Integrating Language Variation into EFL Teaching in Greece: Proposals for Secondary Education
Christopher Lees, Greece
Christopher Lees holds a BA in Modern Languages from the University of Birmingham, a MA in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics from the University of Athens (Sylff fellow), the Diploma in Translation from the Chartered Institute of Linguists, London, and a PhD in Linguistics from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (IKY scholar). He is currently a teaching and research fellow at the School of English Language and Literature, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, and a teacher of English at Yes English Language Centre, Thessaloniki. His research interests lie in the field of Sociolinguistics, particularly in digital language practices. His work, both in Greek and English, has been published in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and edited volumes. E-mail: cjlees@auth.gr
Menu
Introduction
Language variation in Greek secondary education
Proposals for teaching language variation in secondary school English classes in Greece
Conclusions
References
Current methods in Second Language Acquisition aim to increase the learner’s exposure to language in use. The Communicative Approach, in particular, as the field’s most widely used and enduring method, advocates for teaching to be carried out in a way that facilitates a “natural” way for learners to acquire language, as opposed to focusing on grammatical rules and grammar and vocabulary drills that were preferred in earlier approaches such as the Grammar-Translation approach (Mitsis 2003). Moreover, genre-based approaches advocated for in the area of English for Specific/Academic Purposes have drawn attention to ways in which the structure and register of various genres of texts can be taught with a view to preparing EFL/ESL students for the demands of academic writing they will encounter if they intend to pursue academic study in the future (Barber 1962, Gustaffson 1975, Tarone et al. 1981, Swales 1990, Bhatia 1993, 2004, Paltridge 1997, Macken-Horarik 2000, Hyland 2003, 2004 Toledo 2005).
However, while the contribution of the research outlined above is indisputable, it is apparent, even in the Communicative Approach, that an overwhelming emphasis is placed on formal Standard English1, either the British or American variety, effectively resulting in learners focusing on the formal, standard use of English, while not being exposed to non-standard, more informal varieties and registers of the language, despite the fact that it is these varieties and registers that learners will encounter in the vast majority of communicative instances they will participate in should they come to find themselves in an environment where English is spoken naturally. In other words, the standard variety of language that EFL learners are taught is not representative of the ways language is used in everyday settings. The position of this paper is that this situation leads to EFL learners developing only a partial understanding of language and a compromised ability to communicate in all the professional and social contexts they will likely find themselves in.
Research in Applied Linguistics stresses the importance of enhancing a learner’s communicative competence2, which is necessary in order for them to communicate effectively in a variety of contexts and, as such, has wider implications for communication than linguistic competence (Archakis & Kondyli 2011). This is where linguistic variation is relevant, the concept that speakers do not just use one variety of language but features from different dialects and sociolects as well as functional varieties including genres and registers, in order to fulfil their communicative purposes depending on the context (Halliday 1978, Wardhaugh 1992, Archakis & Kondyli 2011). For instance, although a grammatically-correct sentence with a high register may be appropriate in a business setting among strangers, it may be entirely inappropriate at a social gathering between friends, as Example 1 demonstrates:
(1) Yvonne: What do you fancy for lunch?
Peter: I would like to partake of a light aperitif followed by something hot and
then dessert. Which way are you inclined?
Although the exchange in Example 1 is perhaps exaggerated, it nevertheless highlights the marked difference between the two turns. Yvonne uses a friendly, informal register; note in particular the use of the verb fancy as opposed to like, whereas Peter answers in an extremely formal way; note the participle clauses and complex structures, which would be highly marked in friendly discourse in the United Kingdom3. Likewise, in Example 2, the phrases used in an informal exchange of greetings between acquaintances feature highly in conversations in the UK, but are rarely covered in teaching material.
(2) James: Alright, John. How’ve you been?
John: Not too bad mate, cheers. You?
Greetings such as these which can frequently be heard in everyday exchanges in the UK can be exploited in numerous ways in the classroom. For example, aside from the informal vocabulary items, such as alright and cheers, through which friendship and intimacy are indexed (see Bucholz & Hall 2005: 594), other sociolinguistic aspects such as the way heterosexual males interact and bond through language (Pavlidou 2006, Talbot 2010, Eckert 2014, Lees 2017) can be highlighted and discussed in class. However, if EFL learners are not exposed to them through textbooks and teacher intervention, their ability to interact successfully in such a significant aspect of interpersonal communication will be compromised.
The importance of including language variation4 in language education, both in the learner’s mother tongue and second/foreign language has been stressed by a number of researchers. For example, one of the most significant components of communicative competence is pragmatic competence, that is the learners’ ability to use language effectively in a wide range of social functions and to interpret and understand the intention of the interlocutor in various social contexts (Alcón & Martinez-Flor 2008; Bachman 1990; Eslami & Eslami-Rakesh 2008, Bella (2012, 2015). However, according to Bella (2012: 2), despite the importance of pragmatic competence for a learner’s command of a language, emphasis in classrooms is still overwhelmingly placed on grammaticality. However, the need for a more socio-pragmatic approach to language teaching is being stressed. A significant framework which aims at developing learners’ abilities to process and critically analyse the relationship between language use and social context5 is the Muliliteracies approach put forward by Kalantzis & Cope (1999)6. This approach includes placing learners at the epicentre of the learning experience by relying on their own experience of language use, both in and out of school, in order to critically analyse how language is used and for which purposes in specific instances of communication. The need to include the out of school literacy practices of school-age learners has been particularly emphasised by the New Literacy Studies movement (Street 1993, Gee 2004), whose research focused on how learners acquire language outside the school environment and how this results in a gap between the language used in school and that used at home, known as the Home-School Mismatch Hypothesis (Luke 2004).
As any educator will know, secondary school age learners draw from a broad and rich pool of resources where English is used, including film, music, and social media such as Facebook and Instagram. Moreover, research has shown that such resources, despite often being excluded from school material, are equally as complex and important as the scholarly type of literacy covered in schools (Street 1993, Gee 2004, Coupland 2009, Stamou et al. 2016, Maroniti 2017). For example, I have shown ways in which the language practices of teenagers on Facebook can be used in Greek classes (Lees 2016), as a way of bringing a context of language use which is highly significant to young people into classroom discussion. Facebook in particular constitutes a dynamic platform for young people to engage in code switching, alphabet alternation, and using various features associated with informal speech (Androutsopoulos 2013, Spilioti 2014, Lees et al. 2017, Lees 2017). It would therefore make sense to include such an integral aspect of learners’ everyday communication into classroom discourse. This approach to language education is in line with current discourse which stipulates the pedagogical importance of discussing the out-of-school literacy practices of learners (Kalantzis & Cope 1999, Duff 2004, Koutsogiannis 2011).
What materialises from the above, especially in relation to an EFL/ESL environment, is the importance for learners to be introduced to and made critically aware of the different social varieties and uses of English depending on the instance of communication. However, in order for learners to be able to process such different uses of language, they must first receive the necessary language input. In the case of social, film, and music media, this often takes place in the learner’s home environment. However, other examples of language use, such as those outlined in Examples 1 and 2 may need to be introduced and explained by the teacher in class. Therefore, the purpose of this article will be to argue in favour of integrating language variation in Greek secondary education as a way of enhancing learners’ language awareness and communicative competence in a wide range of contexts and instances. In order to do this, the lack of language variation in the material currently used in Greek secondary and language schools will be outlined and discussed before proposals are made relating to how current material could be supplemented to include a more varied and, therefore, realistic approach to language learning. We shall now turn to an overview of the English language material used in Greek secondary education.
EFL education in Greece at secondary level is mainly provided by state schools and private language schools. The purpose of the former is to provide pupils with what the Greek national curriculum views to be a foundation in English, whereas the purpose of the latter is generally to prepare pupils for exams in language proficiency. Many children in Greece attend language schools out of necessity, since it is considered that schools do not adequately prepare pupils for the standard of English they will be expected to achieve in order to pursue postgraduate study or a successful career. This is a controversial issue that frequently appears in political discourse and is referred to as “παραπαιδεία,” ‘shadow education.’ Leaving the moral contention of this particular issue aside, it is apparent that the material used in both sectors of education does not cover language variation sufficiently, so as to adequately equip the learner with the necessary critical awareness of language use in the various social contexts outlined in the previous section. This section will provide an overview of the EFL coursebook material used in the three years of Greek secondary schools, “gymnasia”, as well as some indicative examples of the text books used in foreign language schools7.
A careful examination of the textbooks used in secondary schools in Greece reveals that very little attention is paid to language variation and context-based instances of communication, whereas the overwhelming emphasis, as Bella (2012: 2) has pointed out, is placed on grammaticality and sentence formation as opposed to socio-pragmatic awareness and enhancement. Example 3 below from the textbook used for advanced learners in the first year of secondary school (Karagianni et al. 2009: 108) is indicative:
(3)
The text pupils are asked to read is an email sent to a friend, in which the writer talks about her love interest. The text presents some interesting aspects of oral-like language, such as incomplete syntactic structures and many short sentences which are not linked to previous ones with conjunctions or any other means (Politis 2001), typical of informal Computer-Mediated-Communication (Crystal 2006, Soffer 2010, 2012, Lees 2017). Moreover, there is a use of informal language, including the diminutive suffix –y in fabby, associated with intimate, friendly discourse, especially between girls (Makri-Tsilipakou 2003, Lees 2016, 2017). However, despite the opportunity for such phenomena to be made use of in order to raise or enhance pupils’ critical awareness of language use in Computer-Mediated-Communication, the material focuses on lexicon and grammatical structures, as opposed to the socio-pragmatic dimension of language. The same is true in the mediation task in Example 4 below from the advanced textbook used in the second year of secondary school (Giannakopoulou et al. 2009), where pupils are asked to use a Greek text to reply to a friend’s email in English. As in Example 2, no discussion takes place in relation to the style of language used in digital communication between friends. Instead, pupils are essentially expected to translate from Greek, again focusing on words and grammaticality, as opposed to social and pragmatic aspects.
(4)
Moreover, there are several instances where everyday idiomatic language is presented in the material, but completely out of context, thus failing to alert pupils to the instances in which such language is used and the functions they serve. Example 5 from the textbook used for beginners in the second class of secondary school (McGavigan 2009: 102) is representative of this trend.
(5)
It should be pointed out that lack of context for idiomatic language is by no means exclusive to state school coursebooks. For example, in Burlington’s ECPE Honors book used for learners preparing for the Michigan proficiency exam (Tyler 2010), learners are asked, especially in listening tasks, to match idiomatic expressions to their “meaning.” However, it is not uncommon for the meaning given to be inaccurate or without the same pragmatic function, thus giving a false impression of how the phrase in question is used in communication. Examples 6 and 7 below demonstrate this (ibid: 48).
(6) I could (really) use – I need
(7) No kidding! – That’s for sure!
What is apparent in both examples above is that the context and indeed the register of the supposed synonymous expressions are not complete equivalents. For instance, in Example 6, the use of the phrase I could really use appears to be an assertive speech act, but in actual fact is often used as a polite directive (Searle 1975), that is, a polite way of getting someone to do something. Similarly, the phrase no kidding in Example 7 can often be used to convey sarcasm when stating the obvious, something that is not true of the phrase that’s for sure. Examples such as these remind us that there is very rarely such a thing as complete synonymy, as words and phrases which appear to have a very similar meaning often occur in very different contexts and with different pragmatic functions (Lyons 1977, Veloudis 2005). As such, such activities fall short, in that they do not emphasise contextual use and, as a result, the critical language awareness of the learner is not enhanced to the degree that would be necessary, in order for them to be able to use such expressions effectively in communication.
However, the textbooks used in schools are not completely void of a critical approach as regards language variation. For instance, Example 8 from the advanced text book used in the second year of secondary school (Giannakopoulou et al. 2009: 56) asks pupils to think about whether a text is formal and informal and what helped them decide.
(8)
Activities such as these provide a useful way for allowing learners to think about language use and consolidate their knowledge in a classroom discussion. Such activities also in line with the position taken in the Muliliteracy approach that argues for learners to independently realise which aspects of language perform certain communicative functions and then to have them consolidated within the classroom (Kalantzis & Cope 1999, Chatzisabbidis 2003).
The same is also true of books used in private language schools. For example, many writing activities make reference to the use of formal and informal language, albeit without extensive reference to the function of this in communication. Example 9 from Unit 8 of Burlington’s Real English (Swanson & Thomas 2014: 99) demonstrates this in an activity, where pupils are asked to underline phrases which are “friendly but not too informal.”
(9) USE THE CORRECT STYLE A letter giving your opinion to someone you don’t know should be friendly, but not too informal. In the model [a model writing provided], underline the phrases the writer uses to say the following things.
- I think it’s a pity – I think it’s a shame
- Please think about – please bear in mind
- Your fans love you! – You have so many fans who admire you
- I guess you have your reasons for quitting – I understand that you have good reasons for wanting to give up your career
- Please listen to me – I hope you will consider my suggestion
The expressions given in this activity provide a useful way of introducing learners to concepts such as linguistic politeness and hedging devices8, particularly those in numbers 4 and 5, which could serve as a helpful stimulus to discuss the instances of communication such phrases could be used in and in which ways the language serves to preserve the friendly but semi-formal register referred to in the rubric. However, although the teacher would be able to make use of these resources if it occurred to them, the way the activity in question is designed favours a vocabulary learning approach which, once again, completely leaves out the socio-pragmatic communicative functions of the language choices present in the writing.
In conclusion, what is apparent from the overview provided in this section is that while some attention is drawn to functional varieties of language, such as formal and informal registers and aspects of Computer-Mediated-Communication, very little context is provided, while the overwhelming emphasis in the books concerns grammaticality and there is no mention of geographical varieties of English. As discussed in the introduction, such an approach has negative implications for learners’ critical language awareness and recycles the idea of language being a homogenous system of communication (Kakridi-Ferrari 2007), which is not representative of the complex reality of language use. Furthermore, it serves to stigmatise those varieties that are not standardised (Kakridi-Ferrari 2000, 2005, Tsiplakou & Chatzioannou 2010), evident in questions I often receive when talking about various dialects and sociolects in class, such as “Is Scottish the village form of English?”9 The following section provides some suggestions of how this situation can be rectified in a more inclusive lesson which highlights the complex reality of language use, dispels some of the negativity associated with non-standard varieties, and allows learners to view language from a more critical and communicative perspective.
In this section, an indicative selection of activities will be presented which aim to fill the gap currently present in the EFL course material discussed in this paper as regards language variation. The purpose of each activity is to alert learners to the fact that language use is not homogenous, but can be used in many different ways according to context, participants and purpose (Halliday 1978, Wardhaugh 1992, Archakis & Kondyli 2011). In addition, it is hoped that learners will be able to better identify and recognise the socio-pragmatic functions of different varieties, something which is generally absent in foreign language teaching material (Bella 2012: 2). However, it should also be pointed out that including such activities should not be seen as a replacement to those which focus on the standard variety of language, which also has a functional, communicative purpose, not least in order for learners to meet the demands of academia and to pass their academic exams (Kakridi-Ferrari 2000); rather, they should be seen as supplementary activities that could be incorporated into existing teaching material.
Example 10 below is an advertisement and example of how learners can be encouraged to critically think about generic conventions in texts and how certain language choices fulfil such conventions (Paltridge 1996, Macken-Horarik 2000).
10.
- Read the extract below and try and decide where the text comes from, who it is intended for, and what its purpose is.
- 2. Underline examples that helped you answer question 1 and discuss them in class.
“This stunning series is intended to inspire you to maximise the potential of your own gardens and grounds over twelve weeks, covering everything from garden ornaments to vineyards - visit our dedicated website for a flavour of Dream Acres[...]” (unknown source)
Question 1 encourages learners to think about the context of the text and to identify key components such as communicative instance, participants, and purpose, whereas Question 2 asks them to justify their choices and leads to a class-discussion (Kalantzis & Cope 1999: 689), where ideas can be consolidated. For example, the tutor could discuss with pupils the pragmatic strategy of involvement employed through the use of personal and possessive pronouns (Chafe 1982), as well as the use of the imperative, which here serves as a directive illocutionary speech act (Searle 1975). An activity like this could also be followed up by learners acting as researchers and bringing in their own examples they have found from similar texts to discuss in class (Kalantzis & Cope 1999, Koutsogiannis 2011).
Example 11 is an exchange of informal greetings between acquaintances, apparent through the use of phrases
11. Read the dialogue below. Who do you think are speaking. What do you notice about the language used.
A: Alright?
B: Yeah, not too bad, mate. How’ve you been?
A: Yeah, can’t complain. You up to much this evenin’?
B: I ain’t arranged nothing.
Aside from exposing learners to an informal variety of everyday spoken English, an activity such as this also highlights some useful sociolinguistic variables. For instance, the established answers to the typical greeting question how are you, expressed here as alright highlight the ways in which language can encode social perceptions and points of view (Whorf 1956, Lucy 1992). More specifically, it could be used to initiate a discussion related to how similar questions are answered in other languages and what this reveals about the ways different societies do greetings. Moreover, attention can be drawn to how grammatical structures differ from the standard variety (Kakridi-Ferrari 2007), such as the double negative used here and how they perform social functions. Discussion on matters such as these is important, since it avoids confusion which very often arises when learners are often exposed to the same or similar instances in their out-of-school language practices. For instance, double negatives very often feature in songs that young learners listen to, e.g. I can’t get no satisfaction, we don’t need no education etc. Once again, this highlights the educational benefit of including out-of-school language practices into classroom discussion (Kalantzis & Cope 1999, Duff 2004, Koutsogiannis 2011).
Example 12 is an extract from a discussion on the wall of a teenager on Facebook.
12.
Read the dialogue between friends on Facebook. What can you say about the phrase, are you working me used by Lia? Why do you think she has chosen to use it?
Giannis: χαχαχαχα!!!
Lia: ουυυυυ *ο* οι ίδιοι!!! ειδικα σε αυτην την φωτοο… σωστα, κ. Παρκερ;
Giannis: λαθος!!! Γιάννης: ουτε το προσωπο του δεν φαινεται
Lia: δολοφονικο βλεμαα…σκααα
Fotini: είστε ίδιοι ρε *ο*
Giannis: ΔΕΝ ΕΙΜΑΣΤΕ
Lia: -.- Δεν σου αρέσει ο Spiderman τώρα; Are you working me?
Giannis: Νο (from Lees 2017)
What is interesting about this particular extract is that the English used does not correspond to any community of native speakers of English. Rather, the phrase, are you working me?, is a direct translation of the Greek phrase με δουλεύεις;, ‘me doulevis’ [are you kidding me?]. As has been pointed out by Jørgensen (2008), speakers very often borrow features from the languages they have come in contact with, regardless of how proficient they are in them, so as to achieve their communicative goals. This can also include an intentional violation of the rules of the language whose features have been borrowed, provided that the intended message is conveyed10. In this case, Lia uses the term, because she knows that Giannis will be able to understand it, since he is a Greek speaker who also, as the majority of children in Greece, learns English. As a result, the message intended to be conveyed by Lia is successful, evidenced by Giannis’s response, which is also in English. The advantage of including such an activity in an EFL context is, firstly, that it shows how English can be used creatively and even “violated” in specific contexts, whilst still effectively conveying meaning, and secondly because it is part of the wider language practices used by young learners of English in their online communication. As a follow-up activity, pupils could share and discuss their own examples from their social media interactions. In such a context, pupils guide the lesson by critically analysing the language used, whereas the tutor acts as facilitator helping pupils interpret their findings (Kalanztis & Cope 2009, Duff 2004, Koutsogiannis 2011).
Finally, Example 13 is an activity that could be used to enhance pupils’ pragmatic awareness by focusing on the differences between politeness in their mother tongue, Greek, and their second or foreign language, English11.
13. You are at a friend’s house and need to go to the bathroom. How do you tell your friend this?
English:...............................................................................................
Greek:...............................................................................................
The activity is deliberately open-ended, so as for learners to engage in a critical discussion related to the ways in which requests can be made in both languages. Speech acts such as requests are an integral part of a speaker’s communicative competence (Bella 2012, 2015) and, aside from enhancing learners’ pragmatic awareness and competence, activities such as these will allow them to be better able to critically analyse how socio-cultural differences are encoded in language use. In this way, emphasis is shifted from the rather exclusive examination of word and grammar, so as to also include socio-cultural elements of language, which will play a pivotal role in their ability to communicate in and adapt to the specific cultural norms of an entirely different linguistic community. There is also the added bonus that activities such as these are very often fun for those taking part, including the tutor.
The purpose of this article was to highlight the importance of including language variation into EFL/ESL secondary level classrooms in Greece as a means of enhancing learners’ critical awareness of language use in various contexts and between various participants by allowing learners to develop a more representative view of the socio-pragmatic and communicative dimensions of language use. As a result, linguistic varieties will be destigmatised and the communicative competence of the learners will be more advanced, permitting them to use English to take part in a wider variety of social settings.
As we saw from the review of teaching material currently used in Greece both in state and private language schools, emphasis is placed on pupils perfecting grammatical structures and learning vocabulary, often through synonyms that are not complete equivalents of the words being learned and are not put in context, resulting in the learner remaining unaware of the communicative instances such words or phrases are used in. Moreover, although examples of varieties of language, such as youth language in Computer-Mediated-Communication are given, no discussion of the peculiarities of the language and how it differs from the standard variety is initiated. The same is true of functional varieties such as genres and registers. Although there are some activities which ask learners to think about the features of a text and how these make the language formal or informal, they are very few, and it remains the sole responsibility of the tutor to organise the lesson in such a way that facilitates discussion. It was therefore concluded that the existing material should be supplemented with activities which aim to bridge this gap in learners’ knowledge. As such, a selection of activities was suggested from various contexts and instances of communication, including advertisements, conversation and online chatting on Facebook. An example was even given, where the use of English would be intelligible only by users who know both English and Greek, but nonetheless, such a use of English constitutes effective communication if it takes place in the appropriate context with the appropriate participants. What emerged from the discussion was that activities such as these can be exploited in various ways, so as to introduce learners to concepts such as linguistic politeness, non-standard grammatical constructions, and other sociolinguistic aspects of English.
Finally, it is important to stress that an article of this nature cannot draw any definitive conclusions as to the ways in which including the activities proposed can enhance the critical language awareness of secondary school learners in Greece. What can be said, however, is that related empirical evidence suggests that it is possible. As such, both quantitative and qualitative research would be desirable, in order to determine the extent to which such a hypothesis can be tested and confirmed.
Androutsopoulos, J. (2013). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism (19/2). 185-205.
Alcón Soler, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. (2008) (eds.) Investigating pragmatics in
foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Archakis, A. & Kondyli, M. (2011). Eisagogi se zitimata koinonioglossologias [Introduction to matters of Sociolinguistics]. Athens: Nisos.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barber, C.L. (1962). Some measurable characteristics of modern scientific prose. Contributions to English Syntax and Phonology. Stockholm.
Bella, S. (2012). Pragmatic awareness in a second language setting: The case of L2 learners of Greek. Multilingua (31). 1-33.
Bella, S. (2015). Pragmatologia: Apo ti glossiki epikoinonia sti glossiki didaskalia [Pramgatics: From communication to teaching]. Athens: Gutenberg.
Bhatia, V. (1993). Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. New York: Longman.
Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. Continuum.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bucholtz, Μ. & Hall, Κ. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7 (4/5). 585-614.
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (eds.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy.¬ Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 35-53.
Chatzisabbidis, S. (2003). I didaskalia tis ellinikis glossas sto plaisio ton poligrammatismon: Proetoimasia tou koinonikou mellontos ton mathiton [Teaching Greek in the context of Muliliteracies: Preparing pupils’ social future]. Filologos 113. 405-414.
Coupland, N. 2009. The mediated performance of vernaculars. Journal of English Linguistics 37: 284-300.
Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dendrinou, B. (2001). Didaskalia tis mitrikis glossas [Teaching the mother tongue]. In A.-F. Christidis (eds. in cooperation with M. Theodoropoulou). Engiklikos odigos gia ti glossa. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language. 217-222.
Duff, P.A. (2004). Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: The infusion of pop culture in educational discourse. Linguistics & Education 14: 231-276.
Eckert, P. (2014). Language and Gender in Adolescence. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff & J. Holmes (eds.). The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality. John Wiley & sons Ltd. Hoboken: NJ. 529-545.
Eslami, Z. & Eslami-Rakesh, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence
of non-native English speaking Teacher Candidates in an EFL context. In
E. Alcón Soler & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.). Investigating pragmatics in foreign
language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 178-197.
Fragoudaki, A. (1987). Glossa kai ideologia. Koinoniologiki proseggisi tis ellinikis glossas [Language and ideology. A sociological approach to the Greek language]. Athens: Odysseas.
Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge.
Giannakopoulou, E, Giannakopoulou, G., Karampasi, E. & Theoni, S. (2009). Think Teen! 2nd Grade of Junior High School. Students’ book. Prochorimenoi. Athens: Organismos Ekdoseos Didaktikon Vivlion.
Gustaffson, M. (1975). Some S.yntactic Properties of English Law Language. Turkey: University of Turkey.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.
Hawkins, E. 1984. Awareness of language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(1). 17-29.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J.
Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. 35-71.
Holmes, J, (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
James, C. & Garrett, P. (eds.) 1991. Language awareness in the classroom. London:
Longman.
Jørgensen, N. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism 5 (3). 161-176.
Kakridi-Ferrari, M. (2000). Norma, glossiki poikilia kai ekpaidevsi [Standard, language variation and education]. Glossikos Ypologistis 1 (1). Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language. 161-167.
Kakridi-Ferrari, M. (2005). Glossa kai koinoniko perivallon: Zitimata koinonioglossologias [Language and social environment: Sociolinguistic matters]. Part 1. Athens: Parousia Magazine 64.
Kakridi-Ferrari, M. (2007). Dialektos [Dialect]. Themata istorias tis ellinikis glossas. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language. 1-6.
Kalantzis, Μ. & Cope, Β. (1999). Poligrammatismoi: Epanexetasi tou ti ennoume os grammatismo kai ti didaskoume os grammatismo sta plaisia tis pagkosmias politismikis polimorfias kai ton neon technologion epikoinonias [Multiliteracies: Reviewing what we mean by literacy and what we teach as literacy in the context of global cultural diversity and new communication technologies]. In A.-F. Christidis (eds.) Isxires kai astheneis glosses stin Evropaiki Enosi. Opseis tou glossikou hgemonismou. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language. 680-695.
Karagianni, E., Koui, V. & Nikolaki, A. (2009). Think Teen! First Grade of Junior High School Students‘ Book. Archarioi. Athens: Organismos Ekdoseos Didaktikon Vivlion.
Karagianni, E., Koui, V. & Nikolaki, A. (2009). Think Teen! First Grade of Junior High School Students‘ Book. Prochorimenoi. Athens: Organismos Ekdoseos Didaktikon Vivlion.
Koutsogiannis, D. (2011). Efivikes praktikes psifiakou grammatismou kai taftotites [Teenage digital literacy practices and identities]. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language.
Lees, C. (2014). I evgenia ston proforiko logo tis Neas Ellinikis: I periptosi ton stoixeion parakalo kai signomi [Politeness in Modern Greek discourse: The case of parakalo and signomi]. In D. Goutsos (eds.). O proforikos logos sta Ellinika. Kavala: Saita Publications. 163-185.
Lees, C. (2016). Apo ton “toixo” tou Facebook sti sxoliki taxi: I chrisi upokoristikon kai megethintikon stis psifiakes glossikes praktikes mathiton/trion gymnasiou kai protaseis gia ti didaskalia tous [From the Facebook wall to the classroom: The use of diminutives and augmentatives in the digital language practices of secondary school pupils and proposals for teaching them]. In Stamou. A., Politis, P. & Archakis, A. (2016) (eds.). Glossiki poikilotita kai kritikoi grammatismoi ston logo tis mazikis koultouras: Ekpaideftikes protaseis gia to glossiko mathima. Kavala: Saita Publications. 204-229.
Lees, C. (2017). Glossikes praktikes ton neon se topous koinonikis diktiosis: H periptosi tou Facebook [The language practices of young people on social networking sites: the case of Facebook]. PhD thesis. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Lees, C., Politis, P. and Koutsogiannis, D. (2017). Roman-alphabeted Greek and transliteration in the digital language practices of Greek secondary school pupils on Facebook. Journal of Greek Media & Culture (3/1). 53–71.
Lucy, J. (1992). Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luke, A. (2004). On the material consequences of literacy. Language & Education 18(4): 331-335.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2000). Glossiki agogi sti B’/thmia ekpaideusi stin Australia: Mia sistimiki leitourgiki optiki [Language instruction in secondary education in Austrialia: A systemic functional perspective]. Glossikos Ypologistis 2. 73-95.
Makri-Tsilipakou, M. (2003). Greek diminutive use problematised: Gender, culture
and common sense. Discourse & Society (14/6). 699-726.
Maroniti, Α. (2017). I glossiki poikilotita ston logo tis mazikis koultouras: Anaparastaseis tis kai anaptixi enos ekpaideftikou programmatos gia paidia prosxolikis kai protosxolikis ilikias [Sociolinguistic diversity in popular culture discourse: representations and development of a project for preschool children and pupils in the first school years]. PhD thesis. University of Western Macedonia.
McGavigan, P. (2009). Think Teen! 2nd Grade of Junior High School. Students’ book. Archarioi. Athens: Organismos Ekdoseos Didaktikon Vivlion.
Mitsis, Ν. (2003). Stoixeiodes Arxes kai Methodoi tis Efarmosmenis Glossologias. Eisagogi sti Didaskalia tis Ellinikis os Deuteris (i Xenis) Glossas [Basic Principles and Methods in Applied Linguistics. Introduction to the Teaching of Greek as a Second (or Foreign) Language]. Athens: Gutenberg.
Paltridge, Β (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom. ELT Journal (50/3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 237-243.
Paltridge, B (1997). Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Pavlidou, T.-S. (2006). Glossa-genos-fulou: Provlimata, anazitiseis kai elliniki glossa [Language and Gender: Problems, research and the Greek language]. In T.-S. Pavlidou (eds.) Glossa-genos-fulou. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies. 15-64.
Politis, P. (2001) Proforikos kai graptos logos [Spoken and written language]. In A.-F. Christidis (eds. in cooperation with M. Theodoropoulou). Engiklikos odigos gia ti glossa. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language. 58-62.
Searle, J. (1975). Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In K. Günderson (eds.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge 7. Minneapolis.
Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sifianou, M. (2014). Evgenia ston logo. In M. Georgalidou, M. Sifianou & B. Tsakona (eds.). Discourse Analysis: Theories and Applications. Athens: Nisos. 261-294.
Soffer, O (2010) ‘Silent Orality’: Toward a Conceptulization of the Digital Oral
Features in CMC and SMS Texts. Communication Theory (20/4). International Communication Association. 387-404.
Soffer, O. (2012). Liquid language? On the personalization of discourse in the digital era. New Media & Society (14/7). Sage. 1092-1110.
Spilioti, T. (2014). Greek-Alphabet English: Vernacular transliterations of English in social media. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, Edinburgh 5-7 September 2013. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University. 435-447.
Stamou. A., Politis, P. & Archakis, A. (2016) (eds.). Glossiki poikilotita kai kritikoi grammatismoi ston logo tis mazikis koultouras: Ekpaideftikes protaseis gia to glossiko mathima [Language variation and critical literacy in popular culture discourse: Teaching proposals for language classes]. Kavala: Saita Publications.
Street, B.V. (1993). The New Literacy Studies: Guest editorial. Journal of Research in Reading 16 (2): 81-97.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swanson, J. & Thomas, D. (2014). Real English B2. Students’ Book. Limassol: Burlington Books.
Talbot, Μ. (2010). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tarone, E., Gillette, S. & Icke, V. (1981). On the use of the passive in two astrophysics journal papers. ESP Journal 1. 123-140.
Toledo, P. –F. (2005). Genre analysis and reading of English as a foreign language: Genre schemata beyond text typologies. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1059-1079.
Trudgill, P. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tsiplakou, S. & Chatzioannou, Χ. (2010). I didaskalia tis glossikis poikilotitas: Mia didaktiki paremvasi [Teaching linguistic variation: a teaching intervention]. Meletes gia tin elliniki glossa 30. 617-629.
Tyler, A. (2010). ECPE Honors. Limassol: Burlington Books.
Veloudis, G. (2005). I simasia prin, kata kai meta ti glossa [Meaning before, during, and after lanauge]. Athens: Kritiki.
Wardhaugh, R. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Though, and Reality. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
1 The concept of a standard language refers to the process, by which a variety of a language, usually one with a high degree of social or historical prestige is selected and developed to become the language used in official discourse and education (Holmes 1992, Trudgill 1992, Kakridi-Ferrari 2000). See Fragoudaki (1987) and Kakridi-Ferrari (2005) for a discussion on the social implications of the use of standard and non-standard varieties of language.
2 The term 'communicative competence' refers to a speaker’s ability to use the linguistic resources of a language that are available to them and to apply them in a way that is considered to be appropriate to the specific communicative situation they find themselves in (Hymes 1972).
3 In terms of pragmatics, such a use of language constitutes a potential threat to the positive face needs of Yvonne, who chooses a formal, intimate register (Brown & Levinson 1987, Sifianou 1992, 2014, Lees 2014). By adopting formal language to respond to Yvonne’s question, Peter increases the social distance between the two participants, thus linguistically renegotiating their relationship.
4 The term language variation refers to the use of various dialectal and social uses of languages. However, in current sociolinguistic research it can be referred to as language diversity, differentiation, and style, concepts which view language as a resource for the construction of meaning (Stamou et al. 2016: 22).
5 According to Hawkins (1984) and James & Garret (1991), material that enhances learners’ critical language awareness facilitates more effective language learning.
6 See Dendrinou 2001, Chatzisabbidis 2003 for related discussions in Greece.
7 It is important to stress that while schools are compelled to use the material approved for English language classes by the Greek Ministry of Education, private language schools are free to choose from a variety of books offered by different EFL publishers and not all of these are used exclusively for learners of secondary school age. As such, a comprehensive overview of all such books available is unpractical for an article of this size. However, the examples put forward are indicative of the lack of language variation covered in existing teaching material.
8 In pragmatics, a hedging device is a construction that mitigates a potential face threatening act; in other words to protect the face needs of the listener and to avoid misunderstanding (Brown and Levinson 1987, Sifianou 1992).
9 In Greece, the expression χωριάτικα Αγγλικά, choriatika Agglika [village Greek] reveals the negative connotations of village life for urban Greeks, such as lack of education, culture etc.
10 This practice is known as languaging.
11 See Sifianou (1992) for an in-depth discussion on how politeness is expressed linguistically in Greek and English.
Please check the Assessment for the 21st Century English Classroom course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Methodology and Language for Secondary course at Pilgrims website.
|
