Abstract
The title of this book may be somewhat deceiving: language regulation may lead your thoughts in the direction of policy, in the form of formal, written attempts at regulating language use in the university sector. However, the book is not at all concerned with this type of regulation. On the contrary, Niina Hynninen takes a bottom-up approach, where the aim is to examine the emerging norms developing among a specific group of speakers using English as a lingua franca (ELF). Even though it is a mixed group, containing people with many different native languages and different levels of ability in English, it is not the case that “anything goes,” as some might expect. Neither is it the case that native English speaker norms are the only target. Hynninen very refreshingly starts by discarding all such expectations, and instead, using a variety of techniques, she gets down to the nitty-gritty of examining real interaction, whereby she slowly builds up a picture of the living norms for spoken and written ELF within the group.
The speakers who participated in Hynninen’s study are students and staff of the University of Helsinki, Finland, studying or teaching in the subject field of environmental sustainability. The students and faculty come from a variety of countries, which enhances the exploration of the topic, each bringing their own experience and perspective with them to Finland. The course is designated as English medium, but Hynninen stresses that the group is multilingual, with each member most often bringing several languages to the table. Amongst them is also a small number of native English-speaking students, including speakers of what is sometimes termed “Outer Circle” varieties of English.
Hynninen’s materials contain contributions from students, student mentors, and faculty members, as well as a few designated English instructors (see overview in chapter 4). In order to see what is actually happening, she examines recordings of live interaction, taken during a series of study events (supported by field notes and supplemented by written data, i.e., learning diaries). She then follows that up with qualitative interviews to find out more about the participants’ own thoughts and reflections around norms in ELF interaction. In other words, how is ELF practiced, and how is it experienced?
The book thus raises three central research questions (74):
“In what ways is language regulation carried out in ELF interaction?”
“How do speakers of ELF perceive English and its regulation?”
“What do the findings imply in terms of norms constructed in and for ELF communication?”
Before embarking on the first question, Hynninen treats her readers to a very informative discussion of the concept of language norms (chapter 2). She challenges the view of “the norm” as a prescriptive and more or less static entity, modelled on notions of “correctness” drawn from native English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom or the United States. Instead, she is interested in communicative appropriateness and what is deemed by the group itself to be acceptable linguistic conduct, specific to the situation. Such acceptability is dynamically negotiated within the group in their interaction, through “monitoring and intervening in one’s own or another’s language use, but also, for instance, by letting unconventional forms pass” (23). Language regulation, in Hynninen’s sense, is therefore about the negotiation of living norms, and her analysis of the recorded observation data sheds light on precisely how living norms form, through language-regulatory practices in interaction. The methodology is described in chapter 4, and it provides in itself an example of good practice of how to write a concise methodology chapter, including useful methods for distinguishing and studying “prescriptive” versus “living” norms. All interview guides, materials for written activities, and original interview transcripts are given in appendices.
Chapter 5 is dedicated to answering the question of exploring the mechanisms of language regulation within ELF interaction. Hynninen does this by examining the study event data, looking for ways in which participants intervene in and monitor language use. What was corrected and commented on, in what ways, by whom, and in what circumstances? She finds that the role of “language expert” was allocated by the group not only to the English instructors, but also to faculty members who are non-native English speakers, due to their expertise in the subject field, and to any students with English as their native language. However, any group member was likely to engage in language regulation, not only the “experts,” leading to a dynamic, “negotiated expertise” (106-112).
In order to explore the speaker group’s own language regulation in the form of developing “living norms,” Hynninen identified and selected five types of practices for analysis: commentary on language, correcting an interlocutor’s language, embedded repairs, reformulations and mediation, and lexical accommodation (79). I commend Hynninen for sharing generously of her data, making it possible for the reader to follow in detail how certain instances of living norms develop over a series of interrelated study events. A nice example of this regards lexical accommodation, where terminology such as “motorsleigh” versus “snowmobile” compete until the group of speakers settles for “snowmobile” (169-171).
The analysis shows that participants maintain a broader scope for “acceptability” than “correctness,” but also that the medium of communication matters (see 127-128 for a discussion of the scope of the terms “correct” and “incorrect”). In spoken interaction, unconventional forms often remain unchallenged, although in some cases the interlocutors negotiate by using parallel alternatives where one gradually wins prevalence. Interventions in spoken interaction are likely to happen only when mutual understanding is threatened. The interlocutors show great skill in accommodating to each other, and facilitating mutual understanding. In written communication, there is a greater expectation of “correctness,” and thus a greater likelihood of intervention. However, even here, faculty (who mark the work) emphasize that understandability—getting the message across—is more important than formal correctness according to the textbook norms of Native English Speaking countries.
The second research question, regarding ELF speakers’ perception of English and its regulation, allows for comparison between observations from the recorded study events and what is explained in the qualitative interviews. This leads to an interesting discussion of the relationship between normative beliefs and behavior, starting already in section 2.1.3, and reaching its full depth in chapter 6. Here, a useful distinction is made between beliefs and expectations: a speaker’s linguistic behavior is more likely to be guided by their context-specific expectations of language use than their normative beliefs about language. Hynninen shows that this is the case when comparing the students’ experience of ELF interaction with their normative beliefs described in the student interviews. Whereas students’ reported normative beliefs often reconstruct traditional assumptions of native speaker primacy, they also had real life experience of ELF as a modified version of English, which was simplified and clearer, and where there was a higher tolerance for “mistakes” (228), and it was this that formed the basis of their expectations of interaction.
With these analyses, Hynninen shows that two ideologies co-exist: one in which the language “belongs” to its native speakers, and another where it “belongs” to all who use it. In chapter 7, Hynninen discusses the implications of this opposing co-existence, and relates it to her earlier finds regarding language expert roles and the scopes of acceptability versus correctness, while addressing the final research question, regarding the implications of the finds in terms of the norms constructed in and for ELF communication. In conclusion, a three-part alternative to native speaker ownership ideologies emerges: “(a) the agency of L2 speakers as language regulators, (b) the acceptability of variation, and (c) the evaluation of English based on adequacy rather than closeness to E[nglish as a] N[ative] L[anguage] norms” (253).
As a whole, Hynninen’s book is very successful. Especially, the two main approaches of analyzing regulatory practices in ELF interaction and ideology in research interviews complement each other nicely, connecting the “micro” and “macro” perspectives. I must also praise Hynninen’s clear and precise writing style, which can serve as a model for good academic writing. The book will be valuable for anyone interested in ELF communication, and also to policymakers at various levels. Hynninen’s recommendation (263) that language assessment criteria should include the ability to address international audiences and use English effectively in ELF encounters is a good one.
If I were to be granted one wish, it would be to see a larger follow-up study, focusing on the stability of living norms. A living norm is, of course, dynamic and specific to the group, but is it possible to trace some emerging permanency over, for example, a full academic year or more? Are any aspects of living norms which have emerged in one year-group transferred to the next year-group? Such a study could contribute to bridging the gap between the here-and-now and slightly longer-term developments. Hynninen’s book is an excellent starting point for further research into developing, living norms in ELF communities, and will no doubt be read and used by many researchers who are interested in this area of research.
