Shame in English language teaching:

Desirable Pedagogical Possibilities for

Kiribati in Neoliberal Times
INDIKA LIYANAGE
School of Education
Deakin University
Melbourne, Australia
SURESH CANAGARAJAH
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania, United States

Inadequate attention paid to understanding the complex relations

between personal drives and situated social constraints means affect
remains the least understood of language learning variables (Scovel,
2001). At a time when English is uncritically and universally treated as
desirable, it is significant that its learning and use evokes shame in
some communities. In this study, the authors analyze how Kiribati
nationals and international development workers demonstrate conflict-
ing orientations to shame relating to learning and using English. They
consider whether shame of this nature might have positive value for
learning, communication, and identity. Theorizing the productive sig-
nificance of shame also helps deconstruct dominant notions of lan-
guage competence, motivation, and pedagogical practice based on
desire. The authors articulate policy and pedagogical options sensitive
to local values and interests that might help resolve tensions in the per-
spectives of the powerful outsiders and dependent locals that lead to
confusions in educational priorities and prove somewhat debilitating
for local English language teaching (ELT) pedagogies. The authors
conclude that ELT researchers and practitioners must proceed to dis-
tinguish different motivations for shame in English language learning
contexts and identify the shame emerging from local community
norms as deserving more recognition.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.494

A fter a period theorizing the role of cognition in teaching and

learning languages, the English language teaching (ELT) profes-
sion is turning to much-needed analysis of emotions in what has been

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxxx 2019 1

© 2019 TESOL International Association
termed an affective turn (Pavlenko, 2005). Researchers (e.g., Stephen
Krashen) and practitioners have traditionally regarded emotions (or
affect in second language acquisition research) as individual variables
facilitating or hindering the cognitive activity of language learning.
More recently, emotions have been viewed as “obviously integral to
classroom events” (Benesch, 2012, p. vii), and studies confirm the
importance of affect in language learning (Arag~ao, 2011; Garrett &
Young, 2009). However, inadequate attention to the complex relations
between personal drives and situated sociohistorical conditions has
meant affect remains the least understood of language learning vari-
ables (Scovel, 2001). Pavlenko (2013, p. 7) attributes this to the “lack
of a principled theory of affect, which is treated as an individual char-
acteristic.” Simple cause-effect conceptions of relations between affect
and learning have adopted a focus on individual affective factors of atti-
tudes to the target language and its speakers, anxieties, and personal
characteristics, captured in the umbrella concept of motivation but
ignoring the dynamic social nature of these phenomena (Pavlenko,
2013) and the reciprocal relation between affect and cognition (But-
ler, 2017, p. 731). Rather than a stable individual characteristic, we
take affect itself to be a discursively (Piller & Takahashi, 2006) and
sociohistorically constructed and shared, contextually variable feature
of social interactions (Butler, 2017). We define linguistic shame as
embarrassment in using a language resulting from the social dis-
courses and practices that denigrate the identities and outcomes
attached to such language use.
Reconceptualization of individual motivation to learn and use an
additional language as language desire (Piller, 2002), “a complex multi-
faceted construction that is both internal and external to language
learners” (Piller & Takahashi, 2006, p. 59), situates affect in context-
specific relations between public societal discourses and ideologies
and historical geopolitical relations. Conceptualizing the desire, or
lack thereof, to learn an additional language as situated amid histori-
cal and structural circumstances, and a multiplicity of desires, compli-
cates individual agency as encompassing more than an inner
motivation to acquire language proficiency; it acknowledges the role
of language in social organization, power relations, and subjectivity
and in mediation of the (re)negotiation, (re)construction, and con-
testation over time and space of identities that remain fluid (Taka-
hashi, 2013). The discursive construction and enactment of language
desires in the study reported in this article are complicated by a con-
text of historical colonialism and current neoliberal agendas that
problematize affect. As McElhinny (2010, p. 315) notes, “new regimes
of self associated with neoliberalism, in which the ideal adult person
is responsible, autonomous, self-sufficient, and entrepreneurial,” go

2 TESOL QUARTERLY
directly to “habits of the heart” (Harvey, 2005, quoted in McElhinny,
2010, p. 315). Agentic individual responses to this tension between
individual subjective feelings and geopolitical circumstances have “im-
portant consequences for cultural and social formations and distinc-
tions” (Park, 2015, p. 60). Thus, it is not surprising to find that ELT
and English use is a disruptive issue evoking powerful affective
dimensions elemental to the ongoing constitution of social structures
in many communities.
The role of desire in ELT has been theorized recently in the
pages of this journal (Motha & Lin, 2014) and elsewhere in the field
(Benesch, 2012; Pavlenko, 2005). Drawing from developments in cul-
tural studies (Ahmed, 2010; Spivak, 2002), Motha and Lin (2014)
theorize how desire for English, and the identities and resources
English promises, drives the global ELT enterprise. In the neoliberal
economy, English itself becomes an object of desire. Our pedagogi-
cal orientations subtly frame effective language acquisition as moti-
vated by desire to engage with the language and the “target”
community that speaks it. Communicative language teaching
approaches are based on the assumption that a willingness to actively
use English for communicative purposes inside and outside class-
rooms accounts for learning success. Language pedagogies treat Eng-
lish as a form of positive investment (Norton, 2000), thus a
desirable resource because it facilitates marketization of oneself; Eng-
lish is associated with consumption (Kubota, 2011), even with
romance (Takahashi, 2013), and is therefore treated, following
Ahmed (2010), as an object of happiness. Furthermore, hybrid iden-
tities with language practices that accommodate English are theo-
rized as desirable to resolve conflicts with their local identities/
languages that learners may experience. In this sense, as Kubota
(2014) observes, neoliberal ideology treats hybridity as a desirable, if
not progressive, outcome for multilingual or postcolonial subjects,
part of the expectation that those who develop a repertoire of lan-
guages, competencies, skills, and identities have better chances of
succeeding in the diversified and unpredictable global economy.
These perspectives are understandable, considering the power of
English as global linguistic and cultural capital, but such forms of
desire shape complicity with neoliberal regimes, a mechanism by
which people internalize dispositions to serve market and profit
accumulation purposes. Thus, despite there being no guarantee that
English proficiency will improve or change people’s life conditions,
desire furthers English’s global dominance and the worldwide
industry of ELT.
In this framework of orientation to affect and desire, we wish to
examine the question of shame in ELT, which has been observed in

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 3

contexts worldwide, though not carefully analyzed. At a time when
English is uncritically and universally treated as desirable, it is signifi-
cant that it evokes shame in some communities. In one sense, it is pos-
sible to treat shame as lying on the opposite end of the emotional
spectrum—that is, if one doesn’t desire English, he or she might be
ashamed of it. However, that is too simple an understanding of shame.
Shame is not simply the negative or “other” of desire. It has its own
complexity and requires theorization and analysis in its own right.
Shame of one’s first language (L1) can motivate the desire for Eng-
lish, whereas in other contexts shame is initiated by desire. For exam-
ple, if someone is ashamed to use English, fearing ridicule by native
speakers for not approximating their norms, this behavior is shaped by
desire to use it with authenticity or authority. Furthermore, shame
may not always be undesirable. Desire to maintain one’s heritage lan-
guage or community identity can evoke shame on using English
among multilinguals. However, shame might have critical potential in
helping community members affirm their local solidarity against the
acquisition of a linguistic capital for individual identity development
and marketization of oneself. In such cases, shame should not be
denigrated, but addressed with understanding to develop meaningful
pedagogical alternatives.
In this study, we analyze the complexities of orientations to shame
relating to learning and using English in Kiribati. Although interna-
tional aid and development experts denigrate shaming practices, treat
them as backwards and limiting, and seek strategies to move Kiribati
people to desire English, the local people’s experiences are of com-
plex attitudes to shaming as a mechanism to affirm community cohe-
sion and regulate social change. Ideological clashes of conflicting
discourses of community benefit have become evident in tensions
around social practices that in earlier times have been instrumental in
sustaining relative stability of local values (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003),
but are now emblematic of a struggle with competing desires and
point to the significance of affect in how “resistances to an emphasis
on rational choice and utility maximization are formulated” (McEl-
hinny, 2010, p. 315). Their practices of shaming have the potential to
counter neoliberal ideologies that are individualistic and materialistic,
but frustrate efforts to engage productively with change whil sustaining
community integrity. We articulate policy and pedagogical options sen-
sitive to local values and interests that might help resolve tensions in
the perspectives of the powerful outsiders and dependent locals that
lead to confusions in educational priorities and prove somewhat
debilitating for local ELT pedagogies.

4 TESOL QUARTERLY
SHAME IN ELT

There are brief, passing, or anecdotal observations of shame in stud-

ies on ELT. Linguistic shame—shame related to language use—has
been documented in a variety of contexts in relation to both first and
additional language use. Use of the L1 by self or family members in sit-
uations where a second or additional language (L2) is dominant can
evince feelings of shame, especially among children, as was found
among young Albanian immigrants in Greece (Chatzidaki &
Maligkoudi, 2012). Instances of similar linguistic shame have been
documented in former colonial settings. L opez Quiroz (1990, as cited
in Coronel-Molina, 1999, p. 167) asserts that in Peru “some people
would rather hide their status as native Quechua speakers, and let
others think they are ‘mentally limited’ (i.e. retarded) because they do
not speak Spanish very well.” A study of Navajo language users in Ari-
zona, in the United States, found that many young research partici-
pants preferred to use English and hide their knowledge and use of
Navajo because “speaking Navajo stigmatizes one as ‘uneducated, and
they haven’t experienced anything in the world’” (McCarty, Romero-
Little, & Zepeda, 2006, p. 670). We should distinguish between shame
of one’s first language (as in these examples), caused in most cases by
the valorization of and desire for a more powerful L2 that is
disempowering to multilinguals, and shame of using a powerful
second language.
Shame in relation to learning or using a second language is fre-
quently encountered in Asian countries, such as Japan (Doyon, 2000),
as shyness and unwillingness to communicate in the target language.
This is arguably grounded in fear of the shame associated with nega-
tive social evaluation and/or “a keen sensitivity to cues of being
rejected” (Zimbardo, 1981, p. 9), predisposing “shy” learners to avoid
situations that threaten face and possible rejection. There are numer-
ous accounts (Garrett & Young, 2009; Imai, 2010; Miccoli, 1997; So &
Dominguez, 2005) of embarrassment and avoidance of target language
use because of students’ fear of judgment, generally motivated by per-
ceptions of falling short of standards or expectations of native speakers
and others with superior proficiency. Fear of ridicule of social perfor-
mance—that is, vulnerability to shaming practices—has long been
associated with physiological and psychological effects pertinent to per-
formance such as “disturbances in speech and . . . derangements in
the processes of attention, reflection, volition and memory” (Platt,
Ruch, Hofmann, & Proyer, 2012). In some respects, learners
everywhere believe that speaking English in classrooms is the greatest
challenge they face (Arag~ao, 2011).

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 5

 Willingness to communicate (WTC) research has focused on user
and situational variables. For example, individual variables found to
impact on WTC have been listed as motivation and attitudes, self-confi-
dence, personality, international posture, age, and gender (Cao,
2014). Arag~ao (2011) argues that shyness, embarrassment, and self-
esteem are emotions that interact with core beliefs, and this
relationship plays a fundamental role in the way users behave in their
language environment. However, social variables (such as task, inter-
locutor, and group configuration) that “mediate . . . psychological
conditions” (Cao, 2014, p. 792) situate WTC in the interface of indi-
vidual and social considerations. In second language classrooms where
signs are detected of negative WTC in using English, teachers often
take steps to move students beyond such presumed inhibiting factors
(Humphreys & Wyatt, 2014). These feelings are considered dysfunc-
tional for learning according to communicative language teaching
pedagogies. Dominant pedagogical practices aim to move students
beyond what are considered “inhibitions” to nudge them toward
engaging with the language. Students are expected to develop positive
affect toward the language they are learning to acquire it effectively.
Motivation constructs, such as integrative motivation (Carreira, 2011;
Wu, 2003), also assume that one has to develop an interest in joining
the target community and use the language with that community for
effective learning. However, Park (2015) rejects a focus on the individ-
ual as the source of performance anxiety and, following a linguistic
anthropological approach, argues that language anxieties are a social
condition, subjective responses to historical-structural circumstances
surrounding the target language in context. Park concludes that
shame and other feelings commonly experienced by learners and users
of English in Korea, largely because of perceived inadequacies mea-
sured against an unattainable native-speaker model, can be adequately
understood only by investigating “the role of affect and emotion in
mediating the integrated relationship between the individual’s lived
experiences and structural conditions of everyday life” (p. 12).
In another variant, shame derives from adopting an alienating iden-
tity through the use of a foreign language. People may desire and
value English, but find new identities undesirable in local community
contexts. Lamb and Coleman (2008, p. 199) report that in rural
Indonesia local people use the term kebarat-baratan (“pretending to be
like a Westerner”) to shame English language learners who use the
language outside school, because “English is not a legitimate code of
interaction for these youngsters and its use is likely to inspire scorn.”
Likewise, in multilingual Singapore, Malay-speaking English language
learners were found to fear the shaming practices of their peers when
they use English in social interactions outside formal classroom

6 TESOL QUARTERLY
activities, as a student explains: “So it is like the common language is
Malay. Then I shouldn’t be talking like one clever person, superior. If
then they will think I am such a snob” (Stroud & Wee, 2007, p. 47).
In Sri Lanka, it has been observed that students don’t attend commu-
nicative classes where they are expected to use English in peer interac-
tions, preferring to attend grammar classes where they can learn
English for examination purposes (Canagarajah, 1993). In some cir-
cles, English spoken in public is derided as kaduwa (“sword”), meaning
that the speaker is trying to cut down the interlocutor with his or her
powerful instrument (Kandiah, 1979). Such negative associations and
feelings of shame toward English are motivated by positive values of
community solidarity that need to be taken seriously. We have to be
wary of denigrating or suppressing such expressions of shame to
encourage a desire for English without addressing conflicts of identity,
values, and ways of life.
Shame can also ensue from successful learning of English and attri-
tion of one’s first language. Failure to maintain L1 by members of
immigrant or minority groups, and subsequent dissipation of cultural
or ethnic identity, might be regarded as shameful behavior by others
committed to resisting assimilation (Gao, 2012). In these contexts,
shame is a mechanism for encouraging L1 maintenance. Pavlenko
(2005) cites instances where those who fail to transmit a minority lan-
guage are denounced as language traitors or language killers (Constan-
tinidou, 1994; Romaine 1999, cited in Pavlenko, 2005). This kind of
shaming is a complex phenomenon, reductive and essentializing in
treating people as inhabiting a single language or identity, but with
potential to counteract language shift, attrition, or loss.
The case we study in Kiribati is similar to the latter two types of shame
reviewed above: shame of projecting an out-group identity in violation
of local solidarity and shame of abandoning the heritage language for
gaining a powerful new language. We analyze the significance of shame
from the local community’s point of view and consider whether shame
of this nature might have positive value for learning, communication,
and identity. Theorizing the positive significance of shame also helps us
deconstruct dominant notions of language competence, motivation,
and pedagogical practice based on desire. We explore whether we can
work with the community’s values informing shame to develop a quali-
fied place for English in their social life.

BACKGROUND

Affective responses to English language teaching and use are

framed by the historical and material circumstances of the I-Kiribati. A

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 7

mere 800 square kilometers of landmass spread over 33 islands, Kirib-
ati is one of the poorest countries in the Asia Pacific region (Burnett,
2013; Tisdell, 2000). I-Kiribati (the people of Kiribati) number about
90,000, and more than half live in the capital Tarawa (Asian Develop-
ment Bank, 2007). Although Kiribati gained independence and
became a republic in 1979, its education has followed colonial peda-
gogical traditions. The language of the colonizer, English, offers a crit-
ical element of participation in global economic growth and
development. Both foreign experts and local policy makers believe
that “it is realistic to accept that a globalizing society needs an elite
workforce highly literate in English” (Lamb & Coleman, 2008, p. 201).
Given the unenviable circumstances of the I-Kiribati, it is no surprise
that education policies with the goal of developing the learning of
English as an additional language are supported by international aid
agencies and development partners. These partners, including not just
traditional Pacific neighbors Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, but
the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, China,
and Taiwan (Coxon & Munce, 2008), are motivated by their own
geopolitical and neoliberal agendas (Liyanage, 2018).
Policies stipulate the use of English as the medium of instruction
(MOI) throughout Kiribati’s educational system. Six years of primary
education begins at age 6, after which students gain entry into either
state-operated or private Christian church–operated secondary schools
(Republic of Kiribati Ministry of Education, 2007). Higher education
is available at the University of the South Pacific Extension Centre,
Kiribati Teachers College, Kiribati Technical Institute, the Marine
Training Centre, and Kiribati School of Nursing, all located in Tarawa
(Liyanage, 2009). The quality of formal education, including the
teaching of English, is poor in Kiribati due to the lack of trained
teachers, resources, and infrastructure, and their inequitable distribu-
tion among its atolls (United Nations, 2002). Policies promote English
as the MOI, but instruction is in the local vernacular (Liyanage, 2009).
With assistance from Western aid and diplomatic missions, a large
number of consultants, teachers, and curriculum developers from
English-dominant countries are employed in the country to improve
English language teacher quality (see Liyanage, 2009, for a full discus-
sion).
The social implications of these educational policies are drastic.
Since Kiribati’s colonization, the power of the English language has
been imbued with the dimension of a commodity in the relations
between colonizer and colonized and, subsequently, in the relations
between I-Kiribati themselves. At the earliest stages, development of lit-
eracy in what was treated as an oral language culture was undertaken
by colonial administrators and missionaries with an undermining

8 TESOL QUARTERLY
motivation (Burnett, 2005). It served the promotion of British and
European value systems and practices through local literacies, essen-
tially disrupting precolonial sociopolitical-economic relations, while
withholding from the mass of I-Kiribati the opportunity to participate
actively and equitably in the English-speaking sphere. Endowed with
the weight of political and socioeconomic capital, English has been a
commodity, possession of which marks a complex sociolinguistic divide
in Kiribati originating in a colonial policy of creating a tightly regu-
lated group of elite locals (Fanon, 1967) selected for an education,
including English language, deemed necessary for employment to sup-
port colonial administrators. These associations of education and of
English proficiency with the elite persist in contemporary Kiribati, and
this is an important facet of the social practices that we explore in this
article.
The English-dominant language policy in Kiribati is not difficult to
understand. Given considerations of preparing students for future
mobility in response to climatic threats, policy makers are influenced
by a discourse powerful in many former colonies that equates success
and prosperity with Western-style English-language medium education
(Gray, 2010). Both English education and English language are high-
demand, profitably tradeable commodities in global markets (Tilak,
2008) that offer possibilities for mobility of the I-Kiribati population
not simply as refugees but as skilled English-proficient migrants
(Burnett, 2013). Opportunities for access to this linguistic capital are
sponsored by aid agencies.
Yet “top-down” policy making and import of language teaching
approaches and pedagogies are taking place against a background of
evidence that English language literacy in Kiribati is actually declining
(Burnett, 2013). The policy frustration of Kiribati has, we contend,
ensued from policy makers’ application of the “the global education
agenda of the international development community . . . to perceived
regional and national education problems regardless of contextual dif-
ference” (Coxon & Munce, 2008, p. 147). However, policy develop-
ment must begin with closer explorations of the local context of
enactment. Local and international policy makers are ignoring the
importance of local historical and material circumstances in the feel-
ings of I-Kiribati about language and language use, and which at the
grassroots level have led them to adopt subjective positions about ELT
manifest in language desires and shaming practices. It is to a frame-
work for this orientation that we turn in this study to analyze the com-
plex and conflicting perspectives on shame by foreign experts and
among the I-Kiribati themselves in order to develop more constructive
and relevant ELT pedagogies.

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 9

 Note that though some scholars have studied affect as cultural (e.g.,
Doyon, 2000; Wen & Clement, 2003; Yashima, 2002) we adopt a socio-
historical orientation. We treat shame as a practice shaped and moti-
vated by social, historical, and geopolitical relations that in the case of
the I-Kiribati is part of a nexus of practices to manage community
cohesion and language contact. Though they adopt shaming practices
in Kiribati to regulate social relations and heritage language mainte-
nance, they adopt other practices to manage multilingualism for com-
municative contexts that involve other communities and English
language. Note also that in the interview data we present below, both
locals and foreign development experts attribute shame to culture. It
is possible to treat culture as a sedimentation of practices that coalesce
into values, habits, and traits that characterize a community. From this
point of view, culture is not primordial, essentialized, or unchanging,
as theorized by postcolonial scholars (see Bhabha, 1984). Such traits
and features can also be used performatively to ensure compliance
with community values for certain interests, as we demonstrate below.
For some community members, the intra- and extra-community rela-
tions can generate some ideological tensions. We discuss how teachers
can help clarify these tensions and move forward in learning English.
The focus of this article is on shame as it has not been theorized in
ELT contexts. However, we move in the latter part of this article to
focus on the strategies adopted by I-Kiribati for language contact and
intercommunity relations.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Data were collected by the first author as a member of a collabora-

tive development project between the governments of Kiribati and
Australia that aimed to facilitate employment opportunities for I-Kiri-
bati youth. He was one of the consultants and English language
teacher educators throughout this project, which was conducted over a
3-year period. Though he is currently a faculty member in Australia,
he hails from Sri Lanka. Both authors are originally from Sri Lanka,
thus they are familiar with the manifestation of shame in using English
in classrooms and society in their own country. Having had their own
English education in a former British colony, they interpret the place
of shame in the local community differently from other consultants.
They are in a position to relate to the postcolonial perspectives of the
local community.
Open-ended interviews with six educationists, part of ongoing obser-
vations projected for a larger ethnographic project, were used to
gather data. Because the focus of this study is to compare different

10 TESOL QUARTERLY
perspectives on shaming practices, interview data are limited to a bal-
anced representation of local and foreign professionals: three local
teachers (one female and two male) and three foreign experts (two
female and one male). Their statements are interpreted in the light of
the first author’s observations and consultancy experience in Kiribati.
Of the local participants, Zameeta is the principal of a high school
and an English teacher who completed her postgraduate studies in
Australia. Of the two local males, Wanga is the director of a university
campus located in Tarawa and completed his doctoral studies in Aus-
tralia, and Atang is a graduate from a Fijian university and works as an
English teacher at a high school. Of the three foreign experts, John
was a senior embassy official in charge of overseas aid and cultural
affairs. Jill and Elaine were employed as overseas consultants to
improve English language and literacy skills in the country. All three
foreign experts are native speakers of English. Each interview lasted
between 70 and 90 minutes, and interview questions explored partici-
pants’ perceptions of shame and shaming in relation to English lan-
guage teaching and learning in Kiribati. We adopted a selective
coding (Clarke, 2005) of the interview data for different explanations
on the manifestations, causes, and consequences of shaming practices.

DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES ON SHAME AND SHAMING

PRACTICES
Given the resources expended on improving the teaching of English
in Kiribati, foreign consultants find the reluctance to use English by I-
Kiribati a frustrating constraint on their policy objectives. Charged
with the explicit goals of improving English language skills and use,
most consultants draw on approaches they have adopted elsewhere.
This background explains their reactions to I-Kiribati attitudes.
Consider Jill’s observations from a workshop she conducted for local
teachers:
Some of them would not speak in English in a workshop situation. . . .
[W]e did a lot of focus groups and when they get into the groups they
would completely speak in Kiribati doing the work . . . the actual focus
group work and when it came to report back it was very difficult to get
anyone to speak up. . . . [Y]ou couldn’t do the sort of approach that
you would take at home, or that I’ve taken in Fiji or PNG where you
rotate through the group and everyone gets a chance. They just
wouldn’t. It was just too confronting for them. They would do it if they
could do it in I-Kiribati.
(Jill: 74–85)

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 11

The consultant is intrigued that local teachers use the vernacular for
their group work even though the workshop is designed for ELT
development. Even when small-group members report back to others
in the plenary, they find it difficult to adopt English. Jill interprets this
difficulty as deriving from discomfort, that is, as “very difficult” or “too
confronting.” This explanation borders on attributing the reluctance
to personal traits such as lack of confidence, similar to those in the
WTC scholarship. It is remarkable that this reluctance to use English
is found not among learners or novices, but English teachers, suggest-
ing the reluctance is not primarily because of personal limitations in
proficiency but of broader historical and social factors.
What I-Kiribati attribute to shame, foreign experts attribute to
diverse other factors that point to limitations and shortcomings in
local people. Elaine explicitly rejected explanations attributing this
reluctance to shame by arguing that such attitudes are nothing more
than “an excuse for not actually moving ahead” (Elaine: 244–249). In
this sense, reluctance to learn or use English is associated with lazi-
ness, complacency, or lack of motivation for personal or community
development. Such explanations are shaped perhaps by the develop-
ment ethic grounded in a conviction that harnessing individual drive
for competition and self-interest is productive (Tisdell, 2000): “Devel-
opment discourses are not only a set of economic programs, but also a
set of ideas about how to think and act” (McElhinny, 2010, p. 314). As
we see below, such shaming practices are seen as obstacles to change
and development objectives underlying policies promoting English
literacy.
Furthermore, when I-Kiribati attribute their shame to violating in-
group solidarity and an egalitarian local ethic, foreign experts cast
aspersions on such motivations. In another context, Jill recognizes that
this reluctance to use English is not due to lack of proficiency (as she
noted above of the teachers) but to shame: “The reluctance actually to
use English . . . people who have good English don’t necessarily feel
that they can teach in English because of the stigma involved” (Jill:
494–496). In using this pejorative term stigma, foreign experts con-
struct shame as a limiting influence of tribalism or tradition. Elaine
notes that there is “certainly a long big cultural thing, reluctance to
kind of you know tell others what to do, put yourself above others”
(Elaine: 222–230), going on to advise I-Kiribati “to shed some of . . .
these cultural things and . . . I’m not saying that we shatter them.
They have to address these themselves, you know” (Elaine: 244–249).
Rather than being understood as a subjective response to historical
and social conditions, shame and shaming is attributed to traditional
cultural values that perpetuate I-Kiribati backwardness and prevent
them from being pragmatic and participating in progress. Such an

12 TESOL QUARTERLY
explanation also essentializes a perceived local culture, locating it in
deep-seated perceptions of affect, and as a constraint on rational judg-
ment, as “‘beneath’ the faculties of thought and reason” (Ahmed,
2015, p. 3).
Elaine acknowledges that an egalitarian approach of not wanting to
“put yourself above others” can motivate shame and shaming practices.
However, the foreign experts interpreted this egalitarianism as moti-
vated by jealousy. Though comments such as the following are difficult
to verify, John observed this to the extent that “if someone sets up a
shop, often people will refuse to go there because the attitude is why
would they go there and make you rich” (John: 196–208). Therefore
they see these shaming practices as leading to destructive outcomes:
“people wanting to move ahead, achieve, take opportunities, get
pulled back because we want you down, or we want you all here . . .
[T]o me, that’s not what egalitarianism is all about” (Elaine: 222–230).
Furthermore, there is a dismissive attitude by foreign experts toward
local social relationships and values as simply a lack of “hierarchy”
(John: 196–208). They observed that such claims of shame or egalitari-
anism are “actually rubbish, you know, they’re not egalitarian at all”
(Elaine: 222–230). In another context Elaine called this an “egalitarian
myth” (Elaine: 244). It became evident from statements discussed
above that I-Kiribati and foreign experts had different understandings
of egalitarianism, which influenced the way they understood shame.
In contrast to foreign experts, we found I-Kiribati participants offer-
ing a rather different perspective on shame. Their decisions about the
use of English and of the sociohistorical significance of these decisions
affirm community solidarity and positive social outcomes. Using Eng-
lish locally indexes “liking to be different” or wanting “to be higher
than them” (Zameeta: 198–213). Because English has been historically
identified since colonization with social stratification and Western val-
ues, these associations fill locals with shame when using English. These
values inform the appellation okakanimatang (“acting like an outsider
or foreigner”) used to describe local people who used English.
Zameeta explained what it means: “Okakanimatang. Mmmm . . . . like
to be a . . . European and, you know, the expats, they speak in . . . the
white people. Matang means white people, you know. . . . So when
you try to speak in English, they will say you, okakanimatang” (Zameeta:
169–179). Clearly, there are identity implications in using English
locally. Though the foreign experts were not sympathetic to such iden-
tity attributions, they too had observed the connection. Jill recounted
incidents she was familiar with: “incidents where people say to them,
‘What . . . do you want to be an imatang? Why you speak in English?”
(Jill: 140–143). As we can infer, shaming a person as okakanimatang
endows that person with a stigmatized identity. To be called

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 13

okakanimatang “sort of discourages to use English. It causes us to be
embarrassed” (Atang: 82–86). There is a ridicule at the heart of sham-
ing practices that the use of English provokes. In the words of another
participant, “You don’t want to be seen as you are trying to differenti-
ate yourself from everyone else because you speak a different
language” (Wanga: 140).
Because English is identified with White European outsiders, who
are in fact different, and seen as positioning themselves as “above
everyone else,” there are also status differences invoked by using Eng-
lish. Speaking English locally is interpreted as trying to distinguish
yourself from others, “trying to make yourself different, not only differ-
ent but also above everyone else” (Wanga: 35–53). This indexicality for
English as a divisive and alien language derives from its colonial associ-
ations in Kiribati, and following independence there has been a real-
ization that I-Kiribati no longer had to be like the British, and “a rush
to localize things you know, teachers in schools and all that” (Wanga:
72–75). Furthermore, because all local people were proficient in the
vernacular in a homogenous community, the use of English was not
necessary. If someone chose English to converse locally, it is a marked
usage that immediately indexes a desire to be different and/or supe-
rior. Atang observed that English is “not really valued” because “with-
out English we can still survive. . . . [H]ere in Kiribati, we have only
one language and everyone will understand it” (Atang: 50–57). There
was a strong preference for using Kiribati for local communication
and interactions. Violating this local communicative norm was associ-
ated with acting like an outsider or someone superior to others.
Shaming practices are therefore motivated by a preference to affirm
everyone’s equality and solidarity. Wanga (35–53) explained:
One of the things that brings shame to you is when you try to be differ-
ent from the rest. And I think that’s what people are running away
from it and it’s a pity that it’s affecting the way they speak English and
their confidence.
Resistance to English that stems from I-Kiribati egalitarianism reflects
social cohesion based on individuals’ commitment to the community.
Shaming reiterates shared practices fundamental to conceptions of a
future that sustains those local practices. It is slightly different from
the concept articulated by outsiders of the community focused on
equality of treatment of individuals. Rather than equality of treatment,
for I-Kiribati egalitarianism means not behaving differently to others,
and especially not behaving like outsiders. In other words, whereas for-
eign experts considered local egalitarianism as not desiring to strive
and move forward, for I-Kiribati it didn’t mean that. Egalitarianism has
a powerful affective dimension of a feeling of belonging, not primarily

14 TESOL QUARTERLY
economic status or practice. Everyone can strive to better themselves,
but they shouldn’t flaunt their status publicly, and in fact it is impor-
tant to sustain the feeling of collective belonging that is “constructed
as ‘being’ through ‘feeling’” (Ahmed, 2015, p. 2), by continuing to
perform the practices necessary to affirm and (re)constitute local
social structure. It is this misunderstanding that explains why foreign
experts had pejorative labels for local behavior as “the egalitarian
myth.” Wanga (35–53) further explained:
Kiribati culture is an egalitarian culture. . . . [W]hen you speak English
which is a different language . . . you are trying to make yourself differ-
ent, not only different but also above everyone else. So when people
ridicule you . . . they are in fact pulling you down to their same level.
. . . [T]he society has its own leveling mechanisms.
Speaking English locally is interpreted by I-Kiribati as claiming higher
social status, as indexed by the power of English as a linguistic capital,
and is an invitation to be shamed in public. When individuals are per-
ceived to be engaging in practices that threaten community solidarity,
such as using English rather the local vernacular, shaming practices
are normative mechanisms that invoke fear of not being part of the
vernacular-speaking mainstream and exert pressure to realign behavior
to conform to the egalitarian expectations. There is a reluctance to
use English, because “the culture cannot be you know . . . be aban-
doned because it is very strong” (Zameeta: 198–213). Therefore,
shame is a social and affective mechanism to align individuals with
community norms. Our participants were socialized into these values
and the functions of shaming practices from a young age: “We were
taught through our socialization and when we were small that every-
one is equal and you cannot be above everyone else” (Wanga: 35–53).
Shaming turns out to be effective to help internalize these values of
community solidarity and equality. Local informants conveyed the high
place given to shame in their community life: “One of the most impor-
tant things in Kiribati life is the avoidance of being shamed” (Wanga:
161). To put aside community-based practices in a relationally
oriented community is interpreted as abandonment of values central
to I-Kiribati identity.
What we see above is that local attribution of shame as cultural can
be performative. In claiming that their culture is egalitarian and that
shaming is a culturally developed strategy of “leveling mechanism,” the
locals are actually influencing certain preferred community norms in
language socialization. They are ensuring that community cohesion is
not affected by some people learning English to impose their higher
status on others. Suggestions by foreign experts that local values
informing shaming are nothing more than a convenient excuse for

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 15

failure to move ahead ignore the potency of local social practices such
as shaming that have emerged from a contextual confluence of his-
tory, ideology, and subjective experiences. Even the most liberal and
brave locals acknowledge the power of shaming practices: “It doesn’t
matter much to me what people are saying behind my back but for
most of Kiribati people it’s important because that is how you carry
yourself in the community . . . that matters a lot to them” (Wanga:
155–168).” Because this emotional context of language use is a power-
ful constraint on desire for development of English literacy in Kiribati,
and this constraint then flows through to various contextual dimen-
sions of policy enactment, shaming practices should be taken seriously
in approaches to development of English language proficiency. Blam-
ing lack of proficiency on individual limitations ignores socialization,
identity considerations, and community solidarity. Local participants
stressed the need to take shaming practices seriously in English lan-
guage teaching and policy planning:
You know the thing that really affect the way our students are learning
English and their confidence in speaking it outside the classroom situa-
tion because as soon as you do that . . . automatically people’s thinking
is that you’re trying to be different from everyone else. And there are
mechanisms in society that pull you back.
(Wanga: 35–53)

EXPANDING THE CONTEXT

Though shaming practices have their functionality in intra-commu-

nity relations, I-Kiribati cannot and do not isolate themselves from
other communities. As a small island nation whose future is precari-
ous, they are vulnerable to the agendas of other geopolitical powers
and the pressures of neoliberal interests. How do they manage such
inter-community relations? Knowing that they have to learn and use
other languages with outsiders, they have developed language ideolo-
gies and practices that enable them to do so without affecting intra-
community cohesion and interests. As we articulate these ideologies
and strategies, we acknowledge that such shuttling between communi-
ties and ideologies sometimes creates uncertainties and tensions that
need to be clarified. For some community members, there might be
conflicting language desires, as they weigh the benefits of I-Kiribati
versus competing languages. There are also ambiguities on when and
how the other languages should be learned for extra-community rela-
tions. For example, English is promoted by the policies of their
nation-state, motivated by the status of English as global linguistic

16 TESOL QUARTERLY
capital, generating conflicting language desires. I-Kiribati do not deny
the benefits to be gained for a community that has developed capaci-
ties to use English, as Wanga acknowledged: “They realize the impor-
tance of acquiring English and communicating English” (Wanga: 35–
53). However, the emphasis on avoidance of shame has led some to
restrict use of English to the home setting, hoping to encourage their
children:
I like my home to be an English speaking home but because we always
have other people at home, my children are kind of shy to speak
English. . . . We try small sentences with them because they’re still
young but we never succeed. . . . Because if we go out and we try to
speak English with them we are thinking that other people are laugh-
ing at us thinking, you know, okakanimatang.
(Zameeta: 198–213)
One might interpret Zameeta’s approach as a coping strategy. Because
she sees the need to teach English to her children for its extra-com-
munity value, but constrained by the shaming practices intra-commu-
nity, she treats the home as a safe space. Others also face this
dilemma; that is, how do community members teach English for extra-
community relations when it is prohibited for use within the commu-
nity?
There are also well-meaning attempts to promote English as a med-
ium of instruction and a language of wider use in the school environ-
ment, though teachers encounter resistance from shaming practices.
Consider the attempts of Wanga:
I earlier mentioned to you my experience in trying to make this place
an English speaking campus. We do it for several days and it is very dif-
ficult because as soon as you speak English . . . you know from the
facial expressions alone. . . . [W]hy are you doing this? You are as same
as us. Why try to be different? . . . Why speak in English?
(Wanga: 110–117)
This complexity in feelings about English is observed in the contrast-
ing behavior of I-Kiribati inside and outside their country. It seems
that they are bold and communicative in English when they travel to
neighboring Australia or New Zealand. Atang observed:
And, it quite astonished me . . . because I know that . . . I mean, those
people that I lived with, when they were here [i.e., in Kiribati] they
cannot speak even a word in English but they’re now in New Zealand
they can express themselves in English. That’s quite funny, hey? Maybe
because they’re away from the culture which always mocked them or

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 17

 . . . or maybe because if they don’t speak in English, they won’t survive.
It’s matter of life or death.
(Atang: 276–280)
His observations suggest that reluctance to speak is not because of lack
of proficiency; it is in deference to community values and norms, and
I-Kiribati are opening to adopting different identities and communica-
tive practices away from the shaming practices at home.
Another consideration that explains these dual behaviors is the ten-
sion between the need for English for certain instrumental purposes
and economic opportunities, and the importance of Kiribati for local
solidarity. These contexts and purposes are not always separated and
dichotomous. In some cases, they influence each other. For example,
in order to develop the proficiency to interact with outsiders, English
has to be learned in local schools and practiced with local peers and
teachers. This tension emerges strikingly from a parental survey on the
educational preferences of I-Kiribati that suggests that parents are torn
between desires for an English medium and vernacular medium edu-
cation (see Burnett, 1999). This and other studies reveal a dilemma
between preferring an educational curriculum that favors local lan-
guages for traditional economic practices (i.e., vocations such as fish-
ing in the informal economy) and an English education that provides
opportunities in the cash economy (Burnett, 1999; Hindson, 1985).
I-Kiribati recognize that local lifestyle and community traditions are
under threat from globalization, climate change, and geopolitical
developments and see that English language can provide access to
economic prospects and survival.
Borovnik (2005) explores the lived experiences of I-Kiribati seafar-
ers managing competing language desires and communicative needs
while working in marine industries with workers/sailors from other
countries and language groups. In these contexts, I-Kiribati use Eng-
lish and become socialized into the behaviors and values required for
their work and relationships. However, they reconcile this professional
lifestyle with their local values in three ways. First, as soon as they
return to the community from work stints abroad, I-Kiribati adopt the
local ways of life. That is, they don’t use English for local interactions
or show off their wealth and newly acquired values or identities. In the
rare case where some returnees maintained their outside ways, they
were ostracized and shamed by others. Second, even when they
worked abroad, they found spaces to bond with fellow I-Kiribati and
use their local languages and values to maintain in-group solidarity. So
although they used English with others, they used local languages out-
side work, in relationships when they bonded privately. This way, they
expressed solidarity with other I-Kiribati. They also repaired any

18 TESOL QUARTERLY
damage to community cohesion from adopting English for work rela-
tionships. Third, they explained their adoption of English and partici-
pation in industrial or cash economy as motivated by their families
and communities. In other words, they justified the temporary adop-
tion of these alternative values and behaviors in terms of commitment
to their community’s needs. For example, they explained that their
work was temporary or that their learning and use of English was
instrumental for earning much-needed resources for their families.
These ways of being I-Kiribati in various social settings is arguably fur-
ther evidence of the localized structures that have emerged in Kiribati
itself from historical, ideological, and subjective realities and that
shaming practices are open to changing circumstances, experiences,
and desires.
Borovnik (2005, p. 132) argues that the I-Kiribati approach above
resembles a contextual switching of identities and values. She labels
the I-Kiribati strategy as a “cultural flexibility” in opposition to hybrid-
ity. Rather than mixing the second culture, its values, and English into
their identities, as in hybridity, I-Kiribati prefer to keep them separate
and adopt English for outside contexts. Because we adopt a more qual-
ified and situated orientation to “culture,” we prefer the term code
switching to describe this practice. As a model for managing language
contact, code switching refers to adopting different codes for different
contexts, without letting them mix with each other (see Heath, 1983;
Young, 2004, for this orientation). This strategy is different from that
of code meshing, which involves fusing competing codes for hybrid
communication. Hybridity seems to be the dominant model for devel-
opment of multilingual identities among scholars, but the I-Kiribati
prefer a different approach. Though they are not against adopting
English and alternate lifestyles in some contexts, they keep English
and the vernacular distinct for different purposes and relationships, as
in the code switching model. Some applied linguists have argued that
the code meshing model is also promoted by neoliberal organizations
for flexible communication for market purposes (see Flores, 2013;
Kubota, 2014). Native American scholar Scott Lyons (2009) prefers
code switching over code meshing, motivated by a similar need to
maintain heritage language and community cohesion, as the I-Kiribati
do. Such strategies of using English for certain limited contexts of
functional and contact purposes suggest alternatives for English lan-
guage teaching in this community. They might offer a way of reconcil-
ing language desires and needs in terms of the community’s own
expectations and values rather than the values and ideologies of policy
makers—which we address next.

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 19

MOVING FORWARD

In the broader contexts of globalization and neoliberal governmen-

tality, which favor and enforce dispositions and values such as hybrid
identities, code meshing, individuality, repertoire building, constant
identity reconstruction, competition, and marketing of oneself, and in
which English language acquisition is considered an object of desire
for more attractive, progressive, and profitable identities in the neolib-
eral economy, I-Kiribati shaming practices have resistant potential.
Through the shaming practices toward adopting English and alien
identities, I-Kiribati are influencing community members to maintain
the vernacular and in-group solidarity and detaching themselves from
neoliberal values and English that motivate such undesirable effects.
In adopting the code switching approach, the locals envision partici-
pating in international relations with a strong and healthy community
cohesion. This has the potential to set limits on the extent to which
marketization can encroach into community values of harmony, soli-
darity, and egalitarianism. I-Kiribati are adopting shaming to prevent
English from reshaping their values and identities, and by reserving it
for functional and contact purposes, resisting the domination associ-
ated with desire (Pavlenko, 2013). Shaming can help resist neoliberal
and globalization pressures while accommodating participation in the
cash economy and industrialization on their own terms and in con-
trolled ways for their community’s survival and progress. In this sense,
shaming practices are not backward or limiting, as development work-
ers assume. Maintaining community interests and local ways of life,
which shaming is supposed to enforce, doesn’t have to conflict with
contact and progress.
Taking the code switching approach of the local people seriously,
we should explore whether English can be taught for functional pur-
poses while emphasizing that Kiribati can continue to be used for
everyday community purposes. In Singapore, for example (see Bolton
& Ng, 2014), “mother tongues” were designated “cultural anchors, pre-
serving one’s . . . heritage, beliefs and traditions . . . [and] shields
against the undesirable Western influences that come with the use of
English” (Tan, 2014, p. 324), whereas English was to function only as
the language of administration, yet English is now the language of
choice in many domains. It is true that the code switching model has
failed in Singapore because the local communities have preferred to
use English as an all-purpose language, affecting proficiency and use
in heritage languages. What that example shows is that there has been
a shift in attitudes in the local communities. Whereas policy makers
prefer the code switching model, community members prefer a greater

20 TESOL QUARTERLY
use of English. The Kiribati case is just the reverse. Whereas policy
makers and development agencies prefer a greater role for English,
the local community prefers a strategic use of English and Kiribati.
Our code switching proposal is to design pedagogies and policies
that affirm the preference of the community members. If this type of
language plan is to be pursued, and English is to be learned for func-
tional reasons (such as work or education and interactions in the cash
economy) and contact with outsiders, the local curriculum would have
to change. It currently focuses on communicative language teaching as
the preferred pedagogy, on extensive readings from English literature,
and on adoption of English as the medium of education. Such
approaches treat English as an all-purpose language. The I-Kiribati
treat such curriculum and pedagogies as having a colonizing influence
on their values, identities, and cultures by being more invasive than
they desire. Because they find such objectives of learning and use
resulting in communicative practices that are shameful, they might be
more relaxed if the curriculum and pedagogy treat English as taught
for use with outsiders and for functional purposes. Obviously, such a
pedagogy and curriculum would not be shaped around integrative
motivation, though it is treated as universally desirable in the profes-
sional literature. They should be modeled to address an instrumental
motivation.
Following Motha and Lin (2014), the I-Kiribati can also be helped
to explore their desires and feelings critically to understand their
shame of English. The observations emerging from our interview-based
study, and from other ethnographies of education and work of the I-
Kiribati, should be presented to learners to help them explore their
attitudes toward English and education. Shame is not a topic to be
avoided by both local people and foreign experts. Many of the strate-
gies Motha and Lin suggest can be modeled to help local people
understand the functions and motivations of shame. They can help in
reorienting shaming practices toward more beneficial effects in educa-
tion and society by renegotiating the pressures from globalization and
neoliberalism.
Students can be encouraged to role-play interactions with outsiders.
Clearly identifying the interlocutor as outsiders or foreigners can dis-
arm criticism of using English with insiders. Such interactions can help
teach and analyze the functions of code switching. Furthermore, such
activities can provide opportunities for mimicry, parody, sarcasm, and
humor, as the students role-play the use of English by locals who are
pretentious or outsiders who are elitist. Mimicry and role-play can also
provide ways of detaching oneself from English, of finding relief from
the fear of stigma, and of adopting more relaxed attitudes toward
objects of shame. Students can analyze these interactions critically to

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 21

explore how and why they are shameful. They can move to clarifying
the boundaries that should not be crossed in the use of English to
evoke shame. In reverse, they can clarify what contexts of English use
are locally acceptable. Larger questions about how such shame is con-
nected to their colonial history, social stratification, and neoliberal
pressures would also lead to understanding both the subversive role of
shaming and, contrarily, its drawbacks when it might prevent the com-
munity from participating in wider social changes. Practices such as
code switching, role-play, parody, and mimicry can also help develop
negotiation strategies and critical language awareness for the judicious
use of competing language resources.
The Kiribati story, though atypical, is useful for the wider profes-
sional community. It is instructive for us to adopt a situated under-
standing of language politics and pedagogy in TESOL. Because the
ways in which different communities manage language contact and
desires are different, we have to be open to appreciating their commu-
nity interests in developing a suitable pedagogy for them. What is cur-
rent and progressive for some communities (such as code meshing)
may not be suitable for others. Furthermore, when researchers and
teachers in ELT have suppressed or ignored shaming practices in their
classrooms in other communities, the stubbornness of the I-Kiribati
compels us to consider their functional, empowering, and affirmative
role. We must proceed to distinguish different motivations of shame
in English language learning and identify the shame emerging from
local community norms as deserving more recognition. We must also
learn how shame can have resistant potential against the homogeniz-
ing and marketizing pressures of the current economies and ideolo-
gies. The identity preferences of the I-Kiribati suggest that
appropriation and hybridity are not the only progressive or positive
approaches to resolving multicultural and multilingual resources. We
also learn that preferred pedagogies motivated by integrative motiva-
tion, such as communicative language teaching, may not be suitable
for all communities. We have to accommodate more diverse motiva-
tions and functions for English language learning in pedagogies that
are contextually appropriate.

THE AUTHORS

Indika Liyanage is an associate professor and discipline leader (TESOL/LOTE) at

the School of Education, Deakin University, in Australia, where he teaches and
supervises doctoral students. Prior to this, he taught in the Open University of Sri
Lanka and Griffith University, in Australia.

22 TESOL QUARTERLY
Suresh Canagarajah is the Erle Sparks Professor at Pennsylvania State University.
He teaches World Englishes, second language writing, and postcolonial studies in
the Departments of English and Applied Linguistics. He has taught in the Univer-
sity of Jaffna, in Sri Lanka, and the City University of New York.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2015). Cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Arag~ao, R. (2011). Beliefs and emotions in foreign language learning. System, 39,
302–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.003
Asian Development Bank. (2007). Priorities of the people: Hardship in Kiribati. Manila,
Philippines: Author.
Benesch, S. (2012). Considering emotions in critical English language teaching: Theories
and praxis. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bhabha, H. (1984). The location of culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bolton, K., & Ng, B. C. (2014). The dynamics of multilingualism in contemporary
Singapore. World Englishes, 33, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12092
Borovnik, M. (2005). Seafarers “maritime culture” and the “I-Kiribati way of life”:
The formation of flexible identities? Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 26
(2), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0129-7619.2005.00210.x
Burnett, G. (1999). Knowledge, schooling and post-school opportunities: An
exploration of I-Kiribati parents’ perceptions of secondary education. Directions,
21(2), 100–112.
Burnett, G. (2005). Language games and schooling: Discourses of colonialism in
Kiribati education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25(1), 93–106. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02188790500032640
Burnett, G. (2013). Approaches to English literacy teaching in the Central Pacific
Republic of Kiribati: Quality teaching, educational aid and curriculum reform.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 3, 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.
2013.787389
Butler, Y. G. (2017). The role of affect in intraindividual variability in task perfor-
mance for young learners. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 728–737. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tesq.385
Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambi-
guities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
27, 601–626. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587398
Cao, Y. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willing-
ness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 789–814. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tesq.155
Carreira, J. M. (2011). Relationship between motivation for learning EFL and
intrinsic motivation for learning in general among Japanese elementary school
students. System, 39, 90–02. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.009
Chatzidaki, A., & Maligkoudi, C. (2012). Family language policies among Albanian
immigrants in Greece. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingual-
ism, 16, 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.709817
Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Constantinidou, E. (1994). The “death” of East Sutherland Gaelic: Death by
women? In P. Burton, K. Dyson, & S. Ardener (Eds.), Bilingual women:

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 23

 Anthropological approaches to second-language use (pp. 111–127). Oxford, England:
Providence Berg.
Coronel-Molina, S. M. (1999). Functional domains of the Quechua language in
Peru: Issues of status planning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 2, 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670059908667687
Coxon, E., & Munce, K. (2008). The global education agenda and the delivery of
aid to Pacific education. Comparative Education, 44(2), 147–165. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03050060802041050
Doyon, P. (2000). Shyness in the Japanese EFL class. Language Teacher-Kyoto-JALT,
24(1), 11–16.
Fanon, F. (1967). The wretched of the earth (C. Farrington, Trans.). Harmondsworth,
England: Penguin. (Original work published 1961)
Flores, N. (2013). The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and
plurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 500–520. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tesq.114
Gao, F. (2012). Imagined identity of ethnic Koreans and its implication for bilin-
gual education in China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilin-
gualism, 15, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.636146
Garrett, P., & Young, R. F. (2009). Theorizing affect in foreign language learning:
An analysis of one learner’s responses to a communicative Portuguese course.
Modern Language Journal, 93, 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.
2009.00857.x
Gray, J. (2010). The branding of English and the culture of the new capitalism:
Representations of the world of work in English language textbooks. Applied
Linguistics, 31, 714–733. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq034
Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits
or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(19), 19–25. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0013189X032005019
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Hindson, C. E. (1985). Kiribati: The search for educational alternatives in a Pacific
micro-state. International Journal of Educational Development, 5, 289–294. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0738-0593(85)90024-0
Humphreys, G., & Wyatt, M. (2014). Helping Vietnamese university learners to
become more autonomous. ELT Journal, 68(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.
1093/elt/cct056
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an
EFL classroom. Modern Language Journal, 94, 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-4781.2010.01021.x
Kandiah, T. (1979). Disinherited Englishes: The case of Lankan English. Navasilu,
3, 75–89.
Kubota, R. (2011). Learning a foreign language as leisure and consumption:
Enjoyment, desire, and the business of eikaiwa. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 14, 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.
2011.573069
Kubota, R. (2014). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal mul-
ticulturalism: Complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Lin-
guistics, 37, 474–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu045
Lamb, M., & Coleman, H. (2008). Literacy in English and the transformation of
self and society in post-Soeharto Indonesia. International Journal of Bilingual Edu-
cation and Bilingualism, 11, 189–205. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb493.0

24 TESOL QUARTERLY
Liyanage, I. (2009). Global donors and ELT in Kiribati. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 732–
737. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00201.x
Liyanage, I. (2018). Agendas, aspirations, education and English language teach-
ing in Kiribati. In R. Chowdhury & L. Yazdanpanah (Eds.), Identity, equity and
social justice in Asia Pacific education (pp. 156–166). Melbourne, Australia: Mon-
ash University.
Lyons, S. (2009). The fine art of fencing: Nationalism, hybridity, and the search
for a Native American writing pedagogy. Journal of Advanced Composition,
29(1/2), 77–106.
McCarty, T. L., Romero-Little, M. E., & Zepeda, O. (2006). Native American youth
discourses on language shift and retention: Ideological cross-currents and their
implications for language planning. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 9, 659–677. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb386.0
McElhinny, B. (2010). The audacity of affect: Gender, race, and history in linguis-
tic accounts of legitimacy and belonging. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 309–
328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164358
Miccoli, L. S. (1997). Learning English as a foreign language in Brazil, a joint investiga-
tion of learners’ experiences in a university classroom, or, going to the depths of learners’
classroom experiences (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://tspace.libra
ry.utoronto.ca/
Motha, S., & Lin, A. (2014). “Non-coercive rearrangements”: Theorizing desire in
TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.126
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational
change. London, England: Longman/Pearson Education.
Park, J. S.-Y. (2015). Structures of feeling in unequal Englishes. In R. Tupas (Ed.),
Unequal Englishes: The politics of English today (pp. 59–73). Basingstoke, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Pavlenko, A. (2005). “Ask each pupil about her methods of cleaning”: Ideologies
of language and gender in Americanisation instruction (1900–1924). Interna-
tional Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8, 275–297. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13670050508668611
Pavlenko, A. (2013). The affective turn in SLA: From “affective factors” to “lan-
guage desire” and “commodification of affect”. In D. Gabrys-Barker & J. Bielska
(Eds.), The affective dimension in second language acquisition (pp. 3–28). Bristol,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Piller, I. (2002). Bilingual couples talk: The discursive construction of hybridity. Amster-
dam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Piller, I., & Takahashi, K. (2006). A passion for English: Desire and the language
market. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression, and
representation (pp. 59–83). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Platt, T., Ruch, W., Hofmann, J., & Proyer, R. T. (2012). Extreme fear of being
laughed at: Components of gelotophobia. Israeli Journal of Humor Research, 1,
86–106. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-51808
Republic of Kiribati Ministry of Education. (2007). Digest of education statistics. Tar-
awa, Kiribati: Author.
Scovel, T. (2001). Learning new languages: A guide to second language acquisition. Bos-
ton, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
So, S., & Dominguez, R. (2005). Emotion processes in second language acquisi-
tion. In P. Benson & D. Nunan (Eds.), Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in
language learning (pp. 42–55). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.

SHAME IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 25

Spivak, G. (2002, July). Postcolonial literature. Paper presented at the Graduate Sem-
inars on Postcolonial Literature, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong
Kong.
Stroud, C., & Wee, L. (2007). A pedagogical application of liminalities in social
positioning: Identity and literacy in Singapore. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 33–54.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00039.x
Takahashi, K. (2013). Language learning, gender and desire: Japanese women on the
move. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Tan, Y. Y. (2014). English as a “mother tongue” in Singapore. World Englishes, 33,
319–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12093
Tilak, J. (2008). Higher education: A public good or a commodity for trade? Pro-
spects, 38, 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9093-2
Tisdell, C. (2000). Poverty in the Pacific Islands. International Journal of Sociology
and Social Policy, 20(11/12), 74–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330
010789296
United Nations. (2002). United Nations common country assessment: Kiribati. Suva, Fiji:
Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator.
Wen, W. P., & Clement, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to
communicate in ESL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16(1), 18–38. https://d
oi.org/10.1080/07908310308666654
Wu, X. (2003). Intrinsic motivation and young language learners: The impact of
the classroom environment. System, 31, 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sys
tem.2003.04.001
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japa-
nese EFL Context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1540-4781.00136
Young, V. A. (2004). Your average Nigga. College Composition and Communication,
55, 693–715.
Zimbardo, P. (1981). The shy child. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/
10.2307/4140667

26 TESOL QUARTERLY