Questions for B. Rymes’ “Marking Communicative Repertoire through Metacommentary”

1. How valid/objective is our interpretation of metacommentary? Does its objectivity matter?

2. The majority of the author’s examples are based on children’s metacommentary and take place in a classroom. I wonder if this setting was chosen on purpose. Could it be that society forces adults to act in certain ways (not to say or wear certain things) that make this idea of metacommentary analysis more easily applicable to children?

3. It was interesting to see that while explicit metacommentary can have a positive connotation, the overarching message could be negative and make children stop speaking the language (e.g. Spanish). I wonder about other examples in the classroom when languages other than English were implicitly banned. Did this work and did children actually stop using their home language?