| 1 |
Datamining the Meaning(s) of Progress
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
Ordinary Meaning and Corpus Linguistics
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
Corpus Linguistics and the Criminal Law
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 4 |
Evidence-Based Jurisprudence Meets Legal Linguistics—Unlikely Blends Made in Germany
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 5 |
The Original Meaning of “religion” in the First Amendment: A Test Case of Originalism’s Utilization of Corpus Linguistics
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
The Dictionary as a Specialized Corpus
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
Triangulating Public Meaning: Corpus Linguistics, Immersion, and the Constitutional Record
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
The Power of Words: A Comment on Hamann and Vogel’s Evidence-Based Jurisprudence Meets Legal Linguistics—Unlikely Blends Made in Germany
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 9 |
Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 10 |
A Lawyer’s Introduction to Meaning in the Framework of Corpus Linguistics
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 11 |
Advancing Law and Corpus Linguistics: Importing Principles and Practices from Survey and Content Analysis Methodologies to Improve Corpus Design and Analysis
|
|
|
|
In: BYU Law Review (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 12 |
Integrating Colloquial Arabic in the Classroom: A Study of Students’ and Teachers’ Attitude and Effect
|
|
|
|
In: Faculty Contributions to Books (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 13 |
Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: a longitudinal study
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 15 |
Spaces of consumption and senses of place: a geosemiotic analysis of three markets in Hong Kong
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 16 |
Effects of sound, vocabulary and grammar learning aptitude on adult second language oral ability in foreign language classrooms
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 19 |
Historical and modern studies of code-switching: a tale of mutual enrichment
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 20 |
Accomplishing multilingual lessons: code-switching in South African rural classrooms
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
This study examines code-switching (CS) practices in South African rural classrooms. In particular, it studies isiXhosa, isiMpondo and English CS in Mpondoland. Its central question investigates whether or not a Conversation Analytic (CA) approach to bi/multilingual talk is a viable methodological and theoretical framework with which to explain classroom multilingualism in whole-class formats of interaction. The study examines CS practices in English Second Language (L2) and English L2-medium content lessons in two secondary schools. It draws primarily on close analysis of transcripts, but also on ethnographic knowledge of the setting, participant observation, teacher interviews, and quantitative techniques to explore the following questions: How is CS used to accomplish lessons? Can a CA approach explain observed CS practices? How is classroom bi/multilingual talk similar to and different from ordinary conversation? To what extent can observed practices be explained in terms of classroom type, viz., English-language vs. English L2-medium Social Science vs. English L2-medium Technology classroom? To what extent can patterns of CS be explained in terms of individual differences in teachers’ communicative styles and attitudes to CS? The study finds that lessons are accomplished in five patterns of language use, viz., separate/divergent bilingualism, convergent bilingualism, mixed/flexible multilingualism, isiXhosa-isiMpondo-only, and English-only. It concludes that although CA is a powerful approach for discovering how participants orient to different varieties used in classrooms and therefore for establishing what counts as language and CS in interaction, it is not, on its own, an adequate methodological and theoretical framework with which to explain what goes in multilingual classrooms. This is because the multilingual practices of classroom participants cannot be satisfactorily interpreted without reference to extra-sequential factors such as institutional goals, the roles of participants, and the broader sociolinguistic context in which their practices are embedded.
|
|
Keyword:
Applied Linguistics and Communication (to 2020)
|
|
URL: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/40208/1/Brian%20Ramadiro%20-%20PhD%20%20Thesis%20-%20%20%20Final%20Draft%20-%2006%20December%202016.pdf
https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/40208/
http://vufind.lib.bbk.ac.uk/vufind/Record/562393
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
|
|
