Incipient social identification of a smart student

This section gives two examples (from May second) of what I saw during my fieldwork as a recurrent positioning of Mohsen. I argue that we here witness incipient identification of Mohsen as a smart student. This identification becomes even clearer and is solidified a couple of weeks later, as evident from the examples analysed in the subsequent section. In examples one and two there is still ambiguity and uncertainty in the interpretation of behaviour as signs of identity. The involved students are Duha, Mohsen and Sakira. Aslan, the teacher, introduces a reading exercise.

My transcripts place the English translation directly below the original example. The Arabic original is in dashed underline, the Danish original is in italics, and the Swedish original is in bold (transcription conventions are in appendix A).

Excerpt 1: (May second, audio recording)

Participants: Aslan (ALN), Duha (DUH), Mohsen (MOH), Sakira (AKI) 01 ALN: okay (.) e:h u Sal=el bint ethaniya shu isemha Duha elli teḥ

okay (.) e:h and Sal=the other girl what's her name Duha? that

02 ki ma'Aminah

talks to Aminah?

03 (1.8)

04 MOH: °Salma°

°Salma°

05 DUH: ahm s: °l°

ahm s: °l°

06 (2.7)

07 MOH: [°kom nu ha°

[°come on ha°

08 DUH: [Sarah [Sarah 09 ALN: huh Sarah huh Sarah?

10 DUH: ay yes

11 ALN: ente shu raáyak Mohsen what is your opinion Mohsen?

12 MOH: Salma Salma

13 ALN: e:h Duha inte muqtun'a bi raí Mohsen (.) saḥiḥ (.) e:h Duha are you convinced by Mohsens opinion (.) 14 elle Mohsen biúlu

is it right? (.) what Mohsen says?

15 DUH: e:hm (.) ay e:hm (.) yes

16 ALN: okay (.) Sakira enti mettefá ma'ahum okay (.) Sakira do you agree with them?

17 AKI: mm mm

In lines one and two Aslan asks Duha about the name of a girl in the text they are reading. Duha hesitates. Mohsen, whispering, gives Duha the correct answer, “°Salma°”. Duha begins to answer,

but she hesitates, stutters and then she stops. With a token of laughter Mohsen encourages her to continue, probably because he is uncomfortable, but still wants to support her, “°come on ha°”.

Simultaneously, Duha responds, “Sarah”, which is not the correct answer (the correct answer is Salma). Thereby, the two children construct Duha as a student who cannot answer for herself;

Mohsen provides her with the answer, and yet she fails. In contrast, Mohsen demonstrates being a helpful and knowledgeable student.

Aslan says to Duha, “huh Sarah?” This sounds like an attempt to initiate a correction sequence in which Duha is given the chance to provide an alternative to her first answer, but she does not do that. She merely confirms her response. Aslan neither gives her a second chance nor a more specific indication of what she is expected to do. Instead he addresses Mohsen, “what is your opinion

Mohsen?”. By doing this Aslan puts Mohsen in a privileged position vis-à-vis the other students.

Neither Duha nor Sakira, who is also present, are selected as addressees in this interactional exchange.

Notice also that Aslan asks for Mohsen’s opinion. Aslan does not clarify of what Mohsen should have an opinion; however, the most likely interpretation is that he elicits Mohsen’s evaluation of Duha’s answer, i.e. whether he agrees with Duha or not. Again, this puts Mohsen in a privileged, although maybe also slightly awkward position, where he may have opinions (rather than just knowledge) that are worth listening to, and even opinions on the other students’ contributions.

Mohsen does not refer explicitly to Duha’s answer, but circumvents the expectations of Aslan’s question by providing his own answer, which is correct (1.12).

Although the required information is now publically available, Aslan asks Duha if she is

“convinced” by Mohsen’s contribution. Duha could have refused to answer, but by giving a

successful or correct reply to Aslan’s invitation she will most likely position herself as inferior and explicit acknowledge Mohsen’s superiority. Thus, the relative hierarchy between the two students is established, confirmed and underlined, both through their publically available and different

understandings of the text, and through the teacher’s positioning of them. And it is validated once more when Sakira, on Aslan’s invitation, demonstrates agreement too.

Mohsen is not only a knowledgeable student. He also receives rights that none of the other students have. This is illustrated in excerpt two, which is drawn from the same recording, half a minute after the first excerpt. Aslan asks the children how you say “good morning” in different languages.

Excerpt 2: (May second, audio recording)

Participants: Aslan (ALN), Duha (DUH), Mohsen (MOH), Sakira (AKI) 01 ALN: <godmorgen> hvad betyder det på engelsk?

<good morning> what does it mean in english?

02 MOH: good morning good morning 03 UNI: ah ha

ah ha 04 ALN: på tysk?

in German?

05 MOH: eischoschei ha ha [jeg ved det ikke ha eischoschei ha ha [I don't know ha 06 ALN: [ha ha [ha ha 07 All participants laugh

08 ALN: ☺okay okay☺

☺okay okay☺

Aslan initiates a teaching routine when he asks the students what the English equivalent to the Danish word “godmorgen” is. Mohsen replies with the correct answer (“good morning”). Thereby, he positions himself in accordance with expectations both on a structural level (on the level of the participation framework) and on the level of content (providing the requested information). Aslan asks another question, “in German?”, and Mohsen replies, “eischoschei”. This sounds German, but it is not a recognised German word, and much less the correct answer. Mohsen’s response shows that he accepts being part of the same participation framework and frame; he answers the question and acts in accordance with expectations to a compliant student involved in teaching activities. Yet, he does not provide the requested information, probably because he does not know it; at least that is how he accounts for his “German” contribution (2.5).

Aslan’s question seems to have put Mohsen in a difficult situation. Mohsen is willing and eager to answer the question, and he wants to give the correct answer, but he is unable to do both. As a solution he fulfils the structural requirements (by answering), but he contributes with clearly wrong, though socially harmless information, which, at the same time, demonstrates his phonological German skills. He also demonstrates that he is aware that his answer is wrong, and that it should be treated as a benign joke rather than as a threat to the teacher’s authority; this is indicated by his discrete token of laughter and his mitigating “I don’t know” immediately after the “German” turn.

Aslan accepts Mohsen’s re-keying by laughing. In fact, everyone laughs, and Aslan once again ratifies Mohsen’s contribution, this time with a positive evaluation in the form of a smiling voice,

”☺okay okay☺”. Unlike what is usually the case when the other students fail to answer a question, Aslan does not repeat his question when Mohsen fails to answer. Thus, no other student is given the chance to answer the question. Aslan acts as though the requested information is not missing, and he continues with the class.

These two examples show incipient identification of Mohsen as a smart student. In both examples the teacher treats Mohsen differently than the other students. Aslan asks Mohsen to evaluate another student’s incorrect answer, whereas Mohsen’s incorrect answer is treated as acceptable. The other students are asked to validate Mohsen’s correct answers. Of course, Aslan’s explicit questions to Mohsen could be interpreted otherwise; he might consider Mohsen a student who needs

encouragement to speak (compare Wortham 2006: 31). However, from the mainstream classes Aslan is familiar with Mohsen’s reputation as a good student. Teachers in the mainstream classes refer to Mohsen as one of the “best” students in class. This is also noticed by Knoop-Henriksen (2013). Moreover, Mohsen is a regular participant in classroom interaction in Arabic classes.

Therefore, this seems to be an unlikely interpretation.

Mohsen demonstrates being compliant, eager to answer, friendly and funny. He also demonstrates being sufficiently knowledgeable to answer correctly and to give competent wrong answers. In addition, he demonstrates being aware that the answer is wrong, thereby not running the risk that anyone should believe otherwise. My argument is that this co-construction of Mohsen by all present participants – as knowledgeable and special – is part of a process throughout which he is

increasingly identified as smart. The model of the smart student involves all of this: knowing the answer, being compliant, friendly and fun etc., and it leads to special rights. We shall see that demonstrated in full force in the following section.