2. Context

This empirical study is based on observations, interviews, and recordings collected during six months of fieldwork at a Danish STX school, which I call Graaboelle High. STX schools are a specific kind of gymnasium with a general academic focus, and their official purpose is to prepare students for tertiary education.

Graaboelle High is located in a smaller Danish province and the students come from different socioeconomic backgrounds. The school was placed at neither the top nor the bottom of the school hierarchy based on grade point averages. In the teachers’ and students’ descriptions of the school, it was evident that they experienced the placement in an area associated with lower classes as important, and the participants often described the school as engaged in helping disadvantaged students. It should be noted that the area is not associated with dialect or a specific sociolect and that the majority of the students had monolingual (‘standard’) Danish backgrounds (among the 46 students, one had Polish as her first language and six had parents with other L1 languages than Danish,Footnote ¹ but reported to be primarily Danish speakers themselves). The linguistic environment was therefore relatively homogeneous.

I followed two school classes through the students’ third and final year at the school. The two classes were quite different. Class A was often described as a class with troubling social dynamics, and students who were often involved in fights with each other. Class B was often described by students and teachers as social and talkative. As I will describe in the analysis, these different social dynamics seem to affect the consequences of deviating from the linguistic norms. Parallel to Kammacher’s (Reference Kammacher2015) description of the high social status of being a competent student in her study of students in a Northern Zealandic STX school, I found that being a good student was predominantly positively valorised in both classrooms. Students were not ridiculed for being competent and students moreover risked being called out or ridiculed behind their backs if they showed disrespect for the teacher’s authority.

3. Data and methodology

My approach to data collection and analysis derives from the field of linguistic ethnography. This approach is characterised by pursuing a participant perspective (while applying an analytical distance) through a combination of participant observations, interviews, and microanalysis of recorded interactions (Maybin Reference Maybin2009, Copland & Creese Reference Copland and Creese2015, Snell et al. Reference Snell, Shaw and Copland2015, Pérez-Milans Reference Pérez-Milans and Preece2016).

During my fieldwork, I provided the students with small recorders with lapel microphones and made field notes of my observations and information gathered through informal interviews with teachers and students. After I had followed the students for two months, I conducted formal individual interviews with two focal teachers and with 44 of the 46 students and, additionally, I conducted focus group interviews with the students in class B. The interviews with students were semi-structured and themed around family background, student identities, social life at school, and importantly language practices at school (see guiding questions in endnotes).Footnote ² The themes about language were discussed in group interviews in class B, while I chose to do only individual interviews in class A because of the social dynamics. At the time of the interviews, I knew the students and the teachers. The participants could therefore describe situation- or person-specific practices in detail. For this particular study, I transcribed all metalinguistic comments in the interviews and 32 hours of classroom recordings in the following subjects: Danish, physics, classical studies, religion, and history (all in both A and B). In my analysis of the situated language use, I take account of the sequential, situational, relational, and sociocultural context (see Madsen Reference Madsen2015). In the transcripts, all names are pseudonyms.

4. Norms, registers and polycentricity

In my analysis, I draw on Agha’s (Reference Agha2007) theoretical framework in which linguistic codes (registers) are understood as social constructs with local meanings and potentials, and thereby not fixed entities. Agha defines registers as ‘a repertoire of performable signs linked to stereotypic pragmatic effects by a sociohistorical process of enregisterment’ (Agha Reference Agha2007:80). Enregisterment refers to ‘the reflexive process through which register formations are differentiated from each other and emerge as apparently bounded sociohistorical formations for their users’ (Agha & Frog 2015:15). Thus, registers consist of different semiotic signs, connected through social practices, and are continuously reproduced and challenged (Agha & Frog 2015:17).

Linguistic registers are indexically linked to particular social practices and certain roles and categories of persons in a community. Registers are in this way also associated with different settings and can consciously or subconsciously be seen as more or less appropriate in different settings; they are part of local norms. Agha distinguishes between three levels of norms: (a) an ‘externally observable pattern of behavior’, which participants are not necessarily aware of, (b) ‘a reflexive model of behavior’, which is norms perceived as ‘typical’ and normalised by some actors, and (c) ‘a normative standard’, where deviations are not just observed but sanctioned (Agha Reference Agha2007:124–127). The most apparent example of the latter is the standard norms for spelling, often institutionalised through dictionaries and education. Transgressions of these norms cause sanctions in, as well as outside, the school system (see Stæhr Reference Stæhr and Arnaut2016). As will be shown in the analysis, deviations from non-institutionalised language norms are, however, also often sanctioned. Moreover, several norm centres can be present simultaneously in an interaction, as described by Blommaert (Reference Blommaert2010:39–41). According to Blommaert, actors in everyday interactions ‘project the presence of an evaluating authority through our interactions with immediate addressees’ (Blommaert Reference Blommaert2010:39) and in this way orient towards super-addressees, which he labels centres. In the present study, it is important that students and teachers can orient towards an abstract academic norm centre as well as an abstract concept of ‘youth culture’.

The connection between linguistic registers, specific situations, and personas can be used strategically by speakers in the constructions and negotiations of social identities, but it may also be the root of conflict and cause self-censorship. Møller (Reference Møller2015), as an example, illustrates how students, even if capable of reproducing a register, are not always willing to do so because of the risk of being ascribed identities (in his case, problematic bilingual identities in class) that they do not find desirable. In a similar vein, Bourdieu argued that speakers develop a practical expectation of the profit of applying certain language in specific situations for specific types of persons, and that this practical expectation (not always consciously) governs their language use (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1977:655). With reference to Bourdieu’s concept of legitimate discourse, Heller (Reference Heller1996), in a study of language in a francophone Canadian school, argues that some language practices are only treated as legitimate for some people under specific circumstances. As I will show in the analysis, I likewise find that students in the studied classrooms can be at risk of social repercussions if they use linguistic features that are considered inauthentic for them. I argue that this can affect their linguistic practices and student identities. The concept of authenticity is brought up by Agha, who describes how the lack of congruence between different signs might result in an understanding that people are not authentic. He describes how a person can be understood as a social climber due to just a small ‘misstep’ in an otherwise perfect mastery of a specific code (Agha Reference Agha2007:24–25). Eckert (Reference Eckert2003:392–393) similarly describes that who is considered an authentic speaker is related to the belief that some people are more natural speakers of a register than others, and that perceptions of people as having left ‘their natural habitat’ are connected to the judgement of inauthenticity. Inspired by Coupland (Reference Coupland2001, Reference Coupland2003), I find that linguistic authenticity is more specifically linked to ownership (whether or not a person is seen as completely responsible for an utterance), historicity (if a participant is seen as someone who has been speaking like this always or at least for a very long time), and consistency (whether or not a participant is understood as producing a consistent language) (for elaboration see Larsen Reference Larsen2022).

5. Academic and youth registers

The label ‘academic language’, which is mentioned by both teachers and students in the study, has roots in a long enregisterment process where it has been institutionalised and widespread in normative literature, while it has also been the object of disputes and different understandings of what it entails (Lea & Street Reference Lea and Street1998, Clemensen & Holm Reference Clemensen and Holm2017, Neugebauer & Heineke Reference Neugebauer and Heineke2020). In the literature on academic language, the register is often described as characterised by a lexical, a syntactic, and a structural level, which secures precision and cohesion (Meier et al. Reference Meier, Walter Aminger, Carpenter, Moon, Hough and Bianchini2020:225), while practitioners often associate it mainly with vocabulary (Neugebauer & Heineke Reference Neugebauer and Heineke2020). The students orient toward this register in their description of language at school, which they label ‘academic’, ‘formal’, ‘posh’, and ‘professional’ language. Equivalent to Neugebauer and Heineke’s finding, they mainly describe it as characterised by the use of academic terminology taught in class, ‘nuanced words’ and ‘fancy words’ often associated with Greek, Latin, or archaic or literary language (e.g. Patos ‘pathos’, kontribueret ‘contributed’, benytte, derivative meaning ‘employ’). On a structural level, students, especially in class B, mention that contributions in class should be elaborate, while students in A are more inclined to mention that it should be concise. Both groups, however, connect academic language with being precise and avoiding rambling. The syntactic level is not mentioned in the discussions of spoken language, but importantly, some pragmatic features are also linked to the register, especially engaging in polite conversation with teachers and peers, using hedges and other downplaying strategies, positive politeness such as showing interest and engagement in the subject matter, respecting the teachers’ authority, and avoiding ‘back talk’.

When asked to elaborate what ‘academic’, ‘posh’, ‘professional’, and ‘formal’ language entails, the students often define it negatively as the absence of language use which is associated with youth and peer interactions. This register is, according to the students, lexically characterised by frequent use of profanities, nicknames/pet names, and what the students refer to as ‘slang’ words and phrases (e.g. hvad sker der ‘what’s up’, nederen ‘downer’), and short loanwords from English, Arabic, and Serbian (e.g. bro ‘brother’, wallah ‘I swear by Allah’, brate ‘brother’). It was also connected to structural features which in Bernstein’s (Reference Bernstein1964) terms could be described as restricted and associated with a mutual understanding, such as references to shared experiences and insider jokes. Finally, it was associated with pragmatic features such as joking and mock impoliteness (shouting, ‘being sassy’, and talking back). In this article, I have chosen to label this the ‘youth register’ as the students describe it as ‘youthful’ and connect it to youth culture in general. A very high frequency of features associated with this register is, however, also connected to sub-registers associated with social groupings such as youth with an immigrant background, working-class youth, gamers and boys with a stereotypical masculine or ‘macho’ attitude. See also Madsen (Reference Madsen2013) for a discussion of the linkage between such social categorisation among contemporary Danish youth.

This language use was also labelled by some students as ‘youth slang’ or just ‘slang’. The labelling of some registers as ‘posh’ and ‘formal’ and others as ‘slang’ reveals a certain valorisation. According to Agha (Reference Agha2015), the term ‘slang’ is generally used to denote a register as deviant from a presumed standard and it is always found at a value-boundary, where it is highly valued by some metapragmatic evaluators and negatively evaluated by others. Negative evaluations of slang are often institutionalised in the educational system, where students also learn to apply the outsider’s gaze on registers as deviant and negatively valorised (Agha Reference Agha2015:307–312). In the present case, the use of the label ‘slang’ indicates that the youth register consists of features that the adolescents find useful to signal in-group membership (mainly among their peers), but during their educational upbringing have come to see as deviant and of low value in educational settings. However, as I will show in the analysis, both lexical and pragmatic features associated with the youth register are treated as relevant in class by some teachers. After this introduction, I will now turn to how these abstract ideas of registers relate to enacted norms in different classrooms.

6. Language norms of teacher–student interactions

At Graaboelle High, the norms for appropriate language use in student–teacher interactions varied widely from classroom to classroom. Some of the teachers prioritised subject-specific terminology, while others explicitly stated that this was not important. Some demanded ritual politeness and avoidance of slang and swear words, while others allowed or preferred a youth language style. In the following section, I provide analyses of classroom recordings of three teachers’ linguistic and metapragmatic practices, to illustrate some of the variation. Thereafter, I turn to analyses of the students’ description of the need to accommodate their language to different teachers’ preferred styles to position as good students.

6.1 Susanne

Susanne, the Danish teacher in class A, had a very clear language policy in which an academic register, in line with the register described above, was treated as a normative standard for Danish class. This came through in very explicit metalanguage; she often introduced new words and often encouraged the students to use subject-specific terminology and vocabulary more broadly associated with literary, archaic, and written language such as nominalisations and words with Greek and Latin origin (see also Larsen Reference Larsen2022).

The excerpt shown in Figure 1,Footnote ³ where she asks the students to summarise what they did in their last lesson, illustrates how such explicit metalinguistic practices were embedded in the classroom discussions.

Figure 1. Classroom discussion.

In line 4, Susanne introduces a non-subject-specific term, digression, a word with a Latin origin, which is uncommon in Danish and mainly associated with written or literary language (Dictionary of the Danish Language, ODS). She follows up by explaining what it means, with repeated translation to the more common sidespring ‘detour’ (l. 4, l. 9–10) and by twice illustrating how it is used in context (l. 4–7 and l. 43–45). The excerpt also exemplifies how she spends much time encouraging the students to recall and employ more subject-specific terminology, here ‘multimodality’, and how she praises a student when he recalls the term (l. 43–45). The focus on explaining and repeating the word ‘digression’, as well as the focus on making the students recall the technical term ‘multimodality’, are practices that stress the importance of such vocabulary for the local classroom interactions. Moreover, they also contribute to the enregisterment of such vocabulary as academic.

Susanne was often also described by the students as a teacher who had a strict language policy in class and, for instance, corrected them if they used swear words. I did not observe such an encounter during my fieldwork, which might be because the students were aware that they needed to avoid swearing around Susanne. During an interview with Susanne, she repeatedly stated that a certain language was required in Danish class, where the students should not speak as they did outside class. She also treated it as common sense that it was unacceptable to use swear words, as seen in excerpt (1).Footnote ⁴

6.2 Michael

At the other end of the scale, the students from class A were met by the history teacher, Michael, who often used short English loans, swear words and other features associated with the youth register. An example of this is seen in Figure 2a where he describes a synopsis assignment to the students.

Figure 2a. Classroom discussion.

Here Michael uses a swear word when talking about very subject-specific matters. None of the students reacts to this as a transgression of a norm during class, implying a local norm deviating from the academic register. At the same time, he also employs the term reelt set ‘practically’, associated with literary speech and written language (ODS), which could be interpreted as an orientation towards an academic norm centre. Although he occasionally employed language associated with the academic register, he rarely directly encouraged the students to use specific terminology or engaged in other language-directive activities.

The excerpt given in Figure 2b is from later in the same lesson, when the students are working on their synopsis, while Michael circulates and comments on their work. In the excerpt, Michael has just read Emma, Sarah, and Josephine’s research questions, and in his response, he ambivalently addresses their terminology while his language gradually changes from a language associated with the academic register to a mock-impolite language use where he employs swear words.

Figure 2b. Classroom discussion.

Michael implies that he, as a history teacher, prefers the term ‘analyse’ but accepts other terminology by stating that it is okay that they use the word ‘investigate’ instead because they are ‘socia’s’ (referring to the fact that they have social science as a major). However, as a reaction to Sarah’s statement that it is easier to use the same terminology as in social science (l.18), he elaborates that he thinks it sounds fesent (informal word meaning ‘bland’ or ‘blah’ (The Danish Dictionary, DDO)). Thereafter he performs a pretend interaction between a non-specific student saying ‘I want to investigate’ and himself answering ‘the fuck you won’t you analyse’. The language use and stylisation emphasise his aversion towards the terminology they use in another subject, while at the same time working as contextualisation cues, hinting that it is a funny exaggeration. The mock impolite and tough corrections in combination with the informal words can be understood as an orientation towards a youth culture and a strategy to overcome the sensitive situation and create a funny atmosphere, while still informing about different terminology. The students react to his performance with laughter and thereby treat it as funny.

Whether the students take note of the preferred terminology is not clear from the example, but the excerpt illustrates how the students must navigate in the teachers’ preferences for different academic terms and at times ambivalent enforcement of them, as well as different styles. Whereas the use of swear words is not allowed at all in one classroom, swear words and mock impoliteness can be used, not just in class, but by the teacher when talking about very subject-specific matters in another.

6.3 Rikke

The teacher Rikke, who taught religion in both class A and class B and history in B, had a teaching style that in some ways resembled Michael’s and was characterised by a very friendly tone; she often spoke about non-school matters and used features associated with youth language such as vocabulary considered slang and mock impoliteness. In my analysis of the data, I have observed that she had, on the other hand, a profound focus on teaching terminology and thereby oriented towards the academic register.

Some of these norms come through in Figure 3, an excerpt from the religion class in class B, where Rikke has asked for a description of a model they have worked with in an earlier lesson.

Figure 3. Classroom discussion.

As Rikke describes the model she is asking for, the student Christina loudly asks, ‘where the hell are you at’ (l. 6–7) employing the swear word fanden ‘hell’. As was common in Rikke’s classes, neither students nor the teacher react to this language use as deviant or disrespectful. Another student follows up by asking if she is looking for a description of different kinds of Muslims. When this student continues by suggesting that it is something to do with ‘leisure time Muslims’ (l. 13–14) (a term which other students later react to by laughing and treat as a funny mistake related to the term Cultural Christian), Rikke answers with a loud, prolonged ‘no’ using a high-pitched voice indicating stylisation. In this way, she funnily corrects the student’s use of terminology. Throughout the classes, I observed that Rikke in this way often used a stylised voice when she engaged in authoritarian behaviour like enforcing specific terminology, asking students who had not raised their hand to give contributions in class, and correcting behaviour or answers. In these stylisations, she often also employed language associated with youth language, as illustrated in the excerpt in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Classroom discussion.

The excerpt is from a religion lesson in class A, on a day when two students have their birthday. In Denmark it is the tradition to bring cake to friends on your birthday, and Rikke asks if the students have brought cake to the class.

Rikke first asks Josephine if she had brought cake, and when she answers that she did not, Rikke emphasises the desire for cake by saying, ‘what’s up with that’, indicating indignation, follows up with an ‘oh man’ and after a while sums up ‘no cake’, signalling disappointment. I interpret the demand for cake as part of creating the friendly atmosphere the teacher set forward as the local norm. Sarah’s comment at l. 9 also underlines that by the students it is interpreted as a comment on them having bad manners when they do not engage in the social norms of providing cake. However, the teacher uses a high-pitched voice, indicating a stylisation, when she says, ‘what’s up with that’ (l. 4). The phrase ‘what’s up’ (hvad sker der) is moreover mentioned by the students in the interviews as an example of slang associated with youth. As mentioned above, the stylisation seems to have the function of creating a humorous atmosphere, while correcting behaviour. Emma (l. 7) and Sarah’s (l. 10) comments illustrate how the students adapt to the teacher by engaging in the mock reprimand of Josephine and, accompanied by the students’ laughter, it signals that the practice is perceived as funny.

In this way, Rikke orients both towards an academic norm centre in her focus on specific vocabulary, and youth culture by joking and employing features associated with ‘slang’, but often in stylisations. These stylisations create a distance from authoritarian behaviour and contribute to the construction of a friendly atmosphere. At the same time, they can also be interpreted as drawing on the contrast between youth language and academic language in a way that contributes to the distance between them.

In this section, I have shown how different teachers create local norms for language use at school, resulting in a polycentric normative linguistic environment. While some teachers treat an academic register as a normative standard, a range of lexical and pragmatic features associated with the youth register is part of the normalised model of behaviour for student–teacher interactions with other teachers. At the same time, these teachers also orient towards an academic norm in ways that still contribute to upholding the status of a formal academic register, but they do this in very different ways and with different focus and valorisation of subject-specific as well as non-subject-specific terminology. Due to space issues, I have provided examples from three teachers, teaching Danish, religion, and history. It is, however, important to note that the differences cannot be solely linked to subject-specific norms. For example, the Danish teacher in class B did not share the language ideologies of the Danish teacher in class A, while the physics teacher in class B, on the other hand, had a language policy which in some aspects resembled that of the Danish teacher in class A.

As has been argued by Codó (Reference Codó2022), Daugaard (Reference Daugaard2022), and Jaspers and Rosiers (Reference Jaspers and Rosiers2022) in their studies of multilingual classrooms, teachers can have many different reasons for different language policies and investments in such, related to circulating ideologies and the complex and often contradictory demands for pedagogics and learning outcomes. In this linguistically more homogeneous environment, the orientation towards different norms could likewise be related to the navigation of different demands or aims, but importantly it affects the demands the students experience for participating as competent students in interactions with the teachers, as I will show in the following section.

7. Accommodation to teachers’ language

In the interviews, the students describe the importance of following the teachers’ language norms. As an example, Liv explains how not following specific politeness rituals in physics class could result in very explicit exclusion from interaction with the teacher.

1. (2) Group interview

In the excerpt, Liv describes how the teacher ignores them if they do not use ritual politeness such as saying vil du være sød, equivalent to ‘please’, when asking for help and calling him by his last name. She describes this as a strategy to improve their manners, and some indignation is indicated when she compares his actions in class with how he raises his kids. More important here is that she voices an experience of exclusion from the interaction if she does not follow his language policy. While the students did not describe such direct policing in all classrooms, they did voice a need to accommodate both to teachers treating the academic register as a normative standard and teachers orienting towards a youth culture as a norm centre, as shown in (3).

1. (3) Individual interview

In this excerpt, Mikkel describes it as evident that students, when meeting teachers speaking in different styles, change their language accordingly. The notion that it is to be on ‘equal terms’ hints that it is part of showing respect for the teachers or a politeness strategy. Mikkel moreover describes the teacher Michael’s language use as resembling the ‘boys’’ language use, and while he evaluates the deviations from the academic register positively, he also suggests that this language is not comprehensible for all students. Some students also experience such linguistic practices as excluding, as I will elaborate in the final section. The need to shift language with different teachers also comes through in the following group discussion (4) among Kristine, Christina, and Luna, when asked what is the good way to speak with the teachers.

1. (4) Group interview

In this account, the students argue that you will be rewarded by some teachers for speaking formally and applying terminology taught in class, while speaking ‘human’ language exemplified with phrases that contain the swear words lort ‘crap’ and fucking, is preferred by others. Christina’s description, that the latter is because the use of this language helps them remember the important subject matter, illustrates how the use of features associated with the youth register is also often described by the students as having strategic purposes for learning outcomes. Important for the argument here is that the employment of youth language, as well as academic language, by students can be understood as part of showing competence. It is also interesting to note how Christina repeatedly talks about this language use as ‘down’ on their level and ‘down to the floor’, revealing that the teacher’s use and preference for another register does not change the understanding of the academic register as of higher status; see also Madsen (Reference Madsen2013) and Love-Nichols (Reference Love-Nichols, Bucholtz, Inés Casillas and Sook Lee2018) for discussion of ‘high’ and ‘low’ registers.

In this way, the students describe that they need to accommodate to the teachers to show politeness, perform competence, and even to avoid being directly excluded from conversations with teachers. Thereby they report the experience that it is important to adapt to their teachers to engage in conversations and be understood as good and competent students. However, adapting to a teacher’s preferred language style is not equally accessible and acceptable to all students. In addition to the teachers’ language norms, students have to navigate peer norms (Blommaert Reference Blommaert2010, Rymes and Leone-Pizzighella Reference Rymes, Leone-Pizzighella, Burdelski and Howard2020). As I will show in the following, peer norms in the studied classes place a strong significance on authenticity.

8. Authenticity and peer policing

Among many of the students in these two classes, it was deemed important to be genuine and to be yourself in order to be perceived as a good student. In interviews and recordings of everyday interactions, I found several examples of students who were the object of ridicule because they were ‘not being themselves’, ‘shifting’ language ‘too much’ when there was a teacher present, ‘trying too hard’, or were using words they had just learned or their peers believed that they did not completely understand. Such statements indicate ideologies of authenticity in which people are only deemed legitimate speakers of a register if the words they use are considered their own, their speech is considered consistent, and if it is believed that they have been speaking like this always or at least for a very long time.

Some of these elements are seen in excerpt (5), from a group interview with three students from class B.

1. (5) Group interview

The students here treat it as both problematic and laughable when students use vocabulary they do not fully understand or that they have just learned from a dictionary. The descriptions that teachers ‘fall for it’ and of the student Christian as one who ‘greases it’ moreover indicate that it is considered to be actions with which the students pretend to be something that they are not. I interpret this as an expression of an ideologically invested norm, where students who use words they do not have full ownership of and do not have a history with are considered inauthentic and illegitimate users of these words. That students, in this way, are at risk of being ridiculed behind their backs if they use language they are not understood as authentic users of is also seen in the following discussion (6) of language use at school among Mads and René from class B.

1. (6) Group interview

The participants here describe it as typical that students change language when there is a teacher present, but then exemplify that William does this in a highly noticeable manner, underlined with the interjection ‘holy shit man’. William was a student who often contributed with long arguments in class, using vocabulary associated with the academic register. René’s elaboration that William is ‘trying’ to sound formal indicates that he is considered to change language too far from the language he is generally associated with and is therefore considered ridiculously inauthentic. Moreover, René also ascribes William an identity in opposition to being competent because of his ‘formal’ or ‘academic’ style in class. He does this by describing William as trying, and thereby implying that he does not succeed and labelling his language use with the derogatory term ‘retarded’.

The students did not merely risk being the object of ridicule outside the classroom. Especially in class A, where there was a higher tendency to tease each other and seek conflict among the students. They also risked being pointed out in class. This is, for instance, the case in the excerpt in Figure 5, in which Mikkel is ridiculed in Danish class for using terminology that they had just learned in German class.Footnote ⁵

Figure 5. Classroom discussion.

In the excerpt the class is engaged in discussion about what happened to the individual during the urbanisation process in the late nineteenth century.

Mikkel contributes to the discussion by saying that people could feel lonely, and hesitantly adds the phrase einsam gemeinsam. The teacher’s acknowledgement of this as ‘completely right’ (l. 10–11) indicates that it is understood as a proper application of terminology. The answer, however, leads to a bustle in the class led by Martin who shouts, ‘Oh yeah German there’ (l. 12). More of the boys in the classroom join the ridicule of Mikkel’s answer with different responses. That Mikkel experiences it as an unpleasant mockery is indicated by his response, ‘no I shouldn’t’ (l. 31), to the suggestion that he should have ‘German A’ (advanced German class). In line 19, Lucas, who sits next to Martin, turns to Martin and asks ‘what did he say’. Martin answers, ‘einsam gemeinsam it is the thing we just had in German class’. This response shows that Martin knows the reference and indicates that the mocking of Mikkel is related to the fact that this phrase is something they have just learned in another course and is therefore considered inauthentic. Mikkel was not generally associated with being good at school, and the mocking might also be related to an understanding of him transgressing norms by applying language he is not a consistent and confident user of. Such ridicule directly obstructs the students’ ability to perform as good students, as it positions them as inauthentic in front of teachers and classmates. Such overt and covert ridiculing practices also contribute to the enregisterment process, in which specific persons are linked to specific language use in specific situations.

9. Self-directed metapragmatic acts

Following Bourdieu, the students’ experiences with ridicule of themselves and classmates that link certain people to certain registers could, moreover, result in self-censorship based on more or less conscious calculation of the chances of being rewarded or ridiculed. Such experiences could then be expected to affect their willingness to use language appreciated by the different teachers.

None of the students directly stated that they avoided using features associated with one or the other register because of the risk of public or covert ridicule. The need for authenticity, however, came through in the ambivalent application of linguistic features associated with the academic register. It could also be seen in students’ reluctance to engage in informal interactions with teachers with use of practices associated with the youth register. In class, students sometimes oriented towards the academic norm centre by showing that they knew subject-specific terminology but still distanced themselves from it, as is the case in Figure 6, an excerpt with Christina. The excerpt is from a Danish lesson in class B, where they are analysing a commercial from an NGO.

Figure 6. Classroom discussion.

Christina here states that the commercial uses ‘pathos’ and gives a long, elaborated account of what she means by this statement. She distances herself from the use of the word ‘pathos’ by using the first person plural pronoun ‘we’ instead of the singular ‘I’ and stating that it is annoying to use such terminology (l. 1–2). At the same time, she also underlines that this is something she is certain of by applying the adverb ‘jo’ (‘of course’), signalling that it is evidently ‘pathos’ (l. 3–4). Thereby she positions herself as someone who knows the terminology and how to apply it in Danish class. It is important to note that Christina was categorised as one of the good students by herself and others and in general did not hesitate to talk about her high grade point average or her extra A-level subjects. That she makes an effort to show that she understands this term and has it as a natural part of her repertoire, while still marking that it is applied academic language and not her everyday language use, could therefore be interpreted as a strategy to overcome the risk of being seen as an inauthentic user of the academic register. Thereby these practices could be understood as part of positioning as a genuinely good student.

On a side note, it is interesting that the teacher reacts by explaining that it is okay to use ‘your own words’ instead of ‘pathos’. While this is probably meant to encourage students who have not mastered such terminology to give contributions in class, it also illustrates how teachers can contribute to the understanding of terminology as inauthentic language use.

Some students also described it as difficult to adapt to the youth culture-oriented norms. Cecilia, for instance, describes ‘the boys’ as better at speaking the appropriate way with the teachers that orients towards youth culture as a norm centre, and that she just ‘can’t’ (see excerpt (7)).

1. (7) Group interview

Cecilia was in general a very conscientious student who never missed class and came prepared. She was also quiet in class and did not engage in personal conversations with the teachers in or outside class. In the excerpt, Cecilia here several times repeats that she ‘can’t’ speak with Rikke in the way expected, ‘can’t’ joke with her and can’t ‘just speak’. She does not go into detail about why she cannot, but it could be interpreted as an inner experience of inauthenticity, where participating in such activities would be inconsistent for her. The important point here is that according to her account, she knows which practices are preferred by the teacher and observes other students acting accordingly, but experiences being constrained by norms that she does not find it natural to deviate from.

In this way, students are reluctant to employ linguistic features that they expect to be preferred by the teachers in a way that appears to be related to the requirement of authenticity.