthy as it offers insight into the linguistic (and social) standards students and teachers have agreed upon as part of ‘doing schooling’. 

Cook-Gumperz, Jenny (2004): The social construction of literacy. In : Cook-Gumperz, Jenny (Ed.): The social construction of literacy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1-18.

Gogolin, Ingrid/Lange, Imke (2010): Bildungssprache und durchgängige Schulbildung. In: Gomolla, Mechthild/Fürstenau, Sara (Ed.): Migration und schulischer Wandel: Mehrsprachigkeit. VS Verlag: Wiesbaden, 107-128.

Gumperz, John/Cook-Gumperz, Jenny (2006): Interactional linguistics in the study of schooling. In: Cook-Gumperz, Jenny (Ed.): The social construction of literacy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 50–75.

Schleppegrell, Mary (2004): The language of schooling. A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.