Keywords
multilingual education
linguistic hierarchy
post-Soviet context
Karakalpakstan
English language teaching
identity
equity
critical pedagogy
How to Cite
Abstract
This article describes a sociolinguistic case study of twelve pre-intermediate English language learners, aged 14-15, in Karakalpakstan, a multilingual region in a post- Soviet country. The study explores how language hierarchies, i.e., the segregation of Karakalpak-medium and Russian-medium school streams, affect learners' linguistic resources, learner confidence, learner motivation, and learner participation. The language hierarchy and segregation of school streams are also discussed, focusing on how Karakalpak- medium learners are marginalized compared to Russian-medium learners, whose early exposure to Russian corresponds more to English than to Karakalpak. The article also describes individual learner profiles to show how language medium, gender, ethnicity, and identity intersect and affect learners' educational paths. The implications of the study are discussed, focusing on how a critical, narrative-informed approach to teaching can avoid essentialist language and learner categorizations and promote learner empowerment in multilingual, socially stratified language learning situations. The study contributes to the overall discussion on equity, linguistic justice, and teacher agency in expanding-circle EFL teaching situations.References
1. Ayhan, Ü., & Türkyılmaz, M. U. (2015). Rubrics and rubric design. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(2), 82–92.
2. Bayley, R., & Villarreal, D. (2019). Cultural attitudes toward language variation and dialects. In E. W. Schneider (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 183–204). Cambridge University Press.
3. Calder, J. (2020). Language, gender and sexuality in 2019: Interrogating normativities in the field. Gender and Language, 14(4), 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.18634
4. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford University Press.
5. Deumert, A. (2011). Multilingualism. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 262–282). Cambridge University Press.
6. Eckert, P. (2003). Language and gender in adolescence. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 381–400). Blackwell Publishing.
7. Fought, C. (2011). Language and ethnicity. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 238–257). Cambridge University Press.
8. Kachru, B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1990.tb00244.x
9. Krashen, S. D. (1985). Ch. 1: The input hypothesis. In The input hypothesis: Issues and implications (pp. 1–32). Longman.
10. Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19(3), 273–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1963.11659799
11. Schilling, N. (2011). Language, gender, and sexuality. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 218–237). Cambridge University Press.
13. Tirvassen, A. (2018). Sociolinguistics and the narrative turn. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (Vol. 8, pp. 4972–4976). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0909
14. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/webster/detail.action?docID=3002067
15. Van Booven, C. D. (2018). Developing sociolinguistic and interactional competence. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1300–1306). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0286