Rethinking Discourses of Diversity: A Critical Discourse Study of Language

Ideologies and Identity Negotiation in a University ESL Classroom

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Jung Sook Kim, MSc, M. Ed.

Graduate Program in Education Teaching & Learning

The Ohio State University

2017

Dissertation Committee:

Elaine Richardson, Advisor

Sarah Gallo

Leslie Moore
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copyrighted by

Jung Sook Kim

2017

 
 
 Abstract

Diversity is valued and promoted in contemporary public discourse, but on the

other hand, there is a strong tendency to homogenize differences in society. The tension

between diversity and homogeneity is palpable on U.S. college campuses as the number

of international students has been ever-increasing. A more nuanced approach is needed to

grapple with the dynamics of intercultural contact entailing cultural and linguistic

diversity. This dissertation investigates the discourses, ideologies, and identity

negotiation experiences of international teaching assistants (ITAs) as they engage in

hegemonic diversity discourses and pedagogical practices enacted within the space of a

U.S. university second language classroom. Informed by critical discourse studies, this

research examines what language ideologies are embedded in ESL class designed for

ITAs. With a focus on power relations, this study critically investigates how the language

ideologies are practiced and influence the ITAs’ identities. This study intends to

contribute to promoting changes in pedagogical practices of diversity in culturally and

linguistically diverse contexts. The data were collected through ethnographic research

methods including participant observation, field notes, interviews, and

artifacts/documents. Fairclough’s (1992; 1995; 2003) three-tiered framework of discourse

ii
analysis was employed to analyze the linkages of the local, institutional and societal

levels of discourse as regards language ideologies and identities.

The findings revealed that the discourses of difference as problem were being

(re)produced with ideological significance through the process of recontextualization.

Intertextual chains of discourses were being made to legitimize the dominant discourses

through a language policy and implementation at the institutional level. The dominant

discourses were being embodied in the ESL classroom grounded in a deficit model of

language learning, regimenting language use and interactions within the space. The ITAs’

cultural and linguistic differences were represented as deficit or problem through the

Othering strategies of identification and categorization. Asian students were

overrepresented in the ESL program, implying that the institutional label ‘international

student’ was a euphemism for Oriental indexing the culturally and linguistically distant

Others. The findings suggested that the underlying language ideologies of the diversity

discourses were monolingualism, native-speaker superiority, and language

standardization. Those monoglossic ideologies were undergirded by the social ideology

of Otherness. With difference conceptualized as a deviation from norms, the language

ideologies were practiced to homogenize or remedy the cultural and linguistic diversity.

Under the restrictive ideologies, deliberate discursive choices such as joke, disclaimer,

code-switching, hypothetical speech, and ventriloquizing, were made from the ITAs’

agency in revealing the hidden ideologies and negotiating their identities in response to

the dominant discourses. The students’ metalinguistic awareness of their language and

identities defied being represented simply as an ESL learner or international student with

iii
cultural and linguistic deficiency. The students’ criticality was substantive evidence of

the contradictory diversity discourses. This study has implications for researchers

studying discourse, power, and identity through a critical lens, and for educators and

policy makers developing language education practices that value cultural and linguistic

diversity and critical language awareness in the context of equity and diversity.

iv
Deo Gratias

v
 Acknowledgments

I am deeply indebted to many people who have been supportive during my Ph.D.

journey. I am grateful for the support and faith of Dr. E, my advisor. Dr. E’s tireless

enthusiasm for social justice and love for students pushed me to critically engage with

issues of power, diversity, students’ identity, and equality in education. I am grateful to

Dr. Gallo and Dr. Moore for supporting my dissertation work with stimulating feedback

and great insight. I owe most to my participants who volunteered their time and shared

their lived experiences with me. Finally, I am grateful to my family for always being

there for me.

vi
 Vita

2012................................................................MSc. Intercultural Communication for

Business and the Professions, The

University of Warwick, U.K.

2007................................................................M. Ed. English Education, Korea National

University of Education, Korea

1997................................................................B. A. English Education, Pusan National

University, Korea

Publications

Kim, Jung Sook & Richardson, Elaine. (2017). Transnational students and language use.
In S. Nero & J. Liontas (Eds.), TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching.
Wiley.

Kim, Jung Sook & Eckhart, Robert A. (2015). Fighting the system: How intercultural
communication courses can combat enforced linguistic homogeneity on college
campuses, TESOL, Inc., InterCom: The Newsletter of the Intercultural Communication
Interest Section.

vii
Kim, Jung Sook. (under review, 2017). Disrupting dominant language ideologies: L2
learners’ discursive strategies for identity negotiation. English Teaching, 72(2). The
Korea Association of Teachers of English.

Richardson, Elaine, Kim, Jung Sook, & Austin, Sierra. (under review)
BlackGirlLinguistix and discourse practices around ratchet literacies, In V. Kinloch & T.
Burkhard (Eds.), Research on Race, Justice, and Activism in Literacy Teacher Education.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education Teaching & Learning

viii
 Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii  

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. vi  

Vita.................................................................................................................................... vii  

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... ix  

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii  

List of Excerpts ................................................................................................................ xiii  

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1  

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3  

Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 10  

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 11  

Significance ................................................................................................................... 11  

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 12  

Limitations .................................................................................................................... 18  

Outline of the Dissertation ............................................................................................ 20  

ix
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework .............................................. 22  

Critical Discourse Studies ............................................................................................. 24  

Language Ideologies and Identity ................................................................................. 36  

Discourse of Diversity and International Teaching Assistants ..................................... 41  

Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................... 52  

Ethnographic Inquiry in Educational Research ............................................................. 53  

Research Setting ............................................................................................................ 55  

Research Design and Participants ................................................................................. 55  

Data Collection.............................................................................................................. 58  

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 61  

Validity .......................................................................................................................... 69  

Chapter 4: Analysis and Findings ..................................................................................... 72  

Public and Social Discourse on ITAs in a Media Text ................................................. 82  

The Enactment of the Language Policy: The State Bill ................................................ 90  

The Implementation of the Language Policy in a Spoken English Program ................ 96  

Disempowering Ideologies of Othering and Critical Language Awareness for Identity

Negotiation .................................................................................................................. 105  

The Clash of Ideologies in an ESL Classroom: An ESL Space for a Regime of

Language or as a Contact Zone ................................................................................... 131  

x
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................... 154  

Theoretical and Methodological Implications............................................................. 186  

Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................................ 199  

Recommendation for Future Research ........................................................................ 202  

Conclusion................................................................................................................... 203  

References ....................................................................................................................... 208  

Appendix A: Class Material: An article, ‘Let’s Talk It Over’ ........................................ 226  

Appendix B: Class Interaction Full Transcriptions ........................................................ 228  

Appendix C: Interview Full Transcriptions .................................................................... 238  

Appendix D: Interview Field-Notes................................................................................ 264  

Appendix E: Class Observation Field-Notes .................................................................. 268  

xi
 List of Tables

Table 1 The Construction of the Data Corpus .................................................................. 63  

Table 2 Transcription Notation ......................................................................................... 64  

Table 3 Dimensions of Discourse and Features (Adapted from Fairclough, 1992) ......... 66  

xii
 List of Excerpts

Excerpt 1 Teacher’s Opening Remark for a Discussion on ITAs Issues ......................... 76  

Excerpt 2 Whole- Class Discussion on ITAs with an Old New Article .......................... 78  

Excerpt 3 News Article: ‘Let’s Talk It Over.’ ................................................................. 83  

Excerpt 4 The State Bill on TAs’ Oral English Proficiency ............................................ 91  

Excerpt 5 General Information about the Spoken English Program................................ 97  

Excerpt 6 A Language Disclaimer ................................................................................. 107  

Excerpt 7 Resisting and then Conceding ....................................................................... 116  

Excerpt 8 Interview with Leo ....................................................................................... 119  

Excerpt 9 Language Control: Power Mitigated by the Humorous Key and Laughter... 135  

Excerpt 10 Dominant Ideology of Immersion Approaches to L2 Education ................ 139  

Excerpt 11 Code-switching as a Means of Communicative Strategies ......................... 143  

Excerpt 12 A Deficit Model and Remedial Instructional Practice ................................ 146  

Excerpt 13 Technologization of Academic Ways of Speaking ..................................... 150  

xiii
 Chapter 1: Introduction

This dissertation investigates the discourses, ideologies, and identity negotiation

experiences of international teaching assistants (ITAs) as they engage in hegemonic

diversity discourses and pedagogical practices enacted within the space of a U.S.

university second language (L2) classroom. Discourses of diversity in U. S. higher

educational institutions represent an interesting conundrum as to how ITAs are to be

represented and embraced on American campuses. Two opposite constructions of

diversity currently are dominant in social practice: difference as ‘additional value’ and as

‘lack’ (Zanoni & Janssens, 2004). Those diversity discourses pertain to how ITAs are

represented in U.S. colleges and universities. Much of existing research on ITAs has been

concerned with the perception of undergraduates, staff and faculty about ITAs. While

acknowledging that ITAs are valuable resources that bring a wealth of the cultural

diversity to U.S. higher educational institutions, the existing research has focused on the

negative perception of ITAs in terms of their English language proficiency, cultural

fluency, pedagogical knowledge and experiences in the American academy (Bailey,

1983; Calleja, 2000; Damron, 2003; Davis, 2001; Fitch & Morgan, 2003; Gorsuch, 2012;

Jia & Bergerson, 2008; Plakans, 1997; Smith, Byrd, Nelson, Barrett, & Constantinides,

1992). In those studies, ITAs’ linguistic and cultural difference is mainly treated as lack

1
and deficit in relation to established American cultural and linguistic norms. The

consequence often leads to the representation of ITAs as a ‘problem’ (Bailey, 1983). This

conflicting perception of internationals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds

is indicative of the limitations of existing approaches to diversity in educational settings.

The tension engendered by such ambivalence toward diversity has been

increasingly heightened due to the inability of universities and colleges to effectively

respond to challenges posed by ever-increasing multilingualism and multiculturalism

(Schmidt, 2002; Seloni, 2012; Trimbur, 2006). The intercultural tension is often

attributed to ITAs’ oral proficiency in English and accents that are alleged to cause their

communicative difficulties with American undergraduates. On that account, the ITAs are

likely to be placed in a remedial English as a Second Language (ESL) training program.

Apart from its ostensible purpose of language support for the ITAs, however, an ESL

classroom is the very space where cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences meet

(Kubota, 2010). Such an L2 classroom is conventionally assumed to be a space of

conformity and assimilation (Blackledge, 2000; Olivo, 2003; Tollefson, 1995), even

when it is a space of heterogeneity, diversity, and asymmetrical power distribution,

thereby entailing inequalities in education as well as in society. There is a dearth of

research that addresses the underlying power relations and conflicts embedded in the

context in which ITAs are placed and must negotiate meanings and identities to create

new ways of being.

With the existing tensions and limitations in mind, the present dissertation

investigates what language ideologies are embedded in spoken English classrooms

2
designed for ITAs at a Midwestern university in the United States. With a focus on power

relations, this study critically analyzes how the language ideologies are practiced and

how they influence the international graduate students’ identities. The present study is

particularly interested in the following: identifying language ideologies that underlie

social interaction; examining how such language ideologies produce negotiation of

identity; and revealing and understanding students’ discursive moves for empowered

identities. I attempt to make explicit hidden and implicit ideologies of domination in L2

class. In order to do so, this study draws on critical discourse studies and ethnographic

educational research to shed light on the complexity of the discursive and the social. I

seek to illuminate emerging alternatives and counter-hegemonic ideologies which will

allow for the possibility of transformative changes in L2 pedagogical practices.

In what follows, I will state and discuss the problems to be addressed in my

research, which were used as a backdrop against which to investigate the discourse of

diversity and ITAs’ identity negotiation through a critical lens. I will then proceed to

discuss the purpose, research questions, and significance of my study. A brief summary

of the conceptual framework will be provided to inform my approach to the problem

situations. Finally, along with the limitations of the research, the outline of this

dissertation is briefly described at the end of this chapter.

Statement of the Problem

Various diversity discourses have been widely circulated along with increasing

cultural contact with Others. Currently dominant discourse of diversity, however, has

been subjected to criticism of its contradiction and ambivalence in practice. While

3
publicly promoted as inclusive of difference, it might be presented more tightly with

diversity discourse undergirded with homogenous ideology that only allows multiplicity

to flourish as long as it is congruent with the dominant discourse and not disruptive of

received practices. In other words, on the one hand, multilingualism and multiculturalism

have been celebrated as rich cultural and linguistic resources in increasingly globalized

societies. On the other hand, restrictive language policy and identity politics force

multilinguals to assimilate them or conform to dominant monoglot standard ideologies

(Silverstein, 1996). Under the ideology of homogeneity, the multiplicity of multilinguals

may be seen as deficit, and variations and varieties may not be tolerated.

The tension between diversity and homogeneity is palpable in the discourse of

diversity on U.S. university and college campuses. With increasing global mobility, the

number of international students has been ever-increasing in U.S. higher educational

institutions. While the celebratory rhetoric of cultural and linguistic diversity has been

prevalent, we have witnessed that the publicly promoted diversity often clashes with the

tendency toward linguistic homogeneity (Menken, 2010; Tollefson & Tsui, 2014;

Trimbur, 2006). As a result of such ambivalence about diversity, international students

may encounter contradictory experiences and must negotiate their identities in a context

where exclusion and degradation are prevalent and cultural and linguistic diversity is

superficially celebrated at the same time.

There has been a growing concern with how much multilingualism and

multiculturalism have been appreciated in practice in a mutual fashion, not in a unilateral

or restrictive way. In effect, while acknowledging cultural and linguistic diversity in

4
educational contexts, linguistic nationalist movements consequently suppress

bilingualism and linguistic diversity in the U.S. (Baker, 2006; Hornberger & Johnson,

2007; Shannon, 1999). Scholars have underscored the ambivalence of U.S. universities

about multilingualism and multiculturalism (Canagarajah, 2007; Seloni, 2012; Trimbur,

2006). Despite the ostensible appearance of diversity in the population of the university,

there has been a lack of effort to raise awareness of American undergraduates toward

working with multilingual and multicultural peers and faculty. There is less investment in

intercultural communication programs for the American students to get them ready to

interact with people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. (Chen, 2014;

Chiang, 2009; LeGros & Faez, 2012). Those restrictive and suppressive institutional

practices call for a greater emphasis on critical multiculturalism in educational programs

for all the populations of the academy, including undergraduates, staff and faculty as well

as international students. It needs to seek a way in which linguistic and cultural diversity

is counted as equally valid and viable cultural capital in multicultural and multilingual

society. Most importantly, it should be a non-essentialist stance on language use,

cautioning against seemingly apolitical celebration of difference (Pennycook, 2001).

Doing so may help to prevent well-meaning people from unwittingly contributing to the

reproduction and maintenance of the status quo.

From critical perspectives, some international scholars working in U.S. colleges

and universities call for shifting these problematic discourses surrounding internationals

on campus to the pedagogy of cultural wealth (Chen, 2014; Li, 2006; Mutua, 2014; Yep,

2014). From the reflection on her own experience of being racialized as an Asian in the

5
U.S., Chen (2014) contends that international scholars and researchers, including ITAs,

are subjected to negative stereotypes and everyday micro-inequalities, in particular, a

deficit model rendering invisible the complexity of their identity positions afforded by

various social statuses they occupy. Guofang Li (2006) illustrates with her own narrative

as an Asian woman scholar in the U.S. how the complexity of her identity intersected in

the various social categories has been gendered and ethnicized, and how she has

struggled with and negotiated her identities under that circumstance. She argues that

international scholars are underrepresented in academia and those scholars are confronted

with racial discrimination and stereotyping as well as disrespect for their research,

teaching and leadership. Along with other critical scholars, Guofang Li (2006) argues for

the combination of new research and personal narratives to explore the intersecting layers

of relationships with respect to language, culture, academic discourses, gender, class,

generation, and race.

Along these lines, there has been a growing body of critical inquiry that centers

around the intertwinement of social power and inequality in accounting for discourse and

identity in multilingual and multicultural educational settings (Chun, 2016; Kubota, 2010;

McNamara, 2011; Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004; Shannon,

1999; Shohamy, 2014). This critical scholarship provides useful insights into the

relationship between language ideologies and identity construction mediated by

discourse. Heller (1995) asserts that with language often linked to national ideology and

identity, a nation-state of multilingual population may tend to orient toward

monolingualism. Kubota (2010) critically notes that second language education and

6
practice which seemingly support cultural and linguistic diversity ironically promote

monolingualism, monoculturalism, normatism, and elitism. Critical researchers, such as

Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004), discuss the ways in which powerful groups use

language to maintain control of social goods by “Othering” specific social groups, while

Blackledge (2000; 2005) specifically draws attention to how English is often used

ideologically as a means of exclusion. Under circumstances in which languages are “used

to marginalize and disempower particular individuals and minority groups” (Pavlenko &

Blackledge, 2004, p.3), inequality is entailed and individuals are subject to identity

negotiations among restrictive identity options. On that account, Pavlenko and

Blackledge (2004) argue, identity negotiation is seen as an outcome of inequality. What

matters thus is not simply the negotiation of identity. What should be foregrounded is the

negotiability in an asymmetrical power relation of domination and subordination.

In the same vein, critical scholars on identity are concerned with how social

inequality is being reproduced, and they contest the construction and reproduction of the

essentialized Others: gendered, racialized or ethnicized (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Butler,

1990; Crenshaw, 1991; Lin, 2008). By challenging the social reproduction processes,

those scholars attempt to explore possible alternatives to identity essentialization. Lin

(2008) problematizes the essentialist and reductionist approaches to identity. She asserts

that different social actors located in differential social, economic and political positions

engage in the “identity game.” In this identity game, the powerful groups, who have more

resources and capital, construct powerful identities for themselves while dictating the

rules of the identity game to subordinate groups and the subordinated groups are forced to

7
engage in identity politics as a reaction to or a result of the colonial or oppressive

encounter (Lin, 2008, p. viii)

One of the most common findings among the research on the relation of language

ideologies and identities is that multiple language users are pushed into the process of

negotiation in a restrictive circumstance under which their identities are constrained by

dominant language ideologies (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; Darvin & Norton, 2015;

King, 2013; Park & Bae, 2009; Razfar, 2005; 2012; Tollefson, 2007). In particular,

international students crossing cultural and linguistic boundaries may confront the

asymmetrical power relation “between the center and peripheries of the world system”

(Blommaert, 2005, p. 224), which is demarcated according to countries’ cultural and

economic clout on the globe. As languages and varieties are misrecognized and valorized

(Bourdieu, 1991), there comes about the incompatibility of languages between ‘the center

and peripheries.’ The social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1991) gained in the peripheral

cultures may be incompatible in the new center, the United States. In many cases,

multilingual and multicultural knowledge and competence of those from less powerful

countries are not recognized or otherwise deemed a deficit or problem. Their accent in

English, which may be unmarked in their culture, becomes a pervasive marker of their

identity as a non-native speaker in U.S. universities (Blommaert, 2010). As such,

international students may have contradictory experiences as they are forced to engage in

identity (re)construction and negotiation.

An identity issue is of greater significance since how people are represented is

entangled in and with power relations. The international teaching assistants highlighted in

8
the present study are seemingly novice researchers and teachers in a foreign academic

culture. They are often placed in a situation of minority groups in terms of their social

positions and they must struggle for recognition under such a restrictive situation. They

must seek to establish new social positioning in interactions with others and constantly

reflect upon how they are being perceived in new cultural environments (Davies & Harré,

1990). The ITAs must invest in their new social identity constructions in their pursuit of

“being certain kinds of people” (Gee, 2000, p. 99) by engaging in new social and

academic discursive practices.

However, the ITAs may already be disqualified and discredited, to some extent,

due to ethnolinguistic factors indexing their foreignness and non-native-speakerness. In

effect, international students are likely to be lumped under the labels like ESL/EFL

learners, English Language Learners (ELLs), Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and so

forth. The outcome of being labeled is that the students are indexed and positioned as a

problem primarily due to their ethnolinguistic multiplicity which may be juxtaposed with

deficit under the ideology of monolingualism (Marshall, 2009). Likewise, when labeled

as ITAs or foreign TAs, the international teaching assistants are represented as a

monolithic category that causes problems in U.S. higher educational institutions. They

are thus perceived as those in need of remedial services by ESL specialists. Such a

representation is an ideological and political act which categorizes the students from

culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds as ‘Others’ (Norton, 1997; Norton &

Toohey, 2004; Rymes, 2001). The labels work to mark ‘Otherness’ of the speakers so

that their identity is predicated on discourses which connote deficit in terms of their

9
linguistic competence and thus their vey self. What should be noted here is social power

in relation to the critical issues of inequality: who is the labeler; who is being labeled; and

for whom.

Given the existing tensions and limitations, a more nuanced approach is needed to

grapple with the issues of diversity to account for the dynamics of intercultural contact

entailing cultural and linguistic diversity. As opposed to the existing essentialist and

reductionist approach to diversity and identity in educational settings, the present

dissertation investigates through a critical lens the relationship between language

ideologies and ITAs’ identities with an emphasis on power relations. This study is one of

the continuing critical explorations of possible alternatives to essentialized identities in

educational settings.

Purpose

This study intends to contribute to promoting changes in pedagogical practices of

diversity in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts. In order to do so, the study sets

out to investigate language ideologies embedded in the discourse of diversity in relation

to the issues of international students’ identity negotiation. I look into what language

ideologies are embedded in ESL class designed for ITAs. By using a critical discourse

analysis, this study critically investigates how the language ideologies are practiced and

how they influence the ITAs’ identities. By approaching diversity through a critical lens

placing power relations at the center of inquiry, this study calls for the need to develop a

critical and non-essentialist conceptualization of diversity in educational settings. The

goal is to push against current problematic discursive practices of diversity and stimulate

10
dialogue between disciplinary practices, structure, and all the populations of the academy

working with culturally and linguistically diverse students, so as to enable them all to

work with enhanced critical language awareness.

Research Questions

In order to achieve the purpose of the research, I look into the following concrete

research questions:

§   What are the language ideologies of the ESL classroom? How are these

ideologies taken up, resisted or transformed in teachers’ and students’ teaching

and learning of English?

§   What discursive strategies are constructed and how do they work in the ESL

classroom?

§   How do ITAs experience those discursive practices of language ideologies?

Significance

The significance of this study lies in its critical discourse analysis, interpretation,

and explanation of language ideologies and ITAs’ identity negotiation in college level

ESL practices. This critical discourse study investigates discursive strategies, ideological

complexity, and moves for agency and identity negotiation, which have not been

sufficiently accounted for in the field of the ESL pedagogy at college level. The study is

significant in that it aims to add to the research basis for challenging both determinist and

essentialist stances on difference in educational settings. The implication of this critical

reflection on language ideology and identity can raise critical awareness of the

ideological power at work in language education and practice. It will also contribute to

11
pursuing transformative approaches to the continuously emerging multilingual and

multicultural reality in educational contexts. I hope that my study will contribute to future

work for more harmonizing and humanizing social relations among different cultural and

linguistic groups through the cultivation of critical awareness of competing discourses of

diversity.

Conceptual Framework

As my study is informed by critical discourse studies to investigate ideological

effects of discourse particularly entailing social inequality, I shall take on an explicit

critical perspective in doing this study on language ideology and identity. While

researchers’ assumption or bias is not necessarily viewed as problematic in qualitative

social research (Abbott, 2004; Carlson, 2010; Hatch, 2002; Maxwell, 2012;Wolcott,

2005), particularly, in critical discourse studies (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999;

Rodgers, 2004; Van Dijk, 1993), I strive to continually engage in reflexivity about the

influence of my own assumptions and beliefs on the research development and the

interpretation of data in an effort to avoid inadvertently reifying the data and to maintain

the complexity of people’s lives.

In what follows, I will briefly summarize the theoretical foundations that inform

my study in order to help understandings of the relationships among discourse, power,

and identity. This brief discussion of the conceptual framework is derived from the

literature review that will be presented in detail in Chapter 2. It includes the depiction and

discussion of the central concepts and notions such as discourse, power, language

ideologies, discourse and identity, and critical discourse studies.

12
 Critical discourse studies: A traditional view treats discourse as written and/or

oral text, and in the Foucauldian tradition discourse is an abstract form of knowledge and

understood as cognition and emotions (Blommaert, 2005; Johnston, 2008; Titscher,

Meyer, Wodak, & Vetter, 2000). From more sociological and critical perspectives that

inform the present study, discourse is defined in its relation to social practice

(Blommaert, 2005; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 1992; 1995; 2003; Gee,

2004; Rodgers, 2004; Van Dijk, 1993). From this point of view, discourse is not limited

to linguistic features of semiotic system, even though language is a central mode of

meaning making. Gee (2004) conceptualizes discourse by distinguishing small-d-

discourse which mainly refers to text and talk, from big-D-discourse which embraces

broader social aspects of text and talk. Big-D-discourse refers to the knowledge being

constructed by and circulated in text and talk, the general ways of being and behaving,

and the general belief systems and views of the world in social practices. Similarly,

Fairclough and Wodak (1997) understand discourse as language use in speech and

writing, meaning-making in the social process, and a form of social action that is

“socially constitutive” and “socially shaped” (p. 276).

Aligned with those critical scholars on discourse, for this study, I define discourse

in relation to social practice including discursive and non-discursive semiotic systems in

the dialectical social process. Discourse is “socially constructive, constituting social

subjects, social relations, and systems of knowledge and belief, and the study of discourse

focuses upon its constructive ideological effects” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 36). In this sense,

discourse is understood as a social phenomenon in which an individual experiences

13
ideological relations. The social relations can be revealed by analyzing the materialized

ideological product, namely, language, which reflects or refracts the reality in which the

social relationships are established and practiced.

With a focus on the social functions of language and meaning, Halliday (1978)

argues that language is both a means of reflecting on things, which refers to the

ideational, and acting on things, which refers to the interpersonal, and that “the construal

of reality is inseparable from the construal of the semiotic system in which the reality is

encoded.” (p. 1). In this respect, discourse is always considered to be situated in social

contexts and not insulated from broader social structures in which discourse is socially

constructed, consumed and circulated and social practices are experienced and enacted.

Meaning takes shape within interactions in social, cultural, and historical contexts, and

that meaning is far more than its referential idea expressed by linguistic features per se

(Briggs, 1986; Gumperz, 1992; Hymes, 1974). Social properties are translated into

linguistic properties that we encounter in everyday social contexts where meanings are

exchanged. Therefore, the social, cultural and political environment and social relations

of participants involved are invoked to make inferences of the utterances.

The notion of power is of considerable significance to critical discourse studies

given the workings of power through discourse. Discourse is often seen as a site of

struggle over power and dominance through differing and contending ideologies

(Fairclough, 1989; 2015). Social power is based upon privileged access to its resources

such as wealth, income, position, status, group membership, education or knowledge, and

upon special access to various genres, forms or contexts of discourse and communication

14
(Van Dijk, 1993). In many cases, the access to the resources of social power is

institutionalized so as to be supported, condoned, sanctioned, legitimated, enforced, or

ideologically sustained and reproduced (Bourdieu, 1991; Fairclough, 1989; 2015). In

such ways, the efficacy of discourse entailed by power “resides in the institutional

conditions of their production and reception” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 111), which “exercises

its specific effect only when it is recognized as such” (ibid. p. 113). Critical discourse

studies are concerned with such social power that is institutionally reproduced through

discursive practices. The main purpose of critical discourse studies is to analyze “opaque

as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and

control as manifested in language” (Wodak, 1995, p. 204). As such, critical discourse

analysis is in principle motivated to demystify the meanings obscured through complex

social processes.

As alluded to above, critical discourse analysis concerns itself with power and

dominance, which makes it distinct from non-critical approaches to discourse. As shown

in its explicit and unapologetic attitude in expressing their social and political

commitment, the term ‘critical’ pertains to the sociopolitical stance proclaimed by critical

discourse analysts in doing their work. Critical discourse scholars believe that as

discourse is socially constructive and conditioned, there is no room for the claim of its

neutrality or transparency in doing critical work as long as the study takes discourse as an

object of analysis (Fairclough, 1995; Van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 1995). From the

perspective of critical studies on discourse, discourse does not just reflect or represent

social entities and relations, but it constructs or constitutes them: different discourses

15
constitute key entities in different ways and position people in different ways as social

subjects (Fairclough, 1992, pp. 3-8). Critical discourse analysis, therefore, does neither

aim nor pretend to be objective and neutral in describing, interpreting and explaining the

relations of discourse and social structure, albeit sometimes attracting severe criticism of

such a sociopolitical stance by its critics who work from seemingly non-critical

perspectives (e.g. Schegloff, 1997; Widdowson, 1998).

Critical discourse analysis locates itself as praxis, an action-oriented social

analysis and transformative action for social change (Fairclough, 1989; 2015). Critical

discourse analysts attend to the historicity and complexity of discourse in contexts,

capture the moments of contradiction, and seek the possibilities for contestation and

social change. Alternative possibilities afforded by the explanatory critique make it

possible to reimagine the relation of discourse and power in a way forward to social

change, achieving greater equality and social justice (Fairclough, 1989; 1992; 1995;

2003; 2015). My research strives to demonstrate unrealized meaning potentials to explore

possible different forms of discourse and various possible instantiations which are

articulated in different conjunctures of time and space and other social elements. In doing

so, my critical research hopes to illuminate agentive identity work by pinpointing

unrealized potentials in discourse.

Language Ideologies: Language ideologies are defined as “sets of beliefs about

language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language

structure and use” (Silverstein, 1979, p. 193) and as “the cultural system of ideas about

social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political

16
interests” (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, p. 57). Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (2006)

define language ideologies as “ingrained, unquestioned beliefs about the way the world

is, the way it should be, and the way it has to be with respect to language” (p. 9).

Accordingly, I assume that language ideologies evoke hegemonic features of beliefs

about languages, language varieties, and language users, which have been perceived as

natural and taken-for-granted even though naturalized through socio-political processes.

Because of the hegemonic nature, the ideological effects of language rarely get to one’s

consciousness.

The concept of language ideologies provides a socially motivated explanation for

the sociocultural processes that inform local beliefs about language, the linguistic

products, and language users (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Kroskrity, 1998; Schieffelin, Woolard,

& Kroskrity, 1998; Woolard, 1998). Language is a shared meaning potential which

requires social interpretation of the meaning within a sociocultural context not devoid of

social value (Halliday, 1978). Language is regarded as a materialized product and

embodiment of ideologies and “the ideological phenomenon par excellence” (Volosinov,

1973, p. 13). A critical discourse approach to language ideology is concerned more with

such social connotations and indexical meanings especially entailing any kind of social

inequalities rather than simply with referential meanings (Mills, 1997; Van Dijk, 1993).

Discourse and Identity: A language comes to symbolize the power and status of

its speaker. The symbolic nature and status of a language thus entail the issues of identity.

Critical scholars attend to the relation of power, language, and identity (Bucholtz & Hall,

2005; Crenshaw, 1991; Lin, 2008; Miller, 2004; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004; Rymes,

17
2001). Their critical research on discourse and identity is mainly concerned with the

tensions and dilemmas of multiple identities in relation to asymmetrical power relations.

A linguistic form is often idealized through the transformation of the indexical order, and

thereby a way of speaking is misrecognized and valorized as emblematic of social,

political, intellectual, or moral character (Woolard, 1998, pp. 18-19). The language of a

speaker indexes a certain quality of the speaker associated with his or her social

identities. That is, language indexes social identities of its speaker associated with the

speaker’s social categories such as race, class, ethnicity, gender, and so on (Mills, 1997;

Saville-Troike, 2003; Silverstein, 1979; 2003).

From a postmodern perspective, identity becomes even more complex,

contradictory, and multifaceted as an individual may be intersected in asymmetrical

power relations in terms of such various social categories into which she or he is

classified (Crenshaw, 1991). Following this critical and dynamic view of identity, I

understand that one’s sense of identity and social positioning is fluid, complex,

multifaceted, and mediated by interactions with others, and that one constantly engages in

identity politics in relation to power in socioeconomic and sociopolitical contexts.

Limitations

This study may be subject to several limitations in terms of its generalizability,

applicability, and validity. First, this research studies only sub-population of international

graduate students in a specific English language classroom context at a university in U.S.

The small size of the participants could not be appropriate to represent the whole

population of interest. For that reason, the findings of this research may not be

18
generalizable or applicable to other studies on language ideologies and identities in other

contexts.

What is more, this study is delimited to address parts of problems about language

ideologies and identity issues with certain variables such as the language policy of the

state and the university, instructional practices in the ESL class, and the participants’

discursive strategies for identity negotiation. Such an attempt to concentrate on a few

dimensions of the social phenomenon at issue could appear to be reductionist because

language ideologies involve complex historical, cultural, and social practices at various

levels of social contexts. However, since it may be difficult, if not impossible, to fully

address the complexity in one dissertation research, it seems to be necessary to delimit

the scope of the study.

Finally, since this research takes on a critical stance on discourse and power

relations and interprets certain social phenomena particularly from a critical analytical

framework, the findings should be read on the premise of their partiality in making sense

of the relevant reality. There may be multiple possibilities that a range of different

interpretations could be made on the same findings if approached from other perspectives

and analytical lenses. With those limitations in mind, my study utilizes several ways of

enhancing its validity as an effort to avoid or otherwise minimize potential study bias and

facilitate validation of the findings. The methods utilized include thick and rich

description, reflexivity, triangulation, and member-checking. More details of those

methods will be discussed in Chapter 3.

19
 Outline of the Dissertation

This dissertation is organized into five chapters. In Chapter 2, I will extensively

review the applicable literature on the relationships between language ideologies and

identity construction within the discourse of linguistic and cultural diversity. Building

upon the relevant literature, I will lay out the theoretical framework informing the studies

of the relationships of discourse, power, and identity in educational contexts. I draw upon

critical discourse studies in general to address the complexity of ideological work of

discourse in relation to identity, and employ Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework

of discourse analysis in particular to illuminate the linkage between larger social

discourse and local discursive practices in ESL class. In doing so, I will situate within the

sound theoretical groundings the corresponding methodology, findings, and implications

of my study.

In Chapter 3, I will explicate the methodology of my study. I will begin with a

brief discussion of ethnography as a heuristic inquiry for my study in conjunction with

Fairclough’s analytical framework of discourse analysis. And then I will contextualize

my study by describing the research site, participants, and methods of data collection that

I used. Finally, I will detail the process of data analysis.

In Chapter 4, I will present the findings of my study. The findings will be

structured in ways to answer the overarching research questions of my study: what

language ideologies were embedded in the ESL course for ITAs; how these language

ideologies have been practiced; and how they influenced the participants’ identity

negotiation. The findings will be framed within the analysis of the three-dimensions of

20
discourse involving text, discourse practice, and social practice to show the

interconnections between the macro-level discourse on diversity and the micro-level

discursive events in practice. I will situate the findings within the theoretical framework

of critical discourse studies by offering analysis, interpretation, and explanation from a

critical perspective.

In Chapter 5, I will offer critical discussions by synthesizing the findings of the

study. I will then conclude with the theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical

implications drawn from my study.

21
 Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The present study is informed by critical scholarship and studies on the

relationships of language, power, and society in educational contexts. In this chapter, I

shall extensively review a body of applicable literature and lay out the theoretical

framework informing my research in order to construct a sound theoretical platform upon

which the research questions, corresponding methodology, findings, and implications of

my research are grounded.

I shall begin by examining the literature that lays out the theoretical foundations

of critical scholarship in discourse and society in the 1980s and the 1990s. This

scholarship has revolved around critical theory, social constructionism, critical discourse

analysis, and linguistic ethnography inquiry, moving toward the reconceptualization of

language and language practices as heteroglossic discursive practices within more

complex and fluid multilingual and multicultural contexts.

This review will be done in a way to briefly describe and critique theoretical

discourses, conceptual discussions and empirical studies most applicable to my research

questions. In particular, I shall examine prior research and thoughts that inform key

aspects of my research to address the relationships of language, power, and identity in

educational contexts. The emphasis will be placed upon discourse on diversity with

22
respect to ITAs in the U.S. and language ideologies and identity in L2 educational

pedagogies and practices. The applicable literature to date (mostly since the 1980s up to

the 2010s) has been gleaned from research databases, yielding a bibliography of key

literature from earlier years, and relevant scholarly journals. Selected terms guiding the

search include ‘language ideologies’, ‘critical discourse analysis’, ‘critical language

awareness’, ‘identity and L2 education’, ‘international teaching assistant’, among others

as they were most applicable to my research.

This chapter consists of three subsections. To reflect upon my ontological and

epistemological beliefs about the nature of the world and knowledge construction in

terms of the relationship between discourse and society, the first section will overview

theories of discourse with an emphasis on its ideological effects on social relations and

the subject. This overview will be made from a viewpoint of critical discourse studies and

include the following areas: (1) what is discourse?; (2) discourse and power; and (3)

critical discourse studies as praxis. The second section will focus on the literature on the

conceptualization of language ideologies and identity construction. In particular, I shall

describe and critique studies on language ideologies historically promulgated and

predominant in L2 education practices. The discussion examines and critiques concepts

including monolingualism, normative practices of standard language, and the hegemonic

discourse of native- /non-native speakerness entrenched in L2 education. Finally, the rest

of the literature review will address discourse on linguistic and cultural diversity with a

focus on ITAs’ identity and positioning in U.S. colleges and universities.

23
 Critical Discourse Studies

The present study draws upon critical discourse studies to examine U.S. colleges

and universities’ dominant discursive practices of diversity and their effects on ITAs’

social relations and identity construction. In what follows, I shall discuss how critical

discourse studies enable us to do a sound critique and explanation of the dynamics of

social structure and local discursive practices. To argue for the significance of an

explanatory critique afforded by critical discourse studies, it is fundamental to understand

some crucial concepts and notions such as discourse and power and to discuss the

relations of discourse and social structure. The discussion starts from clarifying those key

concepts and notions featured in critical discourse studies. I shall then attempt to explore

the possibilities of the re-imagination of discourse as productive power processes

resulting in greater empowerment, equality, and justice.

What is discourse?: Defining ‘discourse’ is crucial to developing the theoretical

and methodological directions of my research since how I understand discourse, its

relation to other social elements, and its role in society informs the analysis and context

of the study. As briefly discussed in the introduction chapter, among various definitions

of discourse, there is a traditional view that treats “discourse as complex linguistic forms

larger than a single sentence,” namely, text (Blommaert, 2005, p. 2). Titscher et al.

(2000) highlights the Anglo-American tradition in which discourse refers to both written

and oral texts and the Foucauldian tradition in which discourse is an abstract form of

knowledge understood as cognition and emotions.

24
 From more sociological and critical perspectives, discourse is conceptualized as

discursive and non-discursive practices in relation to other social elements (Blommaert,

2005; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 1992; 1995; 2003; 2015; Gee, 2004;

Rodgers, 2004; Van Dijk, 1993). In defining discourse as part of social practice,

Fairclough and Wodak (1997, p. 276) understand discourse in the following senses:

language use in speech and writing, meaning-making in the social process, and a form of

social action that is “socially constitutive” and “socially shaped”. In this sense, discourse

includes both discursive and non-discursive semiotic systems in the dialectical social

process, which echoes Halliday’s (1978) conceptualization of language as social

semiotic. From this point of view, the concept of language cannot be divided from that of

society because language is “an integral part of social processes” (Fowler, Hodge, Kress,

& Trew, 1979, p. 189). Therefore, discourse is not limited to linguistic features but

broadly defined as human meaning-making semiotic activity in social contexts.

The meaning generated through discourse is not solely linguistic. Many social

meanings become mystified and left implicit, in many cases obscuring reality and truth.

Such mystification is not attributed merely to language itself or individual language

users, but to social processes. Linguistic forms realize social meanings in social contexts

and the social meanings come to be stratified and valorized through social processes

involving evaluation and power enactment (Bourdieu, 1991). What matters is that the

social contexts, in which meanings are exchanged, are not devoid of social value

(Halliday, 1978, p. 2). Meaning is subject to social evaluation which gives rise to a social

differential among the meaning potentials while going through the process of

25
valorization. Through that process, language becomes “charged with social connotation”

and “there are no longer innocent words” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 40). Put differently, every

linguistic action indexes different meaning potentials in particular contexts. Language is

not neutral, provided that its functions are understood in society. This is why the relation

of discourse and society cannot be reduced merely to the matter of communicative

relations as suggested by interactionists (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 167). What matters is

differentiated social significance conveyed subtly and complexly by semiotic systems.

Critical analysis on discourse thus is concerned with exploring the elusive relations of

discourse and social structure.

From such critical understandings of discourse and society, for my dissertation

study, I take up the view of discourse that encompasses both discursive and non-

discursive human interactions and activities involving meaning-making. In this respect,

discourse is always situated in social contexts and not insulated from broader social

structures. The reason that my study attends to discourse lies in its nature of the social

functions that embodies our reality and social relations. Discourse is a concrete material

reality which should be investigated in order to understand how social meaning is

constructed and circulated and how social order is produced and reproduced through

various semiotic systems.

Discourse and Power: As is explicitly stated in the introduction, my study is

critical work that analyzes discourse in relation to power and identity. In contrast to non-

critical approaches to discourse, critical discourse analysis is in principle motivated to

demystify the obscured meanings and truth through complex social processes,

26
acknowledging that all truth is partial. From the critical view of the relation of discourse

and social structure, language is always charged with social, cultural and political

ideologies. Language is regarded as a materialized product and embodiment of ideologies

and “the ideological phenomenon par excellence” (Volosinov, 1973, p. 13). The focus of

a critical discourse analysis is not simply upon referential meanings but upon social

connotations and indexical meanings especially which entail any kind of social

inequalities. With a critical attitude, critical discourse perspectives offer a critique of such

social processes which make discourse work as it does in its relation to power and

dominance, and, in many cases, whose effects are restrictive. In offering a political

explanatory critique, naturalism, rationality, neutrality, and any individualism are rejected

(Rodgers, 2004). Attention is paid to “how discourse can become a site of meaningful

social differences, of conflict and struggle, and how this results in all kinds of social

structural effects” (Blommaert, 2005, p. 4).

Discourse is often seen as a site of struggle over power or for dominance through

differing and contending ideologies (Fairclough, 1989; 2015). It is generally understood

that language differences are translated into as social differences. Language usages are

socially constructed and determined and thus carry the society’s ideological import.

Language can be mobilized for various ideological purposes: to systematize, transform or

obscure the reality; to regulate views and behaviors of others; to classify and rank people;

and to assert institutional or personal status (Fowler et al, 1979). The ubiquity of word,

which means its immanence in every thread of our life (Volosinov, 1973), makes

language more likely to be subject to the means of power and dominance. In this respect,

27
discourse is understood as real material in which power and ideologies are embodied and

manifest themselves at the micro level of everyday practices. The analysis of everyday

struggles embedded in micro level encounters, Foucault (1980) asserts, is “where the

concrete nature of power become[s] visible” (p. 116). Therefore, analyzing discourse is a

way to look into how power is discursively enacted and reproduced. In this way, critical

discourse studies examine the interplay between the social and the discursive resulting in

social effects such as inequalities and reproduction of dominance.

The fundamental process of discourse as power is through misrecognition and

legitimation (Bourdieu, 1991). The process of institutionalization makes the legitimized

forms of language appear to be natural, although in effect the forms have been

naturalized. In this way, language in society can be mobilized to control. The legitimate

forms of language or language varieties are assigned different social properties through

the process of institutionalization. Such social mechanism allows those relations to work

in producing and reproducing the power relations

The processes of power embodiment and enactment through discourse are mostly

subconscious. The processes are not subject to conscious scrutiny. If power is just

coercive and repressive, Foucault (1980) notes, it may not be so effective. In many cases,

the modern and often more effective power is exercised through hegemonic persuasion

on the basis of the consent or consensus primarily linguistically generated and achieved

(Gramsci, 1971). The most prominent feature of hegemony is that the hegemonic

ideology is being accepted and upheld as common sense, a taken-for-granted, a given

and, thus, less or rarely questioned until challenged. Such a given order is maintained

28
through the institutionalized hegemony in ways of concealing the advantage of that order

to dominant interests and the exploitation in that order of subordinate groups

(Blommaert, 2005; Van Dijk, 1993). Successfully naturalized beliefs and practices

through ideological hegemony are not publicly challenged and seldom enter members’

discursive consciousness. Dominance may be enacted and reproduced in such subtle and

everyday forms of discourse appearing natural and acceptable. Accordingly, critical

discourse studies take a more nuanced approach to explore the subtlety of the workings of

power and dominance operating in and through discursive practices.

Up to now, I have discussed the relation of discourse and the social, some crucial

concepts in discourse analysis, and what it means to do a critical study of discourse. The

discussion has been concerned with exploring the potential of critical discourse studies as

theoretical and methodological framework which accounts for the dynamics of discourse

and social structure. With the understandings of those issues discussed above, in what

follows, I shall explore the possibilities of the re-imagination of discourse in its relation

to productive power resulting in greater empowerment, equality, and justice. The focus

will be put on exploring ways in which a critical discourse analysis itself can be

facilitated as one social practice driven toward transformative actions for change.

Critical Discourse Studies as Praxis: The intersection of discourse and the

social entails the contradictions, ambivalence, and thus complexity in various social

relations. From the perspective of critical discourse studies, the features of discourses and

other social elements are in dialectical relations in the sense that they are mutually

constitutive of shaping and being shaped, of constructing and being constructed. The

29
dualism of structure and agency or of the social and the individual is also not understood

as a rigid dichotomous relation but as a dialectical one. The dialectical structuration

(Giddens, 1984) allows for the possibility of rethinking the relation of structure and

agency, which has been often characterized as the deterministic nature of the structure on

agency. For Giddens (1984), structure is simultaneously framed as a constraint and

enabler for individuals with respect to their agency. “Actors draw upon the modalities of

structuration in the reproduction of systems of interaction, by the same token

reconstituting their structural properties.” (p. 28). This dialectical relationship allows for

avoiding being over-deterministic or otherwise romanticizing agency, without

overlooking both the power and dominance and resistance or struggles of agency. From

this point of view, discourse and sociolinguistic order are seen as not only socially

created within a particular social relationship but also socially changeable. Therefore, a

way forward to reimagine the work of power leading to greater empowerment and

equality should start from the critical awareness of the fact that the social order is not a

given, not natural but naturalized, socially created, thus socially changeable. The problem

of dominant discourse is its nature of oppression which ignores, silences or represses

differences. Thus, seeking non-oppressive alternative discourses can be one struggle for

equality and empowerment.

Critical discourse study is an action-oriented social analysis (Fairclough, 1989;

2015). The transformative action for social change is where a critical discourse study

locates itself as praxis. It is worth attending to a heightened reflexivity and ability to use

knowledge in late modern society (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, p. 83). The enhanced

30
reflexivity can open the possibility of changing the existing oppressive work of discourse

and power toward greater empowerment, equality, and justice. The enhanced reflexivity

makes people more critically aware of their own language use, in particular, when

resulting in inequalities. This reflexivity is in part awareness about language in the

construction of identities, which is “self-consciously applied in interventions to change

social life” (Chouliaraki & Fairclough ,1999, p. 83). At this point a critical study of

discourse may enter into and offer a sound critique of the relation of the social and the

individual (Fairclough, 1989; 2015). Critical discourse studies can explore and offer how

to constitute the conditions of possibilities in such tensions. As suggested by Systemic

Functional Linguistics (Halliday 1978), semiotic systems have formal potential that

determines their meaning or semantic potential. Critical discourse studies can contribute

to social struggles for identity and difference by identifying unrealized potentials

(Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, p. 96). Change in discourse through a new combination

of forms can lead to changes in meaning potential that thus brings about social changes.

In the same vein, the critical dimension of discourse analysis advocates critical

language awareness in the field of language pedagogy. Clark, Fairclough, Ivanič, and

Martin-Jones (1990; 1991) point out that existing language awareness in language

education is seen as separate from language practice, and argue for the ‘consciousness of,

and practice for, change’ through Critical Language Awareness (CLA). By raising critical

awareness of how the sociolinguistic order is socially constructed, CLA aims to empower

learners to challenge the status quo, and to work for change (Clark et al., 1991). In

Language and Power, Fairclough (1989; 2015) sets as an objective of critical discourse

31
analysis raising people’s consciousness of how language contributes to the domination of

some people by others, as a step towards social emancipation. In his subsequent work that

has elaborated and theorized critical discourse analysis, Fairclough (1995; 2003) suggests

the concept of critical language awareness in language education as an attempt to apply

critical discourse studies to practical language use along with the enhanced reflexivity.

Accordingly, for example, Cots (2006) demonstrates how critical discourse analysis can

be used in English as Foreign Language (EFL) education for the purpose of enhancing

critical awareness. He argues that EFL teaching and learning should be understood as part

of social practice, and looks with a critical attitude into how teaching materials,

approaches, instructional practices in EFL class are based on institutions and teachers’

representation of EFL learners’ cultural and linguistic competencies, which are a series of

‘choices.’ What matters, Cots (2006) claims, is the ideological position upon the basis of

which choices are made.

As is obvious in its argument, CLA puts an emphasis on the emancipation of

language users. Such emancipatory discourse, however, can be problematic in that such a

position lacks reflexivity about its own claims to truth (Billig, 2008; Pennycook, 2001).

The notion of emancipation views the truth as obscured by power and ideology which can

be revealed by an adequate critique of social and political inequality (Pennycook, 2001).

Such emancipatory discourse, at worst, makes people appear to be simply duped and

even complicitous to power having a hegemonic appearance. Pennycook (2001) criticizes

that such model of liberation can look patronizing with its own problematic belief in its

own righteousness. Critical pedagogies and other critical work, Pennycook (2001) argues,

32
tend to articulate a utopian vision of alternative realities under the discourse of

transformative social change and emancipation. Pennycook (2001) cautions against the

tendency of romanticizing ‘voice’ in North American interpretation of Freirean critical

pedagogy. He points out that the emancipatory discourse views truth as obscured by

ideology and power and thus can be revealed by critical awareness, and as such “failing

to develop an adequate understanding of how giving people voice can bring about their

empowerment” (p. 130). He asserts that what is really needed is how access to or critical

awareness of powerful forms of discourse brings about changes in social relations and

how the use of one’s voice is related to the possibility for social change. Pennycook

(2001, p. 69-72) argues for non-essentialist stance on language use, seeking forms of

resistance, appropriation, and hybridity with caution against apolitical celebration of

difference. If critical work aims for social change, it should specify “a social potential

and its linguistic realisations” (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, p. 154). Thus, the

emancipatory discourse should return to the discussion of power, of how power works

and of how we understand empowerment accordingly.

The notion of empowerment can be understood in various ways depending on

how one understands power. If we understand power is produced and enacted through

discourse, the way of empowerment and thus of achieving greater equality and social

justice should start from attending to the productive nature of discourse and language.

Clearly, a critical discourse study is concerned with power and its discursive effects.

From this perspective, power is understood as not fixed or permanently stable but

constantly contested and challenged. As noted by Foucault (1980), power is always

33
linked to resistance: “where there is power, there is resistance” (p. 95). Hegemonic power

indeed is premised on the ideological diversity in constant tensions of centripetal and

centrifugal forces that contest the dominant ideology (Bakhtin, 1981). Against Gramsci’s

ideas about hegemony, Scott (1990) argues that there are the arts of resistance to

dominance in everyday life operated by subalterns as forms of “hidden transcript”.

Hidden transcript is a secret discourse of a critique of power spoken offstage, which can

lead to actions for social change. When the hidden script is spoken publicly and directly,

Scott (1990) asserts, that is the moment of revolution from below. In this regard, it is

worth reconsidering the fact that power can be both positive and negative.

In doing discourse analysis, therefore, critical work should focus on power in both

directions with equal importance. On the one hand, power should be analyzed in terms of

how power is exercised through discourse resulting in dominance and inequality. At the

same time, critical discourse analysis should explore and offer other possibilities so that

alternatives can be made available to those most suffering from social inequality and thus

enable them to critically employ power toward transformational social change

(Fairclough, 1989; 2015). The latter should be connected to the reflexivity on the part of

language users, thereby empowering them in their relation to social order. The analysis of

discourse and power should not aim to simply reveal the dominant ideology that is

assumed to be monolithic and stable. Instead, the purpose should lie in getting the

evidence for ideological diversity from empirical discursive facts and highlighting the

multiplicity of ideologies.

34
 In terms of the positive aspects of power, Foucault (1980) asserts that truth is

produced by power, which is in contrast to the emancipatory discourse that views truth as

obscured by power. In so doing, Foucault (1980) stresses the productive and constructive

nature of power. He points out the limitation of the analysis of ideology and the view of

seeing power as repression:

Power traverses and produces things; it induces pleasure, forms of knowledge,

produces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive network which runs
through the whole social body, much more than as a negative instance whose
function is repression (p. 118).

When focusing on the nature of power, the task of critical work is not merely to reveal

the existence of power. It should explain how power is produced through discursive

practices and explore alternative possibilities of transforming and otherwise reproducing

social orders at least differently (Fairclough, 2003). This argument aligns with Fowler et

al.’s (1979) proposition, which gave rise to a critical move in studying the relations of

discourse and society. Fowler et al. (1979) emphasize the aspects of language usage as a

part of social process not merely an effect or reflex of social organization and processes.

With discourse defined as social practice, discourse is part of social process along with

other social elements. Therefore, critical discourse analysis should situate its work itself

as part of such social processes, not as the abstract metanarrative about discourse and

society. In so doing, critical awareness and reflexivity of language use and its social

functions, if ever enhanced due to critical discourse work, can be seen not as merely an

35
emancipatory effect of critical discourse studies, but as productive struggles to constitute

and transform social meanings as social practices (Fairclough, 2003). Such productive

possibilities afforded by critical discourse studies can be of considerable significance to

social changes through changes in discourse.

Language Ideologies and Identity

Language is not simply a means of communication but an even more complex

issue when considered with respect to its social functions and attitudes which people

project toward it. Language has social and ideological significance in how people

conceptualize the nature of language and its use (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Woolard &

Schieffelin, 1994). Thus, language is a site of contestation, and the concept of language

ideology provides a socially motivated explanation for the sociocultural processes that

inform local beliefs about language and the linguistic products (Kroskrity, 1998).

Language ideology has been enacted primarily through “institutionalized

relationships” (Duff, 2002, p. 306) which have been substantiated by research, for

instance, as to the relation of language ideology to multilingual educational contexts (e.g.

Creese & Blackledge, 2015; Darvin & Norton, 2015; Heller, 1995; Park & Bae, 2009;

Razfar, 2012). Park and Bae (2009) illustrate how language ideologies are interplayed

with the transnational educational experience of immigrant students. They argue that

while even rearticulated in relation to the lived experience of the transnational students,

the dominant language ideologies are not easily contested or resisted due to the

institutional constraints. In this manner, once institutionalized language ideology is less

36
contested or otherwise slightly rearticulated, at best, so that it keeps its stability and

hegemonic position.

Language ideologies affect language choices of multilingual learners and their

language practices. There has been a substantial body of empirical research on the impact

of language ideologies on language choice (Canagarajah, 2007; King, 2013; Park & Bae,

2009). King (2013) investigates the impact of language ideologies on bilinguals’ identity

construction in transnational families. This ethnographic research illustrates how

dominant ideologies of subtractive bilingualism shape bilinguals’ language identity. It

was revealed that a monolingual view of bilingualism was preferred wherein bilinguals

were expected to sound like a monolingual native speaker of each language they were

exposed to. This ideological issue entails controversial debate on the discrepancy

between language identity and language competence of those who speak a multiplicity of

languages. Language competencies and linguistic identities may vary and change over

time. Nonetheless, broadly circulating ideologies of a monolingual view of bilingualism

frame bilingual learners as an ‘unsuccessful English language learner’, or as ‘proficient

English user’, or as ‘the English monolingual’ (King, 2013).

Dominant ideologies also impact on the decision of the geographical space for

migration. Park and Bae (2009) argue that language ideologies symbolically linking

language and geographical space serve as a fundamental basis for a migrant’s

imagination of the world. According to this research on educational migration and

language ideologies, students’ transnational itinerary pertains to linguistic capital they

can obtain in the space. This finding aligns with the asymmetric power relations in the

37
world system between ‘the center’ and ‘the peripheries’ (Blommaert, 2005) in which

languages are valorized according to a country’s economic power.

Language is socio-politically invested, ideologically charged, and thus is never a

“neutral medium” (Duranti, 2009, p. 381). Leung, Harris, and Rampton (1997) argue that

language learners and language pedagogies are socially and ideologically motivated

concepts which are inevitably connected to the formation of social identities. One of the

characteristics of language ideologies is its totalizing vision that makes ‘Others’ ignored,

invisible or transformed for the sake of the totality. Due to the totality of ideology, a

social group or a language may be imagined as homogeneous (Irvine & Gal, 2000). The

essentializing process of linguistic images simplifies and sees the linguistic behaviors of

Others as deriving from their essences. A linguistic form is idealized through the

transformation of the indexical order, and thereby a way of speaking is misrecognized or

valorized as emblematic of social, political, intellectual, or moral character (Woolard,

1998, pp. 18-19). In such a manner, a language comes to symbolize the power and status

of its speaker. The symbolic nature and status of a language thus entails the issues of

identity.

Post-structural views on identity consider such complexity of identity in terms of

mutually constitutive features between discourse and identity (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005;

Butler, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991). These viewpoints can be drawn upon to explain the

multiplicity of language users’ identity construction and negotiation. According to the

post-structural perspectives on identity, identity constructs and is constructed by

discourse (Blommaert, 2005; Gee, 2000; Norton, 1997; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004).

38
The social constructionist stance (Erickson, 2004; Erickson & Shultz, 1981; Gergen,

2009) also accounts for the mutually constitutive nature of language and identity. From

the post-structuralism and social constructionism point of view, identity is not static.

Rather, it continually undergoes changes. The mutually constitutive relations between

language and identities are practiced through interactions with others. Individuals

constantly engage in negotiation of their identities in different time and place through the

process of discursive appropriation of linguistic resources available to them.

Monolingualism and Standardized Language: Monolingualism and

standardization are predominant language ideologies in multilingual and multicultural

language educational settings (Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Lippi-Green, 1997; Pavlenko

& Blackledge, 2004). Both monolingualism and standardization are the outcomes of the

social process of producing and reproducing the dominant ideology of homogeneity.

Standardization of language is a very ideological process. In multilingual contexts, a

homogeneous language is imagined so that in a given community where various language

varieties are in use, one variety may be given prestige, preference or desirability while

others may be marginalized (Irvine & Gal, 2000). As a result, the standard variety is

misrecognized as a superior version of language while other varieties are valorized as less

legitimate ones (Bourdieu, 1991). Under such a circumstance, language varieties and

multilinguals may be seen as anomalous.

The English Only Movement in the U. S. is an instance of the dominant ideology

of monolingualism. For instance, English as the medium of instruction is regarded as

critical for all university members to function successfully in U.S. colleges and

39
universities. As for international students whose first language is not English, however,

the English language often plays a role of a gatekeeper that controls access to academic

resources and opportunities (Tollefson & Tsui, 2014). In this case, English is associated

with exclusion (Blackledge, 2000), and, as Kubota (2010) critiques, multilingualism and

multiculturalism ironically promote monolingualism and monoculturalism.

What is more, with a language often linked to national identity, a nation-state of

multilingual population may tend to orient toward monolingualism (Heller, 1995). What

results is the well-known nationalist ideology of equating one nation-state with one

language. This nationalist language ideology is also associated with the notion of native

speaker that claims the ownership of the language and the superiority of native speakers.

In a setting where monolingual ideology is dominant despite the co-existence of various

languages and language varieties in use, the identities of multiple language users are

likely to be marginalized. Through such processes, a language symbolically can be

associated with identity. Under such circumstances, a language comes to be a symbolic

power and an object of oppression and a means of discrimination (Blommaert &

Verschueren, 1998).

Native-Speaker Superiority: The notion of ‘native speaker’ has long been

discussed and problematized by studies on language education and practice (e.g.

Rampton, 1995; Norton, 1997). Rampton (1995) points out that the concept of native

speaker and mother tongue is premised on ideologies of idealized speakers and

homogeneity. The notion of native speaker becomes even more problematic in its relation

to multilingual or intercultural communicative settings. In particular, in second and/ or

40
foreign language education, the notion of native speaker notably functions as an

exclusionary construct. In many cases of L2 education, native-speaker’s accent is

explicitly or implicitly used as a yardstick for assessing the intelligibility of L2 learners’

speech (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Lippi-Green, 1997). This

practice is indicative of native-speaker superiority ideology based on a deficit perspective

on L2 learners’ communicative competence. As such, English language learners are often

assumed as a source of difficulty and/or problem-ridden language users who speak a

deficient version of language, whereas there is less recognition of the lack of intercultural

communicative competence of monolingual native speakers of English, let alone the

recognition of the heteroglossic nature of one’s language practice per se. The multiplicity

of native speakers’ own linguistic repertories or variations such as registers, dialects and

their ‘accent’ might be in the guise of the idealized native-speakerness. The underlying

assumption here is that the monolingual native speakers of English are automatically

affiliated with standardized English (Norton, 1997). Rampton (1995, pp. 339-344) thus

suggests the replacement of the problematic concept of the ‘native speaker’ with the

distinction between “language expertise, affiliation and inheritance”. The notions of

expertise and affiliation pertain to linguistic identity and “the notion of expertise, in

contrast to the ‘native speaker,’ emphasizes ‘what you know’ rather than ‘where you

come from’” (ibid., p. 341).

Discourse of Diversity and International Teaching Assistants

Discourse of diversity is commonly invoked when it comes to issues of the

increasing international student population in the U.S. higher educational institutions.

41
Thus, it is important to look into how diversity is defined and conceptualized and what

main features and underlying assumptions the notion of diversity implies in the diversity

discourses on campus.

Zanoni and Janssens (2004) identify two opposite constructions of diversity

discourses in practice: difference as ‘additional value’ and as ‘lack’. On the one hand,

there is an instrumental approach to diversity. This discourse of diversity is predicated

upon the meritocratic organizational discourse that conceptualizes diversity as additional

value and resource for achieving institutional goals. It is assumed that multiple

perspectives afforded by diverse individuals lead to innovative problem solving and

consequently create benefits for all. Difference among diverse individuals here is

subjected to evaluation for its exchange value and individual competence thus is

conceived as instrumental to the attainment of institutional goals (Zanoni & Janssens,

2004). On the other hand, diversity is also often approached from an essentialist

perspective that highlights difference as characteristics of a group of a certain category

such as race, gender, and ethnicity. From this point of view, diversity is understood as a

group phenomenon featuring essential differences in attitudes, personalities, and

behaviors (Zanoni & Janssens, 2004). Certain attributes are identified as essences and

then ascribed to a group as a whole. This essentialist stance on diversity assumes the

individual manifestation of certain attributes as the representation of a certain culture

from which an individual comes. In this regard, cultural differences are seen as

determinant for the individual and as lack or deviation from the norms, knowledge, and

expectations of the dominant culture. The norms of the dominant groups become the

42
standards against which variations and varieties are evaluated, assimilated, corrected or

otherwise excluded. In this diversity discourse, difference is subjected to homogenization

through the process of being policed, corrected or remediated.

Those problematic conceptualizations of diversity as such are translated into and

prevalent in the discourse of diversity about international students in U.S. colleges and

universities. The rhetoric of diversity on campus appears to be instrumental, which is

aligned with traditional American pragmatism and grounded on the “scientific and

technocratic rationality” (Giroux, 2001) and broadly on the utilitarianism that sees human

beings as a means for social good. In addition, as diversity has been one image

promotional factor in more globalized worlds than ever before, international students are

seen as resources to enhance the demographic landscape on campus. Colleges and

universities recruit international students with expectation of potential benefits from a

diverse student body. It is assumed that each student can take advantage of diversity that

comes along with a diverse student body in which each can contribute differently to the

campus (Calleja, 2000). Alongside scholarly abilities and academic promises of

international students, the celebratory rhetoric of diversity often invokes discourses of

advantages typically as follows: American students’ intercultural sensitivity and skills

(Calleja, 2000); economic benefits for the American society from international students’

contribution to technological development (Davis, 2001); and facilitating international

relations which may lead to competitive advantage in international community (Jia &

Bergerson, 2008).

43
 The discourses of diversity mentioned above pertain to how ITAs are defined and

represented on American campuses. ITAs’ identity is constructed in the two oppositional

ways: instrumental and essentialist stances. On the one hand, ITAs are represented as a

wealth of resources and additional value in the academic culture. The potential benefits

from them include their intellectual contribution to particularly Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields, the opportunities of domestic undergraduates to

be exposed to other cultures, the appearance of diversity as a globalized university

(Chellaraj, Maskus, & Mattoo, 2005) which is a pressing demand as one factor in

evaluation of higher educational institutions. At the same time, essentialist discourse of

diversity is manifested in terms of how ITAs are discursively represented on campus.

ITAs are represented under a monolithic category of a certain group under the label of

ITAs indexing their ethnolinguistic foreignness. The totality of each individual ITA is

reduced to one dimension without the consideration of their other social positionings

which might have the substantive significance of socio-political and cultural relevance to

the ITAs’ multiple identities. The details of ITAs’ individual experiences and social

positions invoking their multiple identities are, at best, seen as of secondary importance.

What matters here in such diversity discourses is simply the fact that the ITAs are

foreigners with different language and culture (Fitch & Morgan, 2003).

While there is no agreed-upon definition of who should be included in the

category of ITAs, many higher educational institutions regard ITAs as those who are non-

native English speakers or whose first language is not English (Plakans, 1997). At the

center of this categorization work is that language plays a role of a primary difference

44
marker. The language issue is often extended to cultural and pedagogical difference.

Much of the research on ITAs points out that ITAs’ problem is also attributed to their

lack of knowledge and experience about American academic culture which is often

characterized by active class participation through discussion and less power distance and

authority between teachers and students (Gorsuch, 2012; LeGros & Faez, 2012), although

it seems contentious that the academic culture of one nation could be defined in uniform

and that the aforementioned characteristics really are only unique to American academic

culture given the increasingly globalized campus.

Those instrumental and essentialist approaches to diversity are problematic in

many respects. Most importantly, diversity here is problematically conceptualized as an

objective fact that could be described, measured and used for a certain purpose whether

for achieving a certain institutional goal or for marking Others (Zanoni & Janssens,

2004). This discourse consequently amounts to the capitalist discourse of the exploitation

of intellectual labor of those from different culture. In effect, in the instrumental

discourse of diversity, the multiple and complex identities of ITAs as novice researchers,

scholars, students, and teachers, are simplified and reduced to the exchange value of their

linguistic and cultural capital. The complexity of identities derived from their

intersectionality is not considered in understanding how the ITAs position and are

positioned in a certain context. In these discourses, the entirety of an individual is

fragmented or reduced to one dimension.

Furthermore, such instrumental and essentialist approaches do not consider socio-

political and ideological aspects of diversity discourses in relation to power. Power

45
relations are hidden and those discourses, as a result, fail to address conflicts and

struggles based on a politics of difference and power (Giroux, 2001). Without

acknowledging the asymmetrical power relations, existing research focuses on the lack of

ITAs’ English proficiency and on cultural difference, resulting in the production and

reproduction of the deficit discourse of diversity. Linguistic and cultural difference is

simply treated as lack or deficit in relation to established American cultural and linguistic

norms. Thus, ITAs are likely to be placed in remedial language programs featuring accent

reduction and pronunciation drills with a focus on the improvement of their proficiency

in the English language, more precisely, spoken English skills.

Physical or demographic composition of diversity does not point to new

possibilities for sharing the best of each. Rather, discursive practices enacting

homogeneity at the institutional level essentialize the difference brought by diverse

students. Through the representation by labels and categories such as ITA and ESL,

diverse individual students are discursively denied subjectivity and agency. Such

categorization and labeling is problematic in that the rhetorical construction ascribed by

the semiotic references obfuscates the individuality and erases the agency of the students.

The categories and labels render individual features invisible by lumping those students

as a group or the representatives of the group. That is, the rhetorical scheme used for the

categorization, identification, and representation of diverse students denies their

subjectivity and agency in discourse of difference as lack and reaffirms the remedial and

deficit model of instructional practices. Thus, difference is forced to go through the

assimilation and homogenizing process of correction.

46
 The perception and approach to cultural and linguistic difference as lack and

deficit lead to an assimilationist stance on diversity. Traditional contrastive methods are

often used to mark out differences and similarities. The curriculum contents and

instructional practices move toward homogenization of emerging differences, resulting in

a subtractive and restrictive pedagogy. The pedagogical focus of this assimilationist

stance is upon what students lack or do not have, instead of what they already have and

how to build on students’ funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005).

Furthermore, the assimilationist discourse of diversity is no less than ethnocentric. In this

discourse, intercultural competence becomes implicitly synonymous with one’s English

language ability, which forces English language learners to conform to American norms

and values and assimilate themselves to American ways of communication. The

underlying assumption is that the proficiency in the English language automatically

guarantees the intercultural competence of people only by the fact that their first language

is English. From this point of view, intercultural communication is seen as a unilateral

process of resocialization into a new cultural and linguistic norm and the efforts should

be solely made by those who enter the host culture. Under the circumstance of the

assimilationist pedagogy, international students may be forced to be like ‘home’ students.

ITAs and international faculty may be forced to be like ‘home’ TAs and faculty.

Furthermore, the argument of the uniqueness of American academic culture often

invokes the dichotomous cultural dimensions conceptualized by some culture studies

conducted in the early 1980s (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; 1983). However, the dichotomy of

cultural dimensions has been criticized because of its lack of the methodological rigor

47
and problematic conceptualization of key notions and concepts which consequently led to

some misleading assumptions and reinforcement of cultural stereotypes between Western

and non-Western cultures (McSweeney, 2002). In effect, Hofstede (1980; 1983)

attempted to measure and compare national cultures on the basis of the questionnaires

collected around the late1960s and early 1970s from some IBM employees around the

world. He developed a set of cultural dimensions such as power distance, uncertainty

avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, and assertiveness

and competitiveness vs. modesty and caring. The dichotomous cultural dimensions make

the complexity of culture more easily simplified, measurable and thus manageable, which

in turn gives teachers a sense of their treating culture as something teachable like an

objective fact or discrete skill in decontextualized ways. On that account, despite

criticism on the problematic conceptualization of culture and lack of methodological

rigor, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have been popularly used as a framework to

construct national cultural comparison in intercultural communication and ESL education

without due critical awareness on the part of teachers. In comparison with a more rich

and qualitative concept of culture (e.g. Geertz, 1973; Gumperz, 1992; Williams, 1977) or

more critical concept of culture (e.g. Giroux, 2001), the conceptualization of culture and

cultural dimensions invoked in this essentialist discourse are so deterministic that there is

no consideration of the workings of agency by individual subjects. The binary divide

between Western and non-Western cultures based on the deterministic cultural

dimensions needs to be further scrutinized. It needs to see whether the cultural

dimensions really provide a viable framework for addressing the tensions and conflicts in

48
multicultural and multilingual contexts, or if they rather produce a range of myths,

reinforce cultural stereotypes, and are used virtually as a socio-political means of the

exclusionary marker of Otherness.

Identity and positioning theories (Davies & Harré, 1990) put interaction at the

center of identity construction and representation, commonly arguing that identity

formation is not a one-way but two-way street. The interactional positionality theories

provide a useful account for understanding how ITAs position and are positioned, how

they perceive themselves and are perceived by others, how they represent and are

represented. ITAs may build a repertoire of cultural knowledge which leads them to

intercultural growth and identity transformation by engaging in multiple intercultural

encounters (Kim, 2008). They may seek to establish new social positioning through

interactions with their ‘Others’ and reflection on themselves in new cultural

environments. In terms of their social identity, those students are constantly placed in a

situation of minority groups and struggle for ‘recognition’ (Taylor, 1994). Put differently,

in their situatedness of cultural and social transition, international students continually

engage in ‘Discourse’, “ways of being a certain type of person” (Gee, 2000, p. 99).

Through the process of such interactive and reflective positioning (Davies & Harré,

1990), their identities are constantly constructed and reconstructed. Through the process

of cultural transition, international students are demanded to negotiate their identities in

relation to asymmetrical powers between their culture of origin and the host culture.

However, many of the existing studies fail to attend to the asymmetrical power

relation into which ITAs have been placed. Those studies rather concern themselves with

49
the effectiveness of ITAs’ training, pointing out problems and conflicts, and then try to

suggest solutions which often end up as superficial and not fundamental ones because

they fail to see the underlying power relations in this intercultural context (Fitch &

Morgan, 2003; Gorsuch, 2012; Jia & Bergerson, 2008). In particular, like other acts of

Othering that use explicit social categories such as race, gender, and ethnicity, the

category of ITAs has to do with the very political and ideological relevance of identity

politics. What should be noted is how the representation of ITAs attributed by the

perception of those working with ITAs is different from other ideological and political

acts of Othering. It is worth thinking about whether those are fundamentally common

reactions to Others and differences when diversity is invoked in pedagogical settings and

the telos of pedagogy is grounded on social justice and democracy.

In conceptualizing diversity, my contention is that diversity is discursively

constructed with sociopolitical and ideological significance, and thus, power relations

should be placed at the center in addressing the relation of the social and individual

identity construction. Discourses of diversity in terms of international students and ITAs

are sociopolitical and ideological acts of Othering with a significant relevance of power

relations entailing inequality. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the discursive schemes

and the grand Discourse used for perpetuating the inequality.

In order to explore the workings of the hegemonic discourse of diversity on

identity construction, I turn to critical discourse perspectives to investigate power

relations of language ideologies and identity politics. It is not for arguing that ITAs or

international students in general do not need to improve their linguistic skills and cultural

50
knowledge in a new culture. On the contrary, I problematize the existing approaches of

deficit and the discursive effects of power entailing inequality in the diversity discourses

particularly embedded and practiced in educational settings. Thus, I am interested in how

power relations condition the identity construction through material and/or abstract

effects produced by discourse. I am also interested in how ITAs as an individual social

subject would experience those ideological effects of power exercised in discursive

practices of their daily life and what discursive and semiotic strategies they use to cope

with such power effects. At the same time, I look into how ITAs are recognized as

individuals with a variety of cultural backgrounds and experiences and how their

difference and diversity have been appreciated, accommodated or appropriated.

51
 Chapter 3: Methodology

In this chapter, I will explicate the methodology of my study and research design. My

methodology is informed by critical discourse studies and ethnographic inquiry in

educational research. As stated in Chapter 1, my concrete research questions are the

following:

§   What are the language ideologies of the ESL classroom? How are these

ideologies taken up, resisted or transformed in teachers’ and students’ teaching

and learning of English?

§   What discursive strategies are constructed and how do they work in the ESL

classroom?

§   How do ITAs experience those discursive practices of language ideologies?

By taking on a critical perspective and ethnographic methods, I attempted to gain

empirical evidence of the discursive dynamisms and to explore alternatives and

possibilities for reimaging identity construction and reconceptualizing diversity in

various viable constructs of practices.

52
 Ethnographic Inquiry in Educational Research

In conjunction with Fairclough’s (1992; 1995; 2003) analytical framework of

discourse analysis, I utilized the methods of ethnographic inquiry in education in

investigating my research questions. In recognition of the diverse ways in which the

knowledge and experience are constructed, methodological reflexivity in educational

research has been called for in response to such diversity (Grenfell et al, 2012; Rampton,

Maybin, & Roberts, 2015). Ethnographic inquiry provides multiple dimensions in the

perception of what is happening and what is going on. Ethnographic inquiry features

cultural ecologies by focusing on the interconnections between socio-cultural factors

interacting with each other and entailing the social significance of form or practices

(Rampton et al., 2015). It looks for the local knowledge and rationality in practices to

comprehend both the tacit assumptions and those obviously expressed by the participants

(Geertz, 1983). It concerns what and how the particularity of the circumstances relates to

the broader social and cultural contexts and structures. Hymes (1996) argues that the

ethnographic dimension can illuminate how those processes are implemented in local

settings by linking anthropological realities of education with social history. Thus,

ethnographic educational research begins with the key question “what counts as

knowledge and learning in classrooms to teachers and students?” (Green & Bloome,

1997, p. 17).

Given the role of education as a key social institution that reproduces social order,

education, especially in school system, cannot be disconnected from the larger society.

The focus of educational research should not be simply delimited within a school system

53
or an educational setting apart from other broader social contexts. Ethnographic inquiry is

supposed to contribute to dialogue between the dualism of the micro and the macro by

illuminating the empirical evidence in search for the connections between them

(Rampton et al., 2015). The particularities afforded by empirical and practical

ethnography substantiate the significance and possibilities of such dialogues (Heath &

Street, 2008). In this regard, I take on an ethnographic inquiry approach as a heuristic for

making sense of the complex relationships of language and society as they play out in the

lives of the study participants.

For the present study, ethnography allows for exploration of the multiple

dimensions of students’ language practices, meaning-making, semiotic resources,

significance of the functions, and ideological implications. When educational research

takes on ethnographic inquiry, it can contribute to the “democratization of knowledge”

(Hymes, 1996, p. 17). As such, ethnography makes it possible to dialogue between

empirical and theoretical practices, and sensitizes us to the ongoing changes in real

worlds to illuminate particularities. While taking a critical stance in uncovering hidden

ideological meanings, I attempted to make a commitment to an emic, participant

perspective, which allowed me as a researcher to learn from the views and opinions of

and collaborate with the study participants in co-constructing meaning. By combining a

disciplined understanding of language and society with ethnographic inquiry, I hope to

illuminate the variations and multiplicity of knowledge. In what follows, I shall specify in

more detail the outline of my dissertation research.

54
 Research Setting

The research site of this study is a spoken English program that provides

coursework for prospective ITAs at a Midwestern university in the U.S. This ESL

program administers performance tests to certify ITAs to teach at the university in

conformity with the state’s mandate which was enacted to ensure the oral English

proficiency of TAs in colleges and universities in the state. The program specifies that its

focus is upon spoken fluency, pronunciation, and the development of intercultural and

pedagogical skills. Under this circumstance, ITAs would be supposed to achieve a quite

advanced level of English language proficiency and teaching skills as well as high

fluency in the U.S. culture if they would be qualified for teaching at the university.

Therefore, the spoken English course was assumed to be one research site that could

reveal rich data pertaining to how international students’ perceptions and identities would

be mediated and reorganized by the language ideologies of the host culture.

Research Design and Participants

With the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval obtained in January 2013, I

was able to conduct a pilot study in the 2013 Spring semester at the research site of the

ESL program to see potential possibilities and limitations of the research design so that I

could solidly conduct my dissertation research with greater rigor. With the permission

from both the director and the coordinator of the program, I was able to begin class

observations of a spoken English course taught at that time by Ms. Briedis who was from

a small country near Russia. Ms. Briedis was a multiple language user with her Ph.D. in

Applied Linguistics. Along with her first language, she spoke Russian and English.

55
Shortly after completing her Ph.D. degree at the same university, Ms. Briedis was hired

to teach the spoken English course. The focal participants for the pilot study were

recruited among the ITAs enrolled in Ms. Briedis’s class in the 2013 Spring semester.

Among the students, two Chinese (Zhouxin and Kai) and one Korean (Namhee), agreed

to participate in the study and all of them were in their first year of Ph.D. studies (all

names used in this paper are pseudonyms). Namhee received her master’s degree from a

university in a Northeastern region of the U.S. and specialized in Biochemistry. She

identified Korean as her first language and English as her second language. At the time of

data collection, Namhee was partly involved in TA work such as grading on the condition

that she would pass a mock teaching test at the end of the ESL course. Zhouxin was in

the same Ph.D. program as Namhee and was working as a lab assistant. Zhouxin’s first

language was Chinese. She had also been placed in the English course on the same

condition as Namhee. Kai was a Ph.D. student in Nuclear Engineering program and

spoke Chinese and English. The students met three times each week for the class over the

semester. I made class observations through weekly visits over the semester, each of

which lasted 80 minutes and was audio-recorded and described in the field notes. Along

with the class observations, informal interviews were conducted with the participants. In

the Fall semester of 2013, I was also able to make an observation of a disciplinary course

in which Namhee was providing instruction to undergraduate students.

The preliminary analysis of this pilot study revealed the dominance of language

ideologies such as English monolingualism, native-speaker superiority, and evidence of

students’ discursive identity negotiations. Yet, the pilot study called for the need in terms

56
of the research design to enhance the corpus which would enable me to make richer

interpretations of the data and thus better account for the complexity of the relationship

between language ideologies and ITAs’ identity. In addition, in terms of the validity of

the research, my academic advisor and some colleagues who reviewed my work

suggested seeking out various ways of achieving greater validity to increase the

trustworthiness of the research. The findings and implications from the pilot study fed

into the design of this dissertation research.

Building upon the pilot study, I extended my research throughout the 2016 Spring

semester. The participants for my dissertation research were recruited among the students

enrolled in the spoken English courses during the semester which was taught by Mr.

Rooney. There were fourteen students enrolled in the course and I obtained consent in

earlier weeks of the semester from the students as well as Mr. Rooney. I provided the

recruitment letter and consent form to the class on the first week of class and those who

would like to participate were asked to return the form in two weeks. Nine out of the

fourteen students in the class returned the informed consent form, and those who did not

wish to participate did not have to return the form, and they were not questioned. The

participants were told about the purpose of the study and the time and length of the study.

I explained what participants were supposed to do, what to do when I was with them and

what they could tell others about the project.

Three focal participants were selected and asked to further collaborate with me. I

selected them because I repeatedly identified them in interactions that revealed “cruces

points” or points of discursive conflicts (Fairclough, 1992). Leo was a doctoral student

57
specializing in Industrial Engineering and was from Taiwan. He received his masters’

degree from a university in a southwestern U.S. state where he used to teach

undergraduate students as a TA. At the time of data collection, Leo was teaching a

disciplinary course of his department while taking Mr. Rooney’s ESL course in order to

meet the requirement of the university. Kun was a first-year Ph.D. student in Economics.

Before moving to the Midwestern university for his Ph.D. studies, Kun received his

master’s degree from a university in Wisconsin. He was on the fellowship for his first-

year Ph.D. studies but was supposed to take and pass a mock teaching test at the end of

the semester to be qualified for teaching assistantship from the upcoming year. Han was a

Ph.D. student in Mathematics who was from Guangdong province in China. He received

his bachelor’s degree in Engineering in China and master’s degree in Mathematics from a

university in Washington. He had been three years in the U.S. with his wife who majored

in Engineering in China. Mr. Rooney had almost 20 years of ESL teaching experience at

different universities and colleges. He majored in French and started his teaching career

as a French language teacher at a high school in New York.

Data Collection

The data were collected through ethnographic research methods to understand the

discursive practices in the settings studied from the participants’ perspective (LeCompte,

Preissle, & Tesch, 1993; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Spradley, 1979; 1980). The data

collection strategies included participant observation, field notes, interviews, and

artifacts/documents. What follows is details of each data collection strategy that I used

for this study.

58
 Participant Observation: The class met twice a week (on Tuesdays and

Thursdays) during the 2016 Spring semester and each session of the class lasted around

80 minutes. I made class observations of 22 sessions throughout the semester. The focus

of the class observations was upon discursive practices in classroom interactions in order

to understand how the participants made sense of the context, others and themselves

through their experience of the discursive practices. Unlike my pilot study in which the

class observations were audio-recorded, I both video- and audio-recorded class activities

in Mr. Rooney’s classroom so as to better capture the dynamisms of the interactions in

terms of both discursive and non-discursive practices, which led to the enhanced validity

and richer analysis of the data. The observations were also described in the field notes

(Appendix E). I utilized the types of ethnographic observation which shifted from broad

‘descriptive’ observations to more ‘focused’ observations to ‘selective’ observations as

the research proceeded (Spradley, 1980). I began with broad descriptive observations that

allowed me to get an overview of the situation and what went on there. And then after

analyzing the initial data, with emerging themes from the initial data analysis, I moved on

to more focused observations of cruces points of discursive conflicts (Fairclough, 1992)

and the focal participants were selected accordingly. While doing the data analysis in

ongoing and recursive ways along with repeated observations, I narrowed my focus to

make selective observations on the focal participants who engaged in moments of

discursive conflicts (Fairclough, 1992; 1995; Van Dijk, 1995). Even though my

observations got more focused as my research proceeded, general descriptive

observations were continued until the end of my data collection in the field.

59
 Field notes: Field notes were used throughout the data collection phase of the

research in class observations and interviews with the participants. The field notes were

primarily descriptive of what was going on in the research setting and were converted

into typed research protocols. In writing the field notes, I followed Spradley’s (1980)

principles of ethnographic record: language identification; the verbatim record of what

people said; and the use of concrete language.

Interviewing: Semi-structured interviews with the participants were conducted in

order to learn and reflect the participants’ beliefs and perceptions (Spradley, 1979). The

interviews lasting from 40 minutes to 90 minutes were conducted in a way that gave the

participants most control over the process (Briggs, 1986). All the interviews were audio-

recorded and otherwise were recorded in the field notes (Appendix C & D). When

necessary and occasionally, the participants were invited to go over the interview texts

and preliminary findings mainly in order to confirm or verify what was observed and

described. Through this process, I tried to make sure that the participants were given the

opportunity for reflection and allowed them to retain the authorship over the text

produced by the interviews (Briggs, 1986; Spradley, 1979). These interviews included

informal talks and conversations with the teacher which almost routinely took place prior

to the class and/or after each session. I shared with the teacher through these routine

conversations some examples of interesting interactions observed and invited his

opinions and thoughts on my analysis on what I observed. These talks were audio-

recorded and otherwise were recorded in the field notes.

60
 Artifacts/ Documents: Artifacts and documents were collected throughout the

study. Those data included program descriptions, syllabus, rubrics for assessment,

documents concerning language policies, and the students’ writings.

Data Analysis

Along with Fairclough’s (1992; 1995) three-tiered framework for detailed

discourse analysis, the data were analyzed in an ongoing and recursive fashion based on

ethnographic inquiry (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Spradley, 1980). Analysis began

with first data collected and then what emerged from the initial data analysis became the

basis for the direction of the subsequent data collection. Analyses were organized in ways

that answered the research questions. In what follows, I will describe in detail the

ongoing and iterative process of the data analysis.

Phase one - Organizing the data: I organized the data in electronic files by date

for all class sessions over the semester and for the corresponding field notes recorded in

an Excel spreadsheet. I also organized in electronic files the interview data and artifacts

including writings by the names of the focal participants.

Phase two - Identifying cruces: The discourse samples for detailed analysis for

this study were carefully selected on the basis of a preliminary survey of the corpus

constructed through the data collection. Fairclough’s (1992) notion of ‘cruces’ or

‘moments of crisis’ was used in selecting the discourse samples as an entry point into the

detailed analysis. Cruces, according to Fairclough, refer to “moments in the discourse

where there is evidence that things are going wrong” and “such moments of crisis make

visible aspects of practices which might normally be naturalized, and therefore difficult

61
to notice; but they also show change in process, the actual ways in which people deal

with the problematization of practices” (p. 230). Some discursive features in a situation

of cruces, for example, are interlocutors’ communicative strategies in repairing a

misunderstanding “through asking for or offering repetitions, or through one participant

correcting another or exceptional disfluencies (hesitations, repetitions) in the production

of a text; silences; sudden shifts of style” (p. 230).

In my study, such a tension point was captured as an entry point for looking into

how different language ideologies manifested and how the language ideologies in conflict

invoked the identity negotiation of the participants. The moments of crisis were tension

points at which hegemonic assumptions were challenged, contested and/ or negotiated,

thus being rendered visible through class interactions. As the class observations

proceeded, a range of such cruces points of discursive conflicts were noted. To initially

identify cruces, I used my field notes in which such discursive conflicts were marked

along with brief descriptions of the discursive events, themes or topics, and participants

engaged in the moments of crisis. The initial identification of the cruces in the field notes

was followed by thorough and recursive review of the video-recordings of the class

observations to ensure the moments as the entry points into the detailed analysis, which

guided the direction of the subsequent data collection and analysis. The initially

identified cruces also guided the selection of the focal participants.

Phase three - Generating the data corpus: Once the cruces had been identified,

discourse samples were selected and transcribed to generate the data corpus. The data

corpus consisted of cruces, related classroom discourse events, descriptions of

62
interactions from field notes, interview transcripts, and artifacts/ documents. These were

thoroughly and recursively read to code entries according to emerging categories and

relationships within the categorical areas. Table 1 illustrates the construction of the data

corpus of this study organized within the framework of the three-dimensions of discourse

analysis on text, discourse practice and social practice.

Table 1 The Construction of the Data Corpus

Discussion on ITAs issues with an old article: Let’s Talk It Over

Language Disclaimer
Cruces
Control over Students’ L1 use in the ESL classroom
Pronunciation correction/ Accent reduction drills
Class Documents &
Data Collection Teacher Interview Student Interview
Observation Field-notes
Excerpt 1, 2, 9, Excerpt 3, 4, 5,
Data Corpus Excerpt 10 Excerpt 7, 8, 11
12 6, 13
Lexical choice: Intertextuality
Modality
control, capture, Modality
encourage, etc.
Rhetorical Schematic
question (“Is categories
The use of the Lexical choice
that English?”)
Text deictic 'that' (e.g. good) Syntactic
& its
referring to L1 structure
illocutionary
Hesitance for self-
force Rhetoric
The use of the correction
definitive article, Passive voice
Lexical Choice
'the' in the 'the Metaphor sentence
(e.g. ‘hear’)
language' referring
Change in code No-human agent
to English
(from L1 to the institution/
English), occupying the
The emphatic
participant subject position
particles and
structure, topic, of the sentences.
hedges, e.g. really,
etc.)
just, very often, as Lexical choice,
much as possible e.g. 'screen'
Continued

63
Table 1 Continued

ESL class Competence and

activity L1 use as skill-based ESL
Discourse
Immersion communicative Deficit model
Practice
Code-switching approach in L2 strategies
pedagogy Pronunciation
English Only drill/accent
presupposition reduction
Institutional
gatekeeping
Monolingualis Linguistic
Social Practice English Only
m Restrictive L2 diversity
pedagogy language policy
Multilingualism
Restrictive L2 Diversity as
pedagogy Communicative deficit discourse
repertoire

In order to illustrate both the discursive and non-discursive features of

interactions, Jefferson’s (2004) and Hepburn and Bolden’s (2013) transcription notion

has been adopted for this study. The transcription notion is briefly described in Table 2

below.

Table 2 Transcription Notation

[...] Some material of the original transcript or example has been omitted
(( )) Extra-linguistic information/ the nonverbal
[ A point where overlapping speech occurs
­ A rise in intonation
↓ A drop in intonation
CAPITALS Exaggerated volume
:: Elongated sounds
… An untimed pause
Continued

64
Table 2 Continued

(??) Uncertain/unclear talk

(.) A micro pause
(0.2) A number inside brackets denotes a timed pause
= Latched speech, a continuation of talk
“” Reported speech/ hypothetical speech

Phase four - Three-tiered dimensions of discourse analysis: My research

employed Fairclough’s (1992; 1995; 2003) three-tiered framework of discourse analysis.

In Fairclough’s analytical framework, any specific instance of discursive practice has

three dimensions or facets: spoken or written language text; discourse practices involving

text production and interpretation; and sociocultural practice. Discourse practice mediates

the link and relationship between text and sociocultural practice.

The methods of discourse analysis included the description, interpretation and

explanation of the three dimensions of discourse and their discursive relations at the

local, institutional and societal domains. That is, the analysis included “linguistic

description of the language text, interpretation of the relationship between the (productive

and interpretative) discursive processes and the text, and explanation of the relationship

between the discursive processes and the social processes” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 97). In

employing this analytic framework, I put the focus of the analysis upon the discursive

strategies and subtlety of ideologies enacted through discourse practice and textual

features in relation to social practice, which would inform the relation of language

ideologies to ITAs’ identity negotiation.

65
 In doing critical discourse analysis with Fairclough’s framework, some discursive

features and questions shown below in Table 3 were used to identify categories for the

three dimensions of discourse analysis on the selected discourse samples.

Table 3 Dimensions of Discourse and Features (Adapted from Fairclough, 1992)

Dimensions of
Discourse & Questions/Pointers for Analysis of Discourse Samples
features
Discourse Practice
To specify what discourse types (genre, activity type, style, or discourse)
Interdiscursivity
are drawn upon in the discourse sample under analysis, and how
To specify styles according to tenor, mode, and rhetorical mode
Is the discourse sample relatively conventional in its interdiscursive
properties, or relatively innovative?
Intertextual chain To specify the distribution of a type of discourse sample by describing the
intertextual chains.
What sort of transformation does this type of discourse sample undergo?
Are the intertextual chains and transformations relatively stable, or are they
shifting or contested?
Are there signs that the text producer anticipates more than one sort of
audience?
To specify styles according to tenor, mode, and rhetorical mode
Is the discourse sample relatively conventional in its interdiscursive
properties, or relatively innovative?
Intertextual chain To specify the distribution of a type of discourse sample by describing the
intertextual chains.
What sort of transformation does this type of discourse sample undergo?
Are the intertextual chains and transformations relatively stable, or are they
shifting or contested?
Are there signs that the text producer anticipates more than one sort of
audience?
Coherence To look into the interpretative implications of the intertextual and
interdiscursive properties of the discourse sample.
How heterogeneous and how ambivalent is the text for particular
interpreters, and consequently how much inferential work is needed?
Does this sample receive resistant readings? From what sort of reader?
Continued

66
Table 3 Continued

Conditions of To specify the social practices of text production and consumption

discourse practice associated with the type of discourse the sample represents.
Is the text produced/ consumed individually or collectively?
What sort of non-discursive effects does this sample have?
Presupposition How are presuppositions cued in the text?
Are they links to the prior texts of others, or the prior texts of the text
producer?
Are they sincere or manipulative?
Are they polemical such as negative sentences?
And are there instances of meta-discourse or irony?

Text

Interactional To describe larger-scale organizational properties of interactions, upon

Control which the orderly functioning and control of interactions depends.
Who control interactions at this level;
To what extent is control negotiated as a joint accomplishment of
participants;
To what extent is it asymmetrically exercised by one participant?
What turn-taking rules are in operation?
Are the rights and obligations of participant symmetrical or asymmetrical?
What exchange structures are in operation?
How are topics introduced, developed, and established, and is topic control
symmetrical or asymmetrical?
How are agendas set and by whom?
How are they policed and by whom?
Does one participant evaluate the utterances of others?
To what extent do participants formulate the interaction?
What functions do formulations have, and which participants formulate?
Cohesion To show how clauses and sentences are connected together in the text.
Relevant to the description of the 'rhetorical mode' of the text: its structuring
as a mode of argumentation
What functional relations are there between the clauses and sentences of the
text?
Are there explicit surface cohesive markers of functional relations?
Which types of marker (reference, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical) are most
used?
Politeness To determine which politeness strategies are most used in the sample,
whether there are differences between participants, and what these features
suggest about social relations between participants.
Continued

67
Table 3 Continued

Which politeness strategies (e.g. negative politeness, positive politeness, off

record, Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.60) are used, by whom, and for what
purposes?
Transitivity To see whether particular process types and participants are favoured in the text,
what choices are made in voice (active or passive),
How significant is the nominalization of processes?
A major concern is agency, the expressions of causality, and the attribution of
responsibility.
What process types (action, event, relational, mental) are most used, and what
factors may account for this?
Is grammatical metaphor a significant feature?
Are passive clauses or nominalizations frequent, and if so what functions do
they appear to serve?
Theme To see if there is a discernible pattern in the text's thematic structure to the
choices of themes for clauses.
What is the thematic structure of the text, and what assumptions (for example,
about the structuring of knowledge or practice) underline it?
Are marked themes frequent, and if so what motivations for theme are there?
Modality To determine patterns in the text in the degree of affinity expressed with
propositions through modality.
To assess the relative import of modality features for social relations in the
discourse, and controlling representations of reality
What sort of modalities are most frequent?
Are modalities predominantly subjective or objective?
What modality features are most used?
Word meaning The emphasis is upon 'key words' which are of general or more local cultural
significance;
upon words whose meanings are variable and changing;
and upon the meaning potential of a word, a particular structuring of its
meanings, as a mode of hegemony and a focus of struggle.
Wording To contrast the ways meanings are worded with the ways they are worded in
other types of text
To identify the interpretative perspective that underlies this wording.
Does the text contain new lexical items, and if so what theoretical, cultural or
ideological significance do they have?
What intertextual relations are drawn upon for the wording in the text?
Metaphor To characterize the metaphor used in the discourse sample, in contrast to
metaphors used for similar meanings elsewhere,
To determine what factors (cultural, ideological, etc.) determine the choice of
metaphor.
To consider the effect of metaphors upon thinking and practice.
Continued

68
Table 3 Continued

Social Practice
To specify the social and hegemonic relations and structure which
constitute the matrix of this particular instances of social and discursive
practice;
Social matrix of
How this instance stands in relation to these structures and relations (is it
Discourse
conventional and normative, creative and innovative, oriented to
restructuring them, oppositional, etc.?);
What effects it contributes to, in terms of reproducing or transforming them
Orders of To specify the relationship of the instance of social and discursive practice
discourse to the orders of discourse it draws upon
and the effects of reproducing or transforming orders of discourse to which
it contributes.
Ideological and
To focus upon particular ideological and hegemonic effects (e.g. systems of
Political effects of
knowledge and belief, social relations, social identities/selves)
discourse

Validity

In order to avoid or otherwise minimize potential study bias and facilitate

validation of my research, I used several ways of enhancing the validity of the study

which included thick and rich description, reflexivity, triangulation, and member-

checking.

Thick and Rich Description: As my study takes ethnographic inquiry combined

with critical discourse studies, “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) is provided to gain

deeper understanding of the complexity of the relationship between language ideologies

and identity. By giving a detailed account of settings, participants, data collection and

analysis, I contextualize the data in their situatedness in which their “stratified hierarchy

of meaningful structures” (Geertz, 1973, p. 7) are produced, perceived and interpreted.

69
 Reflexivity: As alluded to in the discussion of critical discourse analysis earlier,

in recognition of the fact that researchers’ personal biases can influence their

interpretation of data (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), I engaged in

reflexivity by keeping a research journal to make explicitly examine my thoughts,

feelings, beliefs and assumptions surfacing throughout the research process. As I myself

have been positioned as an international graduate student with cultural and linguistic

difference in the U. S. academic setting, I attempted to be transparent about the influence

of my own assumptions and beliefs on the research development and the interpretation of

data. The reflection has been incorporated into the conclusions of the final report with

respect to implications for future research.

Triangulation: I triangulated data in order to increase the trustworthiness of the

interpretations and conclusions drawn from my research. To substantiate various data

with one another, data were collected in multiple ways including observations,

interviews, field notes, and artifacts/documents (Creswell & Miller, 2000; LeCompte &

Schensul, 1999).

Member-Checking: Member-checking was done in order to guard against

inaccurate portrayal of the participants (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 1998). When necessary

or occasionally, I provided participants with transcripts or portions of data interpretation

and asked them to verify the accuracy by clarifying, elaborating or sometimes deleting

their own words (Carlson, 2010). In doing so, I found out whether my analysis and

interpretation of data were “congruent with the participants’ experiences” (Curtin &

70
Fossey, 2007, p. 92). Member-checking had been done continuously throughout this

research process.

71
 Chapter 4: Analysis and Findings

In this chapter, I will present the findings of my critical discourse study on

language ideologies and ITAs’ identities in a university ESL context. As briefly stated in

Chapter 1, the findings are organized in ways to answer a set of the concrete research

questions of this study:

§   What are the language ideologies of the ESL classroom? How are these

ideologies taken up, resisted or transformed in teachers’ and students’ teaching

and learning of English?

§   How are these ideologies practiced? What discursive strategies are constructed

and how do they work in the ESL classroom?

§   How do ITAs experience those discursive practices of language ideologies?

The detailed analyses will be presented on what language ideologies were

underlying, how these ideologies were discursively constructed and circulated, and how

they have been influencing the ITAs’ identities. The analyses are framed within

Fairclough’s (1992; 1995; 2003) three-dimensions of discourse analysis on text (both

spoken and written), discourse practice, and social practice. With the analytical

framework of critical discourse analysis, I attempted to shed light on the dialectical

72
nature of discourse working in the interconnection of the broader social level and the

local level relations of social differences.

In analyzing the discourses, my interest lies in the identification of ideologies in

text and talk that are realized through discursive features. The discursive features for my

discourse analysis include intertextuality, schematic categories of text, surface structures,

syntactic structures, lexicon, modality, coherence, and semantic meanings, and so forth,

as they emerged in relation to the ideological significance of text and talk. Inspired by

Bakhtin (1981) who proposes dialogic relations between texts, Bauman (2004) defines

the concept of intertextuality as “the relational orientation of a text to other texts” (p. 4).

For the present study, in analyzing the intertextual links between text and talk, I shall

examine how assumptions and presuppositions were embedded as regards the enactment

of ideologies through the intertextuality and how ITAs were textured in the text and talk.

Along with the aforementioned textual features, I shall also examine the interactional

features of speech events with a focus on “contextualization cues” (Gumperz, 1992).

Contextualization cues in levels of speech production include prosody (e.g. intonation,

stress or accenting and pitch register shifts), paralinguistic signs (e.g., tempo, pausing,

hesitation), conversational synchrony (e.g. latching or overlapping of speaking turns), and

other ‘tone of voice’ expressive cues: code choice (e.g. code or style switching or

selection among phonetic, phonological or morphosyntactic options); choice of lexical

forms or formulaic expressions (e.g. opening or closing routines or metaphoric

expression) (Gumperz, 1992, p. 231). For the present study, I consider contextualization

73
cues for situated interpretation of discourse since the interactional features function

relationally in communication (Duranti & Goodwin, 1992).

The findings are presented in the following three sections: (1) discursive

construction of Other through a language policy and implementation; (2) disempowering

ideologies of Othering and critical language awareness for identity negotiation; and (3)

the clash of ideologies in an ESL classroom: An ESL space for a regime of language or

as a contact zone.

Discursive Construction of Other through a Language Policy and Implementation

In this section, I examine the ways in which the language policy enacted by a state

law was entextualized in practice at the institutional level of a state-supported university.

The discourse texts for the analysis were comprised of the following: (1) talks from class

interaction events in the spoken English class; (2) a news article from a class discussion,

“Let’s Talk It Over: Foreign TA’s, U.S. students fight culture shock” (bold in original);

(3) the state bill that was enacted in 1986 to ensure the oral English proficiency of TAs in

state-supported colleges and universities; and (4) the institutional level documents

concerning the Spoken English Program (SEP) establishment and implementation at the

Midwestern university. I shall ground the analysis of the discursive features of the texts

in Fairclough’s (1992; 1995; 2003) analytical framework of discourse. In so doing, I shall

illuminate the discursive construction and reproduction of ideologies on the social,

institutional, and local levels through the process of entextualization (Bauman, 2004),

which explains how discourse is re-used in meaning making across contexts. According

to Bauman (2004), the entextualization involves two different processes:

74
decontextualization and recontextualization. The former explains the process of how

discourse material is taken out of the original context and the latter is about the process of

how the discourse is incorporated into a new context. My focus of the analysis will be

upon the intertextuality between the texts produced during the past three decades as it

pertains to the underlying assumptions and presuppositions, which in turn have

ideological relevance to ITAs’ identities.

My analysis emerged out of a cruces point (Fairclough, 1992) I observed during

class activities in the spoken English class. Fairclough’s conceptualization of cruces helps

the analyst to see evidence in the discourse where things are going wrong: repairing a

misunderstanding “through asking for or offering repetitions, or through one participant

correcting another; exceptional disfluencies (hesitations, repetitions) in the production of

a text; silences, sudden shifts of style” (p. 230). I shall begin with a brief description of

the crux moment captured in the class in order to contextualize the ensuing analysis.

On January 21, 2016, Mr. Rooney’s spoken English class began with a discussion

on international TA issues raised in an old news article, “Let’s Talk It Over: Foreign

TA’s, U.S. students fight culture shock” published in Campus Weekly almost three

decades ago in 1985. In brief, the news article reported that there were complaints of

American undergraduates about foreign TAs in terms of the TAs’ English proficiency

and cultural differences. According to the article, some also argued on behalf of the

foreign TAs that those TAs were often victims of prejudice and scapegoating. As a result

of this conflict, some colleges and universities came up with screening measures and

75
training programs to ensure foreign TAs’ English proficiency, which led to in some states

the legislation of the requirement of faculty’s fluency in spoken English.

Excerpt 1 below was taken from Mr. Rooney’s class discussion on the news

article. Mr. Rooney asked his students (ITAs) to read the news article in advance for the

class discussion, with a focus on three things: the complaints of U.S. students about

ITAs; the international TA problems; and the solutions that colleges and universities

came up with. At the beginning of the class discussion activity, Mr. Rooney reminded his

students of these three things by writing the issues on the front blackboard in the

classroom.

Excerpt 1 Teacher’s Opening Remark for a Discussion on ITAs Issues

Line Speaker
Mr. What I'd like to do next is to talk about the reading that you did for
1
Rooney today, 'Let's Talk It Over'.
2 I asked you to look at three things.
3 ((writing on the front board)) the students complained, US students,
4 the international TA problems,
which were the sort of things that the international graduate students
5
have to deal with
6 arriving here and being thrown into teaching situation.
And some of the solutions that the different colleges and universities
7
came up with.
8 Remember I said this article is about 30 years old.
so, it's, get a little bit about a historical (re)view of when programs,
9
like this, were set up.
10 But (.) umm (.) it is not, it's still relevant in many ways today
because international students have the same source of problems,
11
getting situated in a new life once they get to the United States.

Continued

76
Excerpt 1 Continued

and some of the solutions that the different colleges and universities
12
came up with.
13 And American students are likely to grumble when things aren’t
easy,
when they have to have a little more attention to understand someone
14
((giggling))
15 So, things haven't entirely changed.

(January 21, 2016, in Mr. Rooney’s classroom. Full transcription in Appendix B-1)

While acknowledging that the article was three decades old, Mr. Rooney

emphasized the persistence of the same issues and their relevance to the current

international TAs. With an emphatic adverb ‘still’ in line 10 (it’s still relevant in many

ways today), he asserted that ‘international students have the same source of problems’

and ‘things haven’t entirely changed’. In structuring the class discussion, Mr. Rooney

took the same schematic frame of ‘problem and solution’ as the media text did. What was

intriguing in his speech was the way in which international TAs were referred to. In the

final part of the speech in line 14, international TAs were represented as ‘someone’ that

American students ‘have to have a little more attention to understand’. This utterance was

conveyed along with Mr. Rooney’s giggling at its end. Referring to Other as unspecified

groups of ‘people’ or ‘someone’ can be interpreted as a typical euphemistical use of lexis

to mitigate a sense of power (Blackledge, 2005). Although it was not an explicit finger-

pointing by name, ‘someone’ was implicitly pointed out as the culprit who was

responsible for the intelligibility and the ensuing complaints of the American students.

77
By implication, the intelligibility issue was assumed as ‘the same source of the problems’

and the blame was put upon the international TAs from non-English speaking countries.

After setting up the class with this opening remark on the issues, Mr. Rooney then

asked the students to get engaged in a small group discussion first and then later in a

whole-class discussion to share what had been talked about in the small groups. Excerpt 2

was taken from the interaction of the whole-class discussion. This part of the class

interaction showed cruces at which particular events were seen, interpreted or evaluated

differently or possibly in opposed ways among the participants (Van Dijk, 1995). The

moment was taken as an entry point of my analysis to see further if there would be

ideological significance in relation to the ITAs’ identities.

Excerpt 2 Whole- Class Discussion on ITAs with an Old New Article

Line Speaker
1 Mr. Rooney Why don't we come back together?
2 So I would ask you this question.
3 what were your reactions to the reading, this article?
What were you thinking about?
4 Fang Still true.
5 Mr. Rooney Yeah. Ok. So, still true. Yeah.
6 Some of the things are certainly still true.
7 Other things?
8 Seok Some of them are old.
9 Mr. Rooney ((leaning toward Seok and placing his right index finger
behind his right ear)) what's that?
10 Seok Some of them are old.
11 Mr. Rooney Ok. Say, what did you notice if they are old.

Continued

78
Excerpt 2 Continued

12 Seok Like cultural problem ­

((placing his right index finger behind his right ear)) what's
13 Mr. Rooney
that?
14 Seok Like cultural conflict.
15 I don't think cultural conflicts between students…
= Okay, that's an, that's an interesting, that's an interesting
16 Mr. Rooney
comment.
17 (0.2) umm, what do you think that is?
Even (though), culture is different from country to country,
18 Seok
but, it's getting similar.
= OK. So, there may be certain ways that cultures are
19 Mr. Rooney
approaching each other.
20 or maybe just that student come here… hmm (.)
21 Seok (? ?) American culture …(? ?) in those cases.
22 Mr. Rooney Yeah, that could be.
23 (.) How about from the American perspective?
How, so, we would say, maybe, you guys have a little more
24 sense of American culture now than, maybe, students back
then
25 because of things like the Internet, you know.
26 I mean there are always movies, like that.
27 but, you know, maybe certain things are more available.
28 How about from the American perspective?
Why do you think there's less conflict in terms of the
29
students?
30 Seok There are more international students ­
31 Mr. Rooney There are more interesting students?
32 Seok No, no, interna-, INTERNATIONAL students.
33 Mr. Rooney Are there more international students? Oh! Okay.
34 So, you're saying, because, so, you're saying… (? ?)
35 Seok They're already exposed to the, foreign… ((tailing off))
36 Mr. Rooney Yeah, that' very important… (? ?) Is that, of course.
When it comes to students, they will have different
37 experiences and different contact, umm, with people from
other countries.

Continued

79
Excerpt 2 Continued

But, it's, you know, it's certainly true that there are a lot more
38
Chinese undergraduates these days.
Probably many of these undergraduates are, are meeting
39 Chinese students and other international students in their own
classes, getting to know them.
40 30 years is a big change.
People, I think you're right, have been exposed to people who
41
were not born here. And more people, certainly.
42 Other ideas, comments, thoughts? Somebody?
43 Did you think American students' complaints were fair?

(January 21, 2016, in Mr. Rooney’s class. Full transcription in Appendix B-1)

Fang’s answer in line 3 (still true) echoed intertextually Mr. Rooney’s words used

in his opening remark in Excerpt 1 (it’s still relevant in many ways today), which actually

functioned to frame the way in which the ensuing class discussion would unfold. The

truth claim of Fang’s short rejoinder was strongly affirmed by Mr. Rooney in line 4-5,

‘Ok. So, still true. Yeah, some of the things are certainly still true’. Mr. Rooney’s

response to Fang was doubly modalized by the adverbs ‘certainly’ and ‘still’ showing a

high degree of the truth claim of the proposition. This affirmation may point to the

underlying ideological assumption that had been shared between the interlocutors.

However, the shared assumption was disturbed and challenged by Seok in line 7.

Seok pointed out that the news article was old and thus some of the issues raised in the

media report were out of date. Thereby, Seok challenged the truth claim made by the old

news article as well as both Mr. Rooney and Fang. Mr. Rooney’s reaction to Seok’s

challenging answer was striking in terms of not only his verbal response but also his non-

80
verbal gesture accompanying his utterance. His initial reaction to Seok was a request for

clarification (what’s that? in line 8). Along with this utterance, Mr. Rooney put his index

finger behind his right ear and leaned his upper body toward Seok, signaling that he could

not hear Seok quite clearly. This unique gesture was habitual whenever Mr. Rooney

would ask for clarification from the students. The same gesture was frequently observed

throughout the whole interactions during the semester. I shall analyze and discuss this

point further later in other section with respect to the power relations between the non-

native speaking subject and the native listening subject (Flores & Rosa, 2015) and

microaggression practices against Other.

There was an apparent disfluency observed in Mr. Rooney’s response to Seok

who pointed out cultural problems and conflicts in line 11 and 13. Mr. Rooney’s

subsequent utterances were prominently replete with fillers (hmm, umm, you know),

hedges (maybe), false starts (How, so, we would say), repetitions (So, you're saying,

because, so, you're saying..), and longer pauses. In line 15, Mr. Rooney interrupted Seok

to evaluate Seok’s point about cultural problems as ‘interesting’ (Okay, that's an, that's

an interesting, that's an interesting comment.). Mr. Rooney’s response to Seok was in

contrast to his strong affirmation of Fang’s initial point (Still true). Unlike he did affirm

Fang’s answer, Mr. Rooney asked Seok back to elaborate further his point in line 16

(umm, what do you think that is?). And by hedging his utterance with low level of

modality of ‘may’, Mr. Rooney showed less certainty about Seok’s argument in line 17

for the tendency of cultures getting similar (Even (though), culture is different from

country to country, but, it's getting similar.). Seok’s assertion on the similarity across

81
cultures appeared to be based on the familiarity with American culture to people from

other countries because of U.S. cultural and political supremacy around the world

primarily due to globalization (Blommaert, 2010). While acknowledging the possibility

of the cultural convergence across cultures due to the increased access to technology and

media (line 21-28), Mr. Rooney urged twice the ITAs to see the issues from the

American perspective (How about from the American perspective? in line 21 and 27).

The interaction above was a clear moment of cruces (Fairclough, 1992) which

was worth studying further. As pointed out by Mr. Rooney, the old news article enabled

me to get a glimpse of the social and historical context of how discourses of diversity at

issue on American campus have been constructed. From this local interactional discursive

instance, therefore, I traced back to the institutional discourse practices and the larger

social discourse practices (re)produced, circulated, and consumed as regards TAs who are

marked as ‘foreign’ or ‘international’. Along with the interactional instance observed as

the cruces, I collected and analyzed the texts taken from social and institutional

discourses concerning the issues.

Public and Social Discourse on ITAs in a Media Text

What follows is my discourse analysis on the media text, “Let’s Talk It Over:

Foreign TA’s, U.S. students fight culture shock.” discussed in Mr. Rooney’s class.

Excerpt 3 came from the article (the original copy in Appendix A). The strategic and

rhetorical move in the media text demonstrates how discourses in polemic and conflict

were discursively constructed and led to policy decisions and eventually to the enactment

of a law. I attend to the intertextual links between texts to identify the workings of

82
ideologies at play on the social, institutional and local levels through discursive practices.

In doing so, I aim to illustrate how discourse is constructed, circulated, consumed, and

reproduced both at the micro and macro level of discourse.

Excerpt 3 News Article: ‘Let’s Talk It Over.’

Let’s Talk It Over. Foreign TA’s, U.S. students fight culture shock.

(…) But for many foreign teaching assistants- and their American
students- the meeting of the minds is more traumatic. Undergraduates often
complain that their foreign-born TA’s give incomprehensible lectures and unfair
grades. The TA’s- who are usually harried graduate students- say that they are
often victims of prejudice and scapegoating. And now the university authorities
who hire the TA’s find themselves pressured by students, parents and even state
legislators to upgrade linguistic standards and improve training. (…)
No matter how expert foreign TA’s may be in their subjects, American
students often feel shortchanged when they have to work at understanding both
the course and the teachers’ accent. Given the cost of education- and the career
stakes- they may believe they aren’t getting their money’s worth. Some TA’s
speak in broken English: some barely speak at all. Berkeley sophomore Aviva
Jacoby recalls a calculus TA from Hong Kong who would write his lessons on
the blackboard; when asked questions, “he’d just point at the blackboard over
and over again, then walk away. (…)
Some complaints can be traced to culture clash. American students,
raised on the Socratic model, expect to be able to question the teacher and to
disagree. In many other countries, the professor is absolute master of his
classroom, accustomed to discoursing without interruption or challenge. Thus
University of Wisconsin engineering senior Linda Daehn was outraged when a
Cuban teaching assistant refused to answer questions in calculus class. “He’s so
cocky,” she complains. “He thinks he’s Math God.” (…)
(…) foreign TA’s have become an all-purpose excuse: “It’s a good way to
explain to Mom and Dad why you’re not doing well in class.” Occasionally the
alleged offender is not even foreign. Eric Kristensen, an associate director of
Harvard’s Danforth Center for Teaching and Learning, says students griped about
the accent of an Asian teacher “born and raised in San Francisco, who does not

Continued

83
Excerpt 3 Continued

speak a word of Chinese and whose only accent is Californian.” And some complaints
are just wrong-headed; a few USC students groused that a Greek TA wrote letters
from his native alphabet on the board in an economics course, where Greek symbols
are common. (…)
Responding to pressure, legislatures in Florida and Minnesota have required
that faculty in public institutions must show fluency in spoken English to be able to
teach, and other states are considering similar legislation. (…)

I shall begin with the analysis of how the news headline was syntactically and

semantically managed in representing differently the outgroups and the in-groups. With

the salient position, the headline functions to set up a specific schematic category of the

text as ‘problem and solution’, thereby highlighting ideologically based opinions

(Schäffner & Porsch, 1993). Even though not explicitly expressed, the subtle ideological

conflicts came to be transpired by the surface structural features of the headline text (Van

Dijk, 1995). The news article headline comprises two parts: the main headline (Let’s

Talk It Over) and the sub-headline (Foreign TA’s, U.S. students fight culture shock).

The former was markedly printed in bold-faced and larger type. This surface feature may

imply the strong intention or necessity of resolving the alleged conflicts. The implied

conflicts were immediately signaled in the latter (i.e. the cultural conflicts between

foreign TAs and U.S. students). As such, the headline did schematically crucial functions

to highlight cultural differences as the attribute of the conflicts while backgrounding the

potentially relevant issues such as prejudice and stereotypes as the subordinate topics of

the local narratives that actually may convey the underlying ideologies in the text.

84
 Syntactically, in terms of the word order, ‘Foreign TAs’, the outgroup members,

was placed at an initial position of the sentence and prominently highlighted. This

topicalization implies that those outgroup members would be the responsible agency for

the culture shock fought by the ‘U.S.’ students, the in-group members. In doing so, the

prominence had been given to the possible negative images of the outgroup members.

The semantic meanings and the way of the representation of each voice in the text

also merit further analysis and discussion. With the word ‘fight’, there was a

confrontational divide set up between ‘U.S.’ students’ and ‘foreign’ TAs, by extension,

between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ And these two conflicting groups were presumed to have deep

cultural distance. The semantic meanings emanated from the headline are that there is a

conflict of interest between ‘us’ and ‘them’, and that at the heart of the conflict is cultural

differences placed. As such, the conflict was attributed to cultural differences between the

in-group and the outgroup that engendered culture shock. Besides, ‘culture shock’ is a

widely used term in discourse of Other as a euphemism to describe people’s emotional

reactions to intercultural environment (Oberg, 1960; Shaules, 2007). The term is evoking

threatening and intimidating images of Other that may cause the anxiety and discomfort

people experience under intercultural circumstances. Therefore, this euphemistic term

presupposes an ideological orientation toward ethnolinguistic differences. What is more,

the discursive strategy of foregrounding cultural differences can be seen as a form of new

racism that describes Other in cultural terms instead of explicit racial terms (May, 2001;

Schmidt, 2002). As such, through the discussion on cultural differences between

85
American culture and those of the ITAs’ origin, the ITAs’ racial identities are

discursively constructed.

Interestingly, on the face of it, the rhetorical framing of the media text is

structured to bring into dialogue and reconcile the different or possibly conflicting voices,

as is evident in the sub-headline that sets up a contrast between different cultures. In fact,

the divergent voices of the constituents including American students, universities

administrators, and states were represented in the text. However, these voices were

textured in a way of not being in dialogue as opposed to its headline purporting to invite

the voices to the possible dialogue (Let’s Talk It Over). On the contrary, the press report

gathered in the text those divergent voices in a way in which they were textured separate.

What was significantly absent and otherwise marginalized in the text was the voice of the

‘foreign’ TAs, much of which was represented in the indirect reports or testimonial

accounts of the negative or positive experiences that American students and faculty had

with their foreign TAs. As a result, the overall structure of the text was developed in a

way to be less favorable to the foreign TAs or more conducive to the negative

representation of the TAs.

It is also of considerable interest to look into the argumentative strategies used in

the media text. The overall schematic structure of the text was developing the

argumentation in ways to legitimate and justify social inequality. The text deploys

various topoi such as topos of danger or threat and of culture (culture shock), topos of

burdening (complaints, problems), topos of law/right (legislation), among many others

(Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). In particular, a salient argumentative strategy that legitimizes

86
the English language program and ITAs’ positions in the ESL context is “the topos of

burdening and weighting down” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 278) pointing out the harm

done to undergraduate students and universities by ITAs. In so doing, the whole

argumentation is based upon an antagonist- protagonist structure. This structure

eventually accentuates differences, conflicts and struggles between foreign TAs and their

American students.

The pattern of the article is an alternation of authorial accounts and attributed

voices. The attributed voices are backed up with direct quotations or reported speeches.

For instance, the first part of the article schematically and stylistically begins with two

opposite anecdotal narratives showing both positive and negative sides of having foreign

TAs. These anecdotes are used as the local narratives to substantiate the culture shock the

U.S. students experienced. The narratives in the texts are signaling the underlying

ideologies and contributing to the building of the argumentation in favor of the in-groups.

The development of the argumentation consequently leads to the consensus of ‘foreign’

TAs being a problem that should be resolved through a policy decision. As a result, the

discursive construction has been made in a way to link ITAs’ English language

proficiency to undergraduates’ complaints about ITAs’ teaching quality.

As noted earlier, cultural difference was pointed out as the primary reason for the

complaints and conflicts. The rhetorical features of the text signal the ideological

orientation toward cultural difference. The metaphors used in describing the foreign TAs

and their cultures are in stark contrast to the description of the in-group actors and their

culture. For instance, in describing the cultural differences in the relationships between

87
teacher and students, the American academic culture is represented as based on the

egalitarian ideology invoking ‘the Socratic model’. In contrast, the academic cultures of

the foreign TAs are portrayed as authoritarian with the hyperbolic metaphors cynically

depicting them as an ‘absolute master of his classroom’, ‘cocky’, and ‘Math God’. Such

rhetoric of presenting Other as negative while self-presenting as positive or desirable is a

typical ethnocentric strategy in dealing with social or cultural differences (Van Dijk,

1993; 1995). The rhetorical frame of positive self-presentation and negative other-

presentation is a self-serving bias based upon ethnocentric orientations toward Other to

legitimate and justify social inequality. It has been well documented that this kind of the

dualism of cultural dimensions (e.g. Hofstede, 1980; 1983) is prevalent in any

intercultural class and ESL classrooms in dealing with culture. The dichotomy of ‘us’ and

‘them’ reinforces stereotypes of Other while maintaining assimilationist and ethnocentric

orientations toward cultural and linguistic diversity. This point will be substantiated

further later in my analysis of the class observation on how ITAs and their cultures were

represented in the instructional practices.

The metaphorical representation of ITAs in discourse also demonstrates how

ITAs are perceived. These metaphors include ‘problems’, ‘liabilities’, ‘burden’, or

‘resources’. Mostly, they are deficiency metaphors or instrumental metaphors. These

metaphorical association construct the negative representation of Other as a problem on

campus. A reversed victim strategy, as is the case for the discourse of immigrants, was

also noted in the argumentation of the text as shown in the below passage:

88
 No matter how expert foreign TA’s may be in their subjects, American
students often feel shortchanged when they have to work at understanding both
the course and the teachers’ accent. Given the cost of education- and the career
stakes- they may believe they aren’t getting their money’s worth. Some TA’s
speak in broken English: some barely speak at all. Berkeley sophomore Aviva
Jacoby recalls a calculus TA from Hong Kong who would write his lessons on the
blackboard; when asked questions, “he’d just point at the blackboard over and
over again, then walk away. (Extract from ‘Let’s Talk It Over’)

According to the news article, TAs claimed that they were the victim of prejudice and

scapegoating. Some also argued that foreign TAs had become an all-purpose excuse. In

the passage above, it acknowledges the possibility that the complaints made against

foreign TAs were perceived stereotypes against foreigners with perceived accent, which

echoes much of the research on the issues of perceived accent (e.g. Lippi-Green, 1997;

Flores & Rose, 2015) and the matched-guise test (Rubin & Smith, 1990).

However, as is evident in the passage above, the neo-liberal economic and

political discourse is overriding in justifying the demand of the reform and policy making.

The authorial voice makes a case that given the cost of education, students ‘may believe

they aren’t getting their money’s worth’. This argument is strategically bracketed and

hedged with a modality (‘may’), which mitigates the degree of its commitment to the

truth claim of the proposition. Such capitalist discourse is obvious evidence of neoliberal

movement that has been colonizing the academic domains in higher education since the

1980s across the world (Fairclough, 1995; Heller, 2010). The neoliberal ideology draws

upon pragmatic and capitalist discourse in terms of stakeholders including students,

89
parents, policy makers, trustees, and universities. In this discourse, students would be

viewed as consumers of educational service and universities as the institutions offering

the service. Similarly, within this neoliberal capitalist frame of discourse, foreign TAs

may be viewed as employees who should provide a commodity of education not in

‘broken English’ and their English proficiency would be evaluated against a market

value, whether their English is worthy of the ‘students’ money’.

The last part of the article describes the attempts made at institutional levels to

resolve or overcome the differences and conflicts entailed by the presence of foreign TAs.

Eventually, the ‘pressures’ from the discourse that was produced on campus resulted in

the enactment of the discourse as legislation in some states. ‘Responding to pressures’

makes the enactment of the law appear to be inevitable. Returning to the headline ‘Let’s

Talk It Over’, which signals the necessity of the resolution of the fight and conflict

between foreign TAs and U.S. students, the texturing of various voices in the texts

contributes to articulating and highlighting the negative representation of foreign TAs

and consequently functions to legitimize and justify the legislation of the language policy

with respect to ITAs.

The Enactment of the Language Policy: The State Bill

As the news article ‘Let’s Talk It Over’ reported, the legislation of the spoken

English requirement has been enacted in effect in some states, as was the case for the

state where the Midwestern university locates. Excerpt 4 was taken from the state bill

enacted in 1986. This bill can be interpreted as the result of the process of “moving ‘from

conflicts to consensus’” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 43), which was demonstrated in the news

90
article ‘Let’s Talk It Over’. The state law requires state-supported colleges and

universities to ensure the oral English proficiency of their TAs who provide classroom

instruction to students. In what follows, I shall present the analysis and findings of how

the public discourse discussed in the news article was enacted as a state law in its

ideological relations to ITAs.

Excerpt 4 The State Bill on TAs’ Oral English Proficiency

House Bill No. 497

A Bill
To enact section 3345.281 of the Revised Code to require state-supported
colleges and universities to ensure that instruction to students is provided only by
teaching assistants who have demonstrated oral proficiency in the use of the
English language.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE
OF XX:
Section 1. That section 3345.281 of the Revised Code be enacted to read
as follows:
Sec. 3345.281. Teaching assistants to be orally proficient in English
As used in this section, “teaching assistant” means a student enrolled full-
time or part-time in a graduate degree program at an educational institution for
which the students have received an appointment to provide classroom-related
services.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EACH STATE UNIVERSITY,
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, TECHNICAL COLEGE, STATE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE, COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OR MANAGING AUTHORITY OF EACH UNIVERSITY BRANCH SHALL
ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO ASSESS THE ORAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE
PROFICIENCY OF ALL TEACHING ASSISTANTS PROVIDING
CLASSROOM INSTRUCITON TO STUDENTS AND SHALL ENSURE

Continued

91
Excerpt 4 Continued

THAT TEACHING ASSISTANTS WHO ARE NOT ORALLY PROFICIENT IN

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ATTAIN SUCH PROFICIENCY PRIOR TO
PROVIDING CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION TO STUDENTS.
Section 2. The program required by section 3345. 281 of the Revised Code,
as enacted by this act, shall be fully implemented, so as to ensure the oral English
language proficiency of all teaching assistants providing classroom instruction, by
the beginning of the 1986-87 academic year.
7/24/86

On the surface, the document comprises of two sections. In section 1, the text

states the purpose of the law (i.e. to ensure TAs to be orally proficient in the English

language), the institutions which would be subject to this bill (i.e. state-supported

colleges and universities), and the action that the institutions should take in order to

implement the language policy enacted by the law (i.e., to establish a program to assess

the oral proficiency of TA prior to the provision of their classroom instruction to

students). Placed in the middle of the document, the main body of the text was printed in

upper case and thus graphically realized with a special emphasis given and marked. With

such discursive features, the legal text expresses a high degree of authority and power in

its relation to the stakeholders and constituents involved (D’acquisto & D’avanzo, 2009;

Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). The document ends with section 2, which is comprised of one

sentence with a great syntactic complexity, in an impersonal and agentless passive voice.

Of interest is that the bill makes the definition of teaching assistants as used in the

section. The definition is distinct in that it does not associate TAs with his or her social

categories, such as race, gender, class, ethnicity or nationality. Thereby, it literally

92
includes ‘all TAs’ in general, irrespective of the TAs’ nationality or whether or not they

are native speakers of English. The TAs who would be subject to the oral proficiency

assessment are emphatically modified by the all-embracing quantitative adjective, ‘all’.

The word ‘all’ is seen as congruent with the definition of TAs in its inclusive semantics

that does not specify or restrict the TAs based upon any social categories.

Meanwhile, there could be another possible interpretation about the inclusive

category of all TAs. The inclusive rhetoric could be a highly sophisticated strategy out of

the authorial awareness of political correctness. In other words, it can be interpreted as a

political and ideological strategy that cautions against any exclusionary interpretations for

potential discrimination based upon social categories. If so, this can be regarded as a

strategic avoidance of explicitness which could be associated with any possible

discrimination based upon different social categories. With the embracing and inclusive

definition, therefore, the law would be able to preempt any possible political contentions

or accusations that could be made with respect to being politically incorrect.

In addition, there is still some ambiguity left in the text particularly in terms of

what it means by ‘the oral proficiency in English’. The law does not specify what ‘the

oral proficiency in English’ means as used in the text. The ambiguity about the oral

proficiency in English may allow for a range of situations and contexts in which higher

educational institutions may differently interpret and implement the language policy in

terms of the oral English proficiency of TAs. Another thing to note here is that this

language policy privileges the oral competence over the written language competence.

This would be of considerable significance in examining how the ideology of the oral

93
competence has evolved across ensuing discourses at various levels of practices. I shall

substantiate this point again later in analyzing the institutional interpretation and

implementation of the law particularly in the spoken English program context.

Further, the text of the state law, which actually enacts the language policy, is not a

dialogical text at all. Since the genre of the text is a legal document, the language in the

text features strong authority (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). The legal authority would

exclude dialogicality or be the least dialogical with differences (Bakhtin, 1981;

Fairclough, 2003). The authoritative nature of the legal documents is substantiated by the

linguistic features used in this text, in particular, the use of modality. Modality can be

seen in terms of the speaker’s or writer’s commitment to the truth or necessity of the

proposition made in texts (Fairclough, 2003). Modality is also relevant to the speakers’

judgement of the probabilities, or the obligations with respect to what they are saying

(Halliday, 1994). In effect, the modality used in the state bill illustrates how the language

policy enacted by the law could have bearings with its interpretation and implementation

at institutional levels. For instance, along with the verb ‘require’ that indicates a high

degree of obligation of the law, the sentences in the main body of the legal text were

modalized with the deontic modal verb ‘shall’. ‘Shall’ is a modal verb that often

expresses commitment and futurity (Austin, 1962; Halliday, 1994; Quirk, Greenbaum,

Leech, & Svartvik, 1972/1995), but it is also considered to express obligation, in

particular, when used in legal statements. In legal texts, ‘shall’ is often used in an

indicative that a command or rule is performed and thus it may have a directive and

deontic meaning (D’acquisto & D’avanzo, 2009). On that account, ‘shall’ in the state bill

94
above is considered as expressing strong obligation and commitment to the proposition of

the act. Thereby, the state bill implies that the language policy is less or the least open to

various levels of commitment or discretion on the part of an educational institution.

Therefore, the colleges and universities supported by the state are required to comply

with the obligation of ‘assessing’ and ‘ensuring’ their TAs’ oral English proficiency.

Further, the second ‘shall’ in the text can be considered to convey the prohibition that

TAs who are not orally proficient in the English language could not be allowed to

provide classroom instruction to students. That is, as an auxiliary verb to main verbs, a

modal verb ‘shall’ conveys an overtone (Erhman, 1966) of prohibitive meaning. In

consequence, not only is the program establishment mandatory, but also the text conveys

the implicit sanction that imposes the colleges and universities not to allow TAs to

provide classroom instruction to students unless their oral English proficiency, whatever

it means by that, was ensured.

As stipulated at the end of the bill itself, the state law was enacted in 1986, almost

three decades ago, and has been implemented since then. Back then in the 1980s,

neoliberalism had been on the rise and neoliberal discourse engendered and threatened

the majority of the mainstream (Fairclough, 1995). Discourse of Other, e.g., immigrants

and foreigners as a threat, was produced and circulated in public as well as on campus.

The dominant public discourse has been incorporated into various levels of social

practice by the intertextual links among the bill, the article written and used in the spoken

English class (i.e. Let’s Talk It Over) and the establishment of the spoken English

program, to which I will turn in the following.

95
 The Implementation of the Language Policy in a Spoken English Program

Excerpt 5 below was taken from a document that gives the general information

about the Spoken English Program (SEP) posted on its website at the Midwestern

university. This text is a different genre from the legal statement, as was analyzed above,

but it exhibits its intertextual links to the legal text. The intertextual relations between the

texts instantiated how the discourse could be (re)produced or transformed in the process

of the recontextualization (Bauman, 2004; Wodak, 2000) through which it figured within

the particular ESL context. That is, the SEP text was a concrete instance of how the

discourse in the legal text was recontextualized at the institutional level through the

process of the language policy implementation.

In analyzing the subsequent texts, I shall focus on their intertextual relations to

other texts which pertain to underlying assumptions and presuppositions. I shall analyze

how implicitness has been rendered explicit through the property of intertextuality across

texts. In doing so, I aim to illuminate the shared assumptions that bear considerable social

significance. In analyzing textual features with respect to intertextuality, Fairclough

(2003) posits that the focuses will be upon “how texts draw upon, incorporate,

recontextualize and dialogue with other texts. It is also partly a matter of the assumptions

and presuppositions people make when they speak or write”. (p. 17). According to

Fairclough (2003), intertextuality is grounded in assumptions that have ideological

significance in sustaining power relations. “What made explicit is always grounded in

what is left implicit. In a sense, making assumptions is one way of being intertextual”

(ibid., p. 17). Therefore, it is important to examine what intertextual relations texts have,

96
with respect to the underlying assumptions and presuppositions as they are in relation to

the ideological work of discourse across contexts. The assumptions are taken as given

and thus associated with ideologies underlying such discourses.

Excerpt 5 General Information about the Spoken English Program

The Spoken English Program (SEP) was established in 1986 to

implement a Council of Deans mandate requiring the screening and training
of international teaching assistants (ITAs) whose first language is not English.
A subsequent state law, in effect as of September 1986, mandates such
screening for prospective international teaching assistants at all state of XX
institutions.
The goal of the Spoken English Program (SEP) is to ensure that
international teaching assistants have the language proficiency necessary to
teach effectively in a U.S. setting. Prospective teaching assistants at the
Midwestern University demonstrate these skills by participating in a process
coordinated by SEP. We provide communication courses for students who
require this training and administer an assessment at the end of coursework.
Successful students receive Certification to teach at XX State.

We offer a two-semester course sequence designed to help non-native

English speaking graduate students develop and refine their English language
skills.

(Retrieved from the SEP website on January 30, 2016)

What is salient first is that this text employs the argumentative strategy of the

topos of authority (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). This statement invokes a mandate and a

state law to justify and legitimate the implementation of the program and language testing

to certify ITAs at the university. It clearly specifies that in conformity with the mandate

and the state law, the SEP program was established to screen ITAs’ oral English

proficiency. This argumentation strategy of law and authority leaves no room for

97
controversy or negotiation because the law and legislation may be seen as the least

negotiable and the most authoritative domains for contestation (Blackledge, 2005).

Between these texts were the intertextual references made through the top-down

flow of authority. The SEP statements sets the Council of Dean mandate and the state law

as a backdrop against the initial establishment of such kinds of programs. By invoking

the mandate and the state law, this text indicates that it has intertextual relations with

those legal texts. Again, intertextuality refers to the presence of ‘others’ words’ within a

text (Bakhtin, 1981; Bauman, 2004). The first part of this passage is in a form of reported

speech summarizing what was said or written in the mandate and the state law. In doing

so, the passage attributes what will be stated subsequently to what has already been

written and discussed in both these legal statements (Fairclough, 2003). In effect, the SEP

text states that the establishment of the spoken English program was required by the

Council of Dean mandate and the state law, and that the mandate required the screening

and training of international teaching assistants (ITAs) whose first language is not

English, and the state law mandated such a screening. As mentioned earlier, the verb

‘require’ indicates a high degrees of obligation of the law (Halliday, 1994; Fairclough,

2003). Therefore, the passage reproduces or rewords what was said or written in the

mandate and the state law.

As the intertextuality explicitly shows the assumptions and presuppositions that

are left implicit (Fairclough, 2003), it is important to examine how these texts incorporate

and dialogue with one another. In effect, the SEP text makes explicit what was left vague,

implicit, and/ or ambiguous in the text of the state law. These assumptions and

98
presuppositions have been made explicit in the ways in which some terms and words in

the state bill were interpreted and restated in the SEP document. The state bill stipulates

that the language policy would apply to ‘all TAs’ without specifying or predicating race,

gender, nationality or ethnicity of the TAs. However, the SEP text reduces down the

inclusive definition of TAs in the legal text and specifies it as ‘prospective international

teaching assistants’, which is restrictively modified by the adjective ‘international’

implying both ‘nationality’ and ‘foreignness’. As a result, the underlying assumption of

‘all TAs’ in the state bill has become overtly stated in the SEP document as ‘international’

TAs ‘whose first language is not English’. Cultural and linguistic differences, which were

left unarticulated as assumptions and presuppositions in the state bill, have been clearly

articulated and marked off in the SEP text. The assumptions and presuppositions may be

the mutually shared knowledge even though the bill does not explicitly state about the

linguistic deficit of foreign or international TAs. In doing so, The SEP not only constructs

and affords certain types of identities of students they serve, but it also creates and crafts

its own identity by being operated according to certain ideologies.

Playing a role of ideological state apparatus (Althusser, 1971) is one of the most

conventional social functions of educational institutions. The same is true for the SEP and

the university. Its ideological role for the larger social order is evident how the SEP

represents itself in the text in its social relation to the world and others. Returning to the

first two sentences in the text that attribute the establishment of the SEP to the mandate

and the state law, it becomes obvious that the SEP represents itself as an ideological

institution that implements the ideologies promulgated by the state language policy. This

99
attribution to the authority of law implies that it is highly improbable to negotiate or there

is no or little room for negotiability for those who are subject to the screening measure.

The SEP also defines itself as a coordinator (‘coordinated by SEP’) that ‘screens’ and

‘trains’ ‘international TAs whose first language is not English’ and certifies ‘successful

students’ to teach in the state. Thereby, the identities of the SEP have been constructed as

an ideological state apparatus as well as a gatekeeper which screens entry and restricts

access to opportunities. This points to the ways in which the SEP relates to the students

through the texturing of identities, in particular, with an embedded evaluative statement

(‘successful students receive certification to teach at the state’). The presupposition of

this statement can be that those who receive the certification are successful students and

otherwise they are a failure.

It is of interest to see how intertextuality has worked through the process of

entextualization. Some words have been transformed while maintaining intertextual links

across the texts. For instance, the words ‘assess’ and ‘ensure’ in the state bill text were

transformed into ‘screen’ and ‘train’ and the ‘oral English proficiency’ into ‘the language

proficiency’, ‘English skills’, and ‘communicative competence’. ‘all TAs’ in the legal

text was intertextually transformed into ‘international TAs whose first language is not

English’, in which TAs are doubly modified by the adjective ‘international’ denoting

‘foreignness’ and ‘otherness’ as well as by the restrictive relative clause indexing their

‘non-nativeness’. Consequently, the latter differentiates and accentuates the ethno-

linguistic differences of these students, setting up ideologically controlled relations. The

ideologically controlled relations between native speakers and non-native speakers, ‘us’

100
and ‘them’, were transpired in the text while they were presupposed and assumed in the

legal text of the state bill. By bringing to the fore the ethnolinguistic differences, the SEP

reveals its orientation to differences based upon the ideology of nationalism and native-

speaker superiority.

Earlier in the analysis of the state bill text, I pointed out the ambiguity about what

the oral English language proficiency means, arguing that the ambiguity would allow for

various interpretations and implementations of the language policy at the local

institutional level. The SEP is the case in point. The SEP states that its goal is to ensure

that ITAs have ‘the language proficiency necessary to teach effectively in a U.S. setting’.

It has an obvious intertextual link to ‘the oral English language proficiency’ in the state

bill. However, the SEP implies several underlying presuppositions with its own phrase. It

was termed ‘the language proficiency’ without specifying which language it meant. With

the definite article ‘the’, there was an anaphoric reference made. However, the reference

cannot be identified in the preceding sentences but should be understood on the basis of

the shared knowledge by speakers or writers (Quirk et al., 1972/1995). Obviously, ‘the

language’ was assumed to refer to the English language as in the state bill, which in turn

was presupposed as ‘THE’ received language in the SEP text.

What is more, the SEP specifies that the language proficiency is not only what is

necessary but also what should be effective in teaching, particularly, in a U.S. setting. It

specifies the context for the required proficiency as a U.S. setting in general, instead of

the academic context in particular in which this whole discourse was taking place. Thus,

the language proficiency is not the kind of registers in the academy in general.

101
Meanwhile, there is another feature that the text relates the institutional identity to the

neo-liberal economic discourse. The effectiveness is identified as valued and assumed

‘norm’ in the U.S. context. The effectiveness in teaching can be regarded as an

ideological assumption that has recourse to a neo-liberal economic and political discourse

“within which ‘efficiency’ and ‘adaptability’ is primary ‘goods’” (Fairclough, 2003, p.

173).

In addition, the genre of the SEP text bears resemblance to a commercial and

advertisement text that touts goods to consumers, particularly in its linguistic features

such as ‘we’, ‘provide’, ‘successful’, ‘offer’, and ‘help’, as in medication and beauty

product advertisement saying that their product or service helps symptoms, helps to cure

the disease, or improves the beauty. This point can be of considerable significance to the

institution’s identity in its relation to social order and students with respect to the

dominant neo-liberal economic and political discourses. Further, the final sentence

reveals one value assumption with respect to the English language. The value assumption

is marked by the verb ‘help’. It is assumed that developing and refining English language

skills is desirable because what is triggered by the word ‘help’ is a positive evaluation on

whatever follows the word (Fairclough, 2003, p. 173). Such a value assumption is

ideological in the sense that it contributes to sustaining the relations of power between

native- and non-native English speakers, by implication, between the in-groups and the

outgroups.

Finally, another thing that was salient in the SEP text was its ideological control

of semantic meanings. The passage of the SEP text lacks semantic coherence in its use of

102
words referring to the same things or people. More specifically, the text is inconsistent in

its use of languages and terms referring to the target group (TAs) and the purpose of the

program. Its target group was represented in the following various descriptions:

‘international assistants (ITAs) whose first language is not English’; ‘prospective

international teaching assistants’; ‘prospective teaching assistant at the Midwestern

university’; ‘successful students’; ‘non-native English speaking graduate students’. The

ambiguity shown in the identification of the target group of the program in this text

relates to the ways in which the institution categorizes the ITAs, which in turn pertains to

the institutional identities imposed upon the ITAs. As the label explicitly indexes, the

ITAs were institutionally represented as ‘international’, ‘non-English speaking’ ‘graduate

students’ and ‘assistants’. Through those phrases, the ethnolinguistic differences of the

students have been enunciated and accentuated. This incoherence in lexicon can be seen

as ideologically controlled relations. These referential and nomination strategies

(Blackledge, 2005) illustrate how the Others are discursively constructed and how their

national and linguistic characteristics are foregrounded to mark them as Others or the out-

group against the unmarked category of ‘We’ or the in-group. By being named as ITAs,

the students are assumed to have linguistic and cultural deficiency in comparison to ‘us’

or the in-group. Negative associations are being made between the label or category and

those referred to, named, categorized by the label, and deficiency discourse has been

constructed in such ways.

And in terms of the purpose of the SEP program, the following incoherent

expressions were used: ‘to ensure (for ITAs) to have the language proficiency necessary

103
to teach effectively in a U.S. setting’; ‘to provide communication course’; ‘to help…to

develop and refine their English language skills’. Whereas it initially specifies the

required proficiency is necessary to teach effectively, in the subsequent sentences

beginning with a general pronoun subject ‘we’, communication courses, not any courses

of teaching methods or skills, are provided to help the students to develop and refine their

English language skills. This inconsistency obscures teaching skills, communicative

competence, and the English language skills as they were seemingly used

interchangeably in the text. In addition, the ambiguity come to be compounded by the

abrupt appearance of ‘we’, which obfuscates the underlying semantic agency involved in

this text, thereby obscuring who is in the responsibility for the whole incoherence.

Given the three decades of the time gap between the state bill and the current

SEP program, the incoherence in the SEP text may be emanated from the tensions among

differing ideologies and discourses in representing ITAs and their identities, and in

conceptualizing communicative competence, culture, language skills, and so forth. The

internal incoherence within the text may be pointing to that the central concepts in the

ESL pedagogy, such as language, communicative competence, native- vs. non-native

speakers, have been challenged over the past three decades. The SEP might have been

aware of such contestations particularly surrounding L2 education, multilingualism, and

multiculturalism. That is, the inconsistence may be the result of the heterogeneities and

contradictions engendering the tensions within the text itself in recognition of the

heterogeneous ideologies surrounding the discourses at issue.

104
 So far, my analysis illustrated the interconnection between the macro level social

discourse and the micro level discursive practices. The analysis revealed the durability

and persistence of discourse as a real entity that has significance to particular social

actors involved, especially when such discourse obtains a hegemonic nature as dominant

ideologies. At this point, I would return to Mr. Rooney’s class interaction presented in the

beginning of this section where cruces were captured as an entry point into my analysis. I

would say that the tension exhibited in the SEP text above between heterogeneous

ideologies came to manifest at the moment of the cruces in Mr. Rooney’s class

interaction. The ESL classroom was a microcosm of social orders where the broader

social and institutional ideologies were being reproduced and enacted in particular

instructional interactions in the classroom. In the ensuing section, I shall go beyond the

analysis of the texts in order to gain further empirical evidence of how the ideologies

embedded in the institutional contexts were being enacted and reproduced in forms of

action and interaction in ESL class settings in relation to students’ identities.

Disempowering Ideologies of Othering and Critical Language Awareness for

Identity Negotiation

This section presents the analysis, interpretation, and explanation of class

interactions that involve a particular discursive strategy, ‘a language disclaimer’. ‘A

language disclaimer’ is one of the discursive devices proffered in the spoken English

curriculum to ITAs for their instruction to U.S. undergraduates. The language disclaimer

device requires ITAs to acknowledge explicitly that they are not native speakers of

105
English. According to the description in the curriculum material, it is said that by making

a language disclaimer, ITAs may lower perceived ‘barriers’ with their U.S. students.

The language disclaimer strategy was noted in the ESL class to be undergirded by

dominant language ideologies that had social significance for ITAs. Along with the use of

a language disclaimer, the interactional control stood out and the ample evidence of

resistance against dominant ideologies emerged from the analysis of the data. What is

worth noting is what ramifications the discursive move of a language disclaimer would

have for ITAs’ positionality, how the ITAs reacted to the proffered discursive positions

through situated discourses, and what deliberate discursive choices were made from their

agency. In what follows, I shall examine how language ideologies were practiced through

the discursive strategy and how the ITAs (students) experienced and responded to the

ideologies hidden in the language disclaimer. I shall look into how the broader social

discourse as well as the institutional discourse has been instantiated in local instructional

practices in the English language course. My focus will be upon the ITAs’ critical

language awareness of the dominant ideologies and their own discursive strategies

deployed for identity negotiation. In doing so, I aim to illustrate the enactment of the

social and institutional ideologies in particular interactional instances in educational

settings as well as the agentive identity work of the marginalized Others.

Disclaiming or Reclaiming Identity

The starting point of my analysis in this section was from cruces (Fairclough,

1992) at which salient disfluencies were observed to manifest conflicts in the spoken

English class between differing ideologies in terms of ‘a language disclaimer’. The

106
following Excerpt 6 is the description of a language disclaimer in the course materials of

the spoken English program for ITAs. The description suggests that ITAs explicitly

acknowledge that they are not native speaker (of English) in order to lower any perceived

“barrier” with their students.

Excerpt 6 A Language Disclaimer

Make a “language disclaimer”:

By explicitly acknowledging that you’re a non-native speaker, you can lower
any perceived “barrier” with your students. This is an excellent way for you to
begin to establish rapport with your students by declaring your commitment to
them and their success in the course, while also giving them some of the
responsibility for successful communication. You want them to feel
comfortable asking questions and seeking clarification when they need it.

(From the teaching material of The First Day of Class SELF-INTRODUCTION)

The discursive device of a language disclaimer seemingly invokes an egalitarian

ideology, i.e., making students feel comfortable asking questions to their TAs, whereby

establishing an egalitarian relationship between students and teachers. However, the text

reveals that the language disclaimer strategy is in effect based upon an un-egalitarian

ideology. The ITAs would be forced to highlight their ethnolinguistic differences by

verbalizing that they are not native speaker of English. In so doing, the relationship

between the ITAs and their U.S. students becomes framed within the power relations

between non-native speakers and native speakers of English. And in turn the power

107
relations would control interactions between ITAs and their U.S. students by managing

the discursive features of their interactions.

As shown in the first sentence that puts an emphasis on the word “barrier” with a

quotation mark, it is assumed that there would be a perceived barrier between the ITAs

and their students. Even though it is not overtly stated what ‘any perceived barrier’ is

meant to be, the cause of the barrier is implied in the initial subordinate clause that urges

ITAs to acknowledge they are a non-native speaker (presumably of English). This

implies that the ITAs’ non-native speakerness would cause the perceived barrier with

their students. In the subsequent sentences, the perceived barrier comes to be associated

with the establishment of rapport and successful communication with the U.S. students,

ultimately affecting the matter of the American students’ success in the course. What can

be inferred at least from this text is that being a non-native speaker of English is a

fundamental culprit that causes the perceived barrier since it indexes ethnolinguistic

differences and foreignness. What is at issue here is not simply the ITAs’ English

proficiency but the fact that they are ‘Others’ different than ‘us’. By foregrounding their

non-native speakerness of English, the ITAs have been represented as English language

learners (ELLs) while their other possible multiple identities are backgrounded and

otherwise denied. Such a discursive construction of ITAs as a non-native speaker is

indicative of the fact that their identity in the spoken English course is politicized as well

as racialized.

In making its case, the text takes on a topos of advantages and usefulness (Reisigl

& Wodak, 2001) which argues that “something should be done because it would be better

108
for the minority groups” (Blackledge, 2005, p. 68). The language disclaimer appeals to

the advantages to ITAs as an excellent discursive move in establishing rapport and

successfully communicating with their U.S. students. The desirability of the use of the

language disclaimer is presupposed by the evaluative adjective ‘excellent’. Although the

text concedes the mutual responsibility for successful communication, the ultimate

responsibility has been placed upon the ITAs. This point can be substantiated by the way

in which the ITAs have been textured. In the final sentence, the ITAs have been

topicalized by being placed in the subject position, referred to by a second person

pronoun ‘you’. Ostensibly, even if expressed in a form of statement, the sentence actually

functions as an imperative sentence that demands the ITAs to take responsibility for

making their students feel comfortable asking questions and seeking clarification when

they need it.

This point can be further substantiated by examining the use of modality in this

text. Modality in text can be relevant to identification of how people represent themselves

in relation to others and social relations. According to Fairclough (2003), as modality

implies the relationships between speakers or writers, representations and modality

choices in texts and talk are important in the texturing of identities. The language

disclaimer text above shows a strong commitment to what the author writes - to the truth

of the proposition made by the unidentifiable author in that the statements are made

without explicit modality except the first sentence that uses the marker of modality, the

modal verb ‘can’. The rest of the sentences in effect function as imperative clauses that

demand or offer what is stated in the text, even if written in the form of statements.

109
Therefore, these sentences are seen as ‘prescriptions’ typically realized in positive

imperative clauses (Fairclough, 2003). Particularly in the final sentence (‘You want them

to feel comfortable asking questions and seeking clarification when they need it’.), the

un-modalized verb ‘want’ can be interpreted as a strong demand of an imperative clause.

Critical Language Awareness and Discursive Strategies for Identity Negotiation

The ITAs were implicitly or explicitly aware of the ideological workings of the

language disclaimer that actually functioned to disempower the dominated or less

powerful under the social power relations of inequality. In contrast to the claims of the

description text arguing for the desirability of the use of the language disclaimer, the

ITAs themselves thought that the language disclaimer would not work for them and

rather it might run counter to their interest and positive image construction. Of significant

interest was not only that the ideologically controlled relations would be resisted and

challenged by the ITAs but also that the nature of the ideologies hidden in the language

disclaimer was revealed through the ITAs’ critical language awareness. Below are the

particular instances of how the ITAs responded to the use of a language disclaimer in

their simulated microteaching presentation in the spoken English course. The instance

turned out to be cruces (Fairclough, 1992; 1995) at which the ITAs demonstrated their

agentive negotiation strategies against the dominant power.

Through a microteaching presentation, the ITAs practiced their teaching skills in a

hypothetical situation in which each of them took a turn to play a role of a TA providing

the instruction to U.S. undergraduate students. While each was performing a

microteaching, the rest of their peers in the spoken English class and Mr. Rooney played

110
a role of U.S. students. A language disclaimer was supposed to be made at the opening of

their microteaching like a formulaic expression. The ITAs were asked to explicitly tell

their hypothetical American students where they were from and that they were not a

native speaker (of English), thereby encouraging their students to ask for clarification

when needed. The following is a prototypical form of a language disclaimer suggested in

the spoken English curriculum.

Shuo: I am a Ph.D. graduate student in the Department of Chemistry. And I am

from China. And (0.2) as you know, I am not a native speaker. So, if you
have any trouble understanding me, please feel free to interrupt me.
(Microteaching performance, February 4, 2016)

In response to the ideologies hidden in the language disclaimer, the ITAs showed

various discursive strategies including joke, delay, avoidance, and mitigation of their

commitment with modality, among many linguistic features demonstrated. Apparent

disfluencies were noted in the ITAs’ speech featuring hedge, filler, pause, and so forth. In

particular, hedge stood out as a discursive feature in the ITAs’ reaction to the ideologies

embedded in the language disclaimer as they were in effect forced to explicitly verbalize

their non-native speakerness. According to Hodge and Kress (1988) and Fairclough

(2003), hedges are seen as markers of modality in relation to degrees or levels of

commitment to truth claims and/ or obligation and necessity. In Shuo’s speech above,

there was some degree of hesitation noted in making the disclaimer, as is evident in the

pause and the filler (And (0.2) as you know) prior to acknowledging him as a non-native

111
speaker (of English). Similarly, other ITAs’ language disclaimers were imbued with

various forms of hedges that mitigated the forces of what they were saying.

Mahesso: As you guys already know that I am not a native… native speaker.
So:: my pronunciation is not exactly like yours. So:: if you guys have any
questions, (.) if you don’t understand anything, (.) feel free to ask me.

Lun: I am always very happy to help you. So, since I am not a native speaker,
my spoken English might be, some, (.) a little different from yours. Please
don’t hesitate to interrupt if you do not understand what I am saying about.

Han : You know, I am a Mandarin speaker. So:: my English may be a little

bit different from yours. So:: if you have any questions, umm, (0.2) about
understanding what I am saying about, you can just feel free to interrupt me
and ask me questions.
(Microteaching performance, February 4, 2016)

Mahesso assumed that his hypothetical American students ‘already’ knew that he

was not a native speaker of English, which could be obvious probably from his physical

appearance or his accent. His assumption indicated that Mahesso might not have been

fully convinced by the ostensible purpose of the language disclaimer as it claims. Lun’s

disclaimer was also hedged with modality, might, and some, a little. What is intriguing in

the language disclaimers of Mahesso and Lun was that they demonstrated their awareness

of the language ideology of accent and pronunciation entailing the unequal power relation

between native - and non-native speakers. Mahesso assumed ‘his pronunciation that is

not exactly like that of his U.S. students’ could cause problems for the students to
112
understand what he was saying. Similarly, Lun assumed there might be potential

confusions or communicative difficulties, attributing them to his ‘spoken English’

different than that of native English speakers. Han’s language disclaimer was also made

with various hedges (may, a little bit, umm). One thing to note is that a fragment of Han’s

identity was illuminated uniquely by the identification of himself as a ‘Mandarin speaker’.

This turned out to be reflecting significant language ideologies undergirding complex

sociopolitical and historical situations of China with respect to its language ideology,

language policy, and national identity. 1

Meanwhile, Jun’s disclaimer below is distinct in the ways of Jun’s identification

and representation of himself and others within the perceived power relations.

Jun: I am from China. So, maybe my English is not as good as other native
(0.1) TAs, but, yeah, hopefully, I can learn a lot from you guys. And [...] we
can both learn a lot from each other and we can create great memories.
(Microteaching performance, February 4, 2016)

1
This is relevant to China’s nationalist language policy that legitimates Mandarin as its
standard national official language while positioning thousands of languages and varieties
used across China to the status of ‘dialects’. Han was from Guangdong province and felt
most comfortable with Guangdong dialect, but he had been educated through the official
language Mandarin in schools. Han said that he communicated in Mandarin with his wife
who came from a different province of China because each dialect was so different and
they could not understand each other if they spoke in their own dialects. When asked why
he had identified himself as a Mandarin speaker, Han said that there was no difference
between ‘I am a Mandarin speaker’ and ‘I am from China’, which implied a nationalist
language ideology equating one nation-state with one language. When asked about how
many languages they could speak, almost all Chinese participants asked me back,
“Including dialects?”. Their ‘dialects’ appeared to be not the kind of varieties of one
language but separate languages as codes, like English, French, by any linguists’
definition. These issues, however, will not be addressed further here because the issues
concerning China’s language policy, national identity, and its relation to individuals’
identity are out of the scope of the present study, even though intriguing.
113
Interestingly, Jun foregrounded native TAs who by default had been positioned as an

unmarked norm thanks to their native-speakerness in U.S. settings. In so doing, Jun

implicitly showed his conscious awareness of the power relations through which his

English and/ or his teaching would be supposedly evaluated against the unmarked norm

of the native TAs. Like the other ITAs’ cases, Jun’s disclaimer was also hedged with

modality, maybe. And then, with the conjunction but, Jun eloquently shifted the

responsibility for learning and communication from ‘I’ to the inclusive ‘we’ along with

an emphatic ‘both’, thus emphasizing the mutuality of interaction (‘learn from each

other’). With such an embracing and inclusive discursive move set up, his final utterance

modalized by the modal verb ‘can’ opens possibilities for the mutual negotiation of

meanings and identities with his imaginary U.S. students.

Joke was also noted as a discursive strategy that the ITAs employed in response to

the ideologies implied in the language disclaimer. In making a language disclaimer in the

excerpt below, Kun made a joke on an English accent of the region where he had stayed

for a while before coming to the Midwestern region for his Ph.D. studies.

Kun: I am from China. Before coming to this university, I got my master’s

degree in Wisconsin-Madison. You know, people from Wisconsin usually
have a heavy accent.
Mr. Rooney: ((laugh out loud))
Kun : ((laughing)) so, if you have trouble understanding me, feel free to stop
me and ask a question.
(Microteaching performance, February 4, 2016)

114
It was Mr. Rooney who recognized the joke and burst out with laughter. The laughter in

turn functioned to diffuse the potential tension that could be engendered by conflicting

ideologies (Norrick & Spitz, 2008). Kun’s joke on the regional English accent and Mr.

Rooney’s seemingly conceding laughter enabled Kun to avoid mentioning his English,

which would otherwise foreground his non-native speakerness or ‘the problem of his

English’. With the joke, Kun was able to avoid attributing the problem of communication

solely to the fact that he himself was a non-native speaker of English. What was noted in

Kun’s discursive move of using joke and laughter is that he might have been aware of

language ideologies with respect to language varieties and variations featuring differing

accents of the English language across the U.S. On that account, it can be interpreted as

his agentive work in response to the imposed identities of non-native speaker of English

and international TA that were covertly conveyed in the language disclaimer. Such

implicit forms of the ITAs’ agency resisting to the dominant ideologies and imposed

identities were more saliently demonstrated in Leo’s distinctive reaction to the language

disclaimer, and I shall analyze in detail his discursive strategies in what follows.

Unlike the other ITAs who began with a language disclaimer in the introduction,

Leo did not make a disclaimer about his English at the beginning of his microteaching.

Rather, Leo tried to highlight his educational background, relation to the professor of the

course, and research interests as a Ph.D. student, in the introduction of his microteaching,

some part of which is transcribed in Excerpt 7. In doing so, Leo represented himself as a

person with credentials and expertise who was qualified enough to teach the U.S.

students. Throughout his microteaching, Leo identified himself as an expert with

115
knowledge and authority in his field, instead of positioning himself simply as a non-

native ITA which could be associated with the lack of power in his relation to the native

undergraduate U.S. students.

Excerpt 7 Resisting and then Conceding

Leo: Hi, welcome to ISE 3200. My name is Zhou Chen. You can call me Leo.
This course is taught by Dr. SG. And She is travelling right now. My job today is
to go over the syllabus. First, let me talk a little bit about myself. I’m originally
from Taiwan. I got my bachelor’s degree in business there. I got my master’s
degree in Industrial Engineering from Arizona State University. Now I am a
Ph.D. student in, also, in Industrial Engineering. I am actually Dr. SG.’s student.
[...] For homework, Dr. SG, she has a very strict policy. So, let’s take a look. you
have to always work on your own before you consult other references.
If you are going to do[
Mr. Rooney: [I don’t get that. I have to work on my own before
what?
Leo: ((turning to Mr. Rooney)) before you consult other references.
Mr. Rooney: Uh.
Leo: Is that clear?
Mr. Rooney: Yeah.
Leo: OK. If you work with your friends or wanna work in a group, always
decide (? ?)
And if you find something on the Internet, you think you wanna use it, please
make sure you don’t just wanna copy it. And you also have to cite where the
resources come from. [...]

Continued

116
Excerpt 7 Continued

((looking at paper) There will be some announcements of in-class exercises.

Umm, this is [
Mr. Rooney: [there’ll be some what?
Leo: ((leaning his upper body toward Mr. Rooney)) Announcements of in-
class exercises
Mr. Rooney: Ok
Leo: ((with a conceding and apologetic smile)) Sorry about my
pronunciation. As I said, I am from Taiwan. So, if you don’t understand me,
please raise your hand and let me know. And THIS in-class exercise is more
like participation. And the next one is grading. [...]

(Microteaching performance, February 4, 2016, Full Transcription in Appendix B-2)

Leo deferred and did not make a language disclaimer until he was interrupted

twice by Mr. Rooney who was pretending and acting out an U.S. undergraduate along

with Leo’s peers in the audience. Up to then, Leo seemed to be attempting to resist the

use of the language disclaimer and thereby avoid foregrounding his non-nativeness and

foreignness. His attempt, however, was thwarted by Mr. Rooney who kept asking for

clarification and actually tried to elicit the language disclaimer from Leo. Of interest was

that Mr. Rooney’s question for clarification, ‘what was that?’, was accompanied with his

gesture of placing his right index finger behind his right ear or cupping a hand around his

ear, conveying the message ‘I cannot hear you.’. This gesture was briefly discussed in the

beginning of the previous section on the cruces concerning the old article ‘Let’s Talk It

Over’ with respect to the asymmetrical power relations between non-native speaking

117
subjects and native listening subjects (Flores & Rosa, 2015). With respect to the issue of

intelligibility, as ELLs and ITAs have been frequently described as sounding too soft, flat

or robotic or having a heavy accent (from a field note on a talk with Mr. Rooney on

March 26, 2016), Mr. Rooney’s habitual ‘I-can-not-hear-you’ gesture could be seen as a

form of microaggression from the powerful native listening subject against the non-native

speaking subject.

In response to the first request from Mr. Rooney, Leo enunciated with more

clarity what he had just said, raising the volume of his voice and delivering it at a slower

rate of speech. On Mr. Rooney’ second request for clarification, however, Leo initially

leaned his upper body toward Mr. Rooney, repeating what he had said one more time

with more clarity. And then, abruptly, with a conceding smile on his face, Leo made an

apology for his ‘pronunciation’. And then there in the middle of his teaching, Leo made a

language disclaimer explicitly acknowledging his non-native speakerness which was

alleged to cause the confusions and communicative difficulties. And then his subsequent

speech became different than the previous part in the volume of his voice and pitch,

which was delivered with increased intensity. Later offering comments on Leo’s

presentation, Mr. Rooney reiterated what was stated in the description text of language

disclaimer. He reminded the students that it would be good to use a language disclaimer

even at later stages when the ITAs forgot to do so at the beginning of the class.

Mr. Rooney: So, that's a good thing to do if you forget to do, like, doing a
language disclaimer, it’s a good time to bring that up so that people know that you
don’t mind them asking (From Class observation, February 4, 2016).
118
 In a follow-up interview with me, however, Leo expressed his different ideas than

Mr. Rooney about using the language disclaimer as an ITA. Mr. Rooney’s elicitation of

the language disclaimer from Leo was actually functioning to force Leo to explicitly

verbalize his Otherness and was stymying Leo’s implicit efforts to resist the dominant

ideologies. In what follows, I shall keep examining in detail how the ITAs were

navigating and negotiating their identities in response to the dominant language

ideologies.

Following is an excerpt from an interview with Leo after the microteaching

presentation, in which a range of discursive strategies were deployed by Leo in

representing himself. My focus of the analysis is upon how dominant ideologies had been

revealed explicitly through the ITAs’ conscious linguistic awareness. I shall also attend to

the way in which the ITAs identified themselves and developed their own argument in

the process of the self-identification.

Excerpt 8 Interview with Leo

Leo: I don’t oppose it, but if I said it at the beginning, I would feel like, umm, maybe
they would be thinking less of me. I should be professional and fluent in the
first place. If they would ask questions, then, maybe I can take a chance to, not
just make a disclaimer, but also say, “OK. Sorry. I speak too fast. So, you can let
me know.”
So, it’s not like, I am not focusing on “I am a foreigner. I am a foreigner. I am
sorry if you don’t understand me.” …I don’t wanna just focus on this.
Because even native speakers sometimes… you’re still confused about what
Continued

119
Excerpt 8 Continued

they’re saying, right? like, too fast. Some people, just too low, you know, the
voice.
So, this is the introduction of the syllabus. So, and, this is the first day of class.
I need to look professional and fluent, to make students feel I am a
professional. [...] It’s no harm to say that, for, other people. FOR ME­, I don’t
know why do this.

(April 15, 2016, Full Transcription in Appendix C-2)

The interview text shows Leo’s elaborate sense of the world and the relations with

others as well as his own identities in response to dominant ideologies and institutionally

imposed identities on TAs. Leo was not willing to use the language disclaimer. He was

aware that the language disclaimer and the hidden ideologies within it would be working

against ITAs’ identity negotiation. The language disclaimer would have its ideological

effect on his identities, as he argued that doing such a language disclaimer might have his

students think less of him. It would work against his own desire to give his students the

impression of him looking professional and fluent. Leo asserted that he would be open to

the request of clarification from his students, but he also showed his reluctance to

attribute the possible reasons for communicative confusions merely to his pronunciation

or accent (‘not just make a disclaimer’). Instead, he took into account other

communicative factors, such as a rate of speech and the voice quality. He explicitly said

he was not focusing on the fact that he was a foreigner and he would not apologize for the

possible communicative breakdown or any confusion only for that reason.

120
 By mocking a typical form of the language disclaimer (“I am a foreigner. I am a

foreigner. I am sorry if you don’t understand me.”), Leo implicitly pointed out the

apologetic and powerless nature of the discursive device. And then in a sobering tone and

with an emphatic adverb ‘just’, Leo revealed his strong reluctance to the language

disclaimer. He then went on to point out that even native speakers could make a

confusion about what they were saying due to various reasons like speaking too fast or in

a low voice. Leo again emphasized the necessity and desire for looking professional and

the authority as a teacher to his students. Meanwhile, he reiterated that he would not

oppose to the use of a language disclaimer, and in so doing, to some extent, he

appreciated the seemingly well-meaning intention of Mr. Rooney and the SEP program

for the ITAs. And then, however, he ended his remark by emphasizing that he would not

use it, implying that the ideological effects of the language disclaimer would sabotage his

own professionalism.

Leo employed a typical disclaimer pattern (which is not the kind of the language

disclaimer of the SEP curriculum) as a strategy of managing his impression when making

his point throughout the talk. Disclaimers can be used as semantic strategies of

impression management in communicative contexts in which speakers will try to make a

good impression or avoid a bad impression (Van Dijk, 1995). The classic moves of

disclaimers, for instance, comprise of apparent denial (e.g. I have nothing against Blacks,

but…), apparent concession (e.g. there are of course a few small racist groups, but…), or

blame transfer (e.g. I have no problem with minorities in the shop, but my customers..)

(Van Dijk, 1987; 1995). Leo was deploying such discursive moves of disclaimers in

121
making his case against the disempowering ideologies embedded in the SEP’s language

disclaimer. The pattern of Leo’s talk was broadly structured with a frame of disclaimer

alternating concession or denial, and assertion (e.g. I don’t oppose it, but..; I don’t oppose

it in general, but I try to not use this). This pattern appeared to be strategic in mitigating

the force of his assertion and at the same time managing his impression in a positive way.

Some part of his disclaimer was delivered with a salient change in the intonation of his

speech, (It’s no harm to say that, for other people. FOR ME­, I don’t know why do this),

which can be indicative of his strong resistance to the hidden ideologies of the language

disclaimer. Through this semantic strategy of disclaimers, on the one hand, Leo

accommodated the relative truth claims made by the dominant discourse. In so doing, he

was able to avoid that he would look explicitly defiant to the dominant ideologies. On the

other hand, he distanced himself from the ideologies by using the disclaimers. This can

be seen as a rhetorically sophisticated move through which Leo negotiated his own

identities in relation to the dominant ideologies disempowering the ITAs.

In addition, along with the disclaimer strategy of impression management, Leo’s

talk was hedged with lots of markers of modality. This linguistic feature was also worth

noting with respect to his commitment to or judgment of the truth claims and how he

identified himself in relation to others and the world represented in text and talk

(Fairclough, 2003; Halliday, 1994; Hodge & Kress, 1988). With various forms of

modality, Leo adjusted the levels of hesitancy, tentativeness, confidence or assertion

about what he was saying. In doing so, he tried to maintain positive impressions of

himself. For instance, by bracketing his assertion with a hedge (umm) and a modal

122
adverb (maybe), Leo used a hypothetical modality (if I said it at the beginning, I would

feel like, umm, maybe they would be thinking less of me). Leo was concerned with how

the language disclaimer might impact on his professional identity. He made a strong

commitment to the truth of his following statement with a high level of necessity of a

modal verb ‘should’ (I should be professional and fluent in the first place), which was

later reiterated at the end of his talk with a modalized statement (I need to look

professional and fluent to make students feel, I am a professional).

As becoming obvious in Leo’s hypothetical sentence, the language disclaimer

would compromise his professional identity. Leo’s concern that his students would be

undermining him was in stark contrast to the truth claim of the language disclaimer

saying that it ‘lower(s) any perceived “barrier”’ with U.S. students and is ‘an excellent

way to establish rapport’ with them. Conversely, the language disclaimer underpinned by

the sociopolitical ideology of Othering appeared to compromise the ITAs’ professional

identities. Leo’s strategy to set up a hypothetical context is intriguing in that the language

ideologies disguised in the topos of ‘advantages to you’ had been rendered explicit by

Leo’s hypothetical statement. By setting up the hypothetical context, Leo revealed his

critical linguistic awareness of the ideological effect of the language disclaimer that

would disempower him in interactions with his U.S. students. The revealed ideology

through the hypothetical context was self-contradictory to the language disclaimer text

evoking the virtue of having good relationships with students. As such, Leo’s discursive

strategy demonstrated the agentive identity work on the part of the ITA in response to the

dominant ideologies that would control his relationships and interactions with others.

123
 In addition, Leo exhibited his metapragmatic knowledge of the indexical

relationship between a way of speaking and a way of being. In the excerpt below, Leo

eloquently juxtaposed one’s way of speaking with one’s identity (i.e. messing up with

what he’s saying, messing up with what he’s teaching), with the rhetorical device of the

parallelism (Leech & Short, 1981) in which the former might index the latter. This points

to his awareness of the language ideology that associates how one says with what or who

he or she is (Hymes, 1974). Being a professional may be Leo’s personal investment of

the character of an academic on which he projected his identity for now and for the near

future. The self-identification of a potential academic can be seen as an agentive move on

the part of Leo to act against the disempowered identities touted by the dominant

discourse. For him, the professional identity can be interpreted as a negotiated identity

that overrides the imposed identity of a non-native speaker of English.

Dialogicality (Bakhtin, 1981) was another feature of the ITAs’ discursive

strategies in revealing the hidden ideologies of the language disclaimer and negotiating

their identities. Inspired by Bakhtinian dialogism/ventriloquism and revoicing in terms of

the intertextual and dialogic nature of discourse, Tannen (2007) conceptualizes

ventriloquizing as a discursive strategy through which a speaker (re)produces another’s

voice in constructing his or her identities. To illustrate, I shall take examples from Leo

and Han, who expressed their dissenting opinions about the language disclaimer by

ventriloquizing the voice of U.S. students. For instance, Leo’s talk in the excerpt below

was anchored in intertextually dialogical interactions with dominant voices surrounding

the discourse on ITAs. In a hypothetical context framed by Leo, the voice of others,

124
particularly that of U.S. students complaining about ITAs in the old news article, ‘Let’s

Talk It Over’, were revoiced or ventriloquized (Bakhtin, 1981; Tannen, 2007). Simply

put, Leo spoke through the voice of U. S. students, and through Leo’s revoicing, the

hidden backstage ideology of the dominant discourse on Other had been thrown on the

front stage.

I think, yes, it might, might make some students think less of me. Like, “OK, he’s
an international student. He’s an international TA. Maybe, he will, you
know, mess up with what he’s saying, mess up with what he’s teaching.”
(from an interview with Leo, April 15, 2016)

The ventriloquizing strategy was also noted in Han, who animated the voice of

U.S students in making his argument against the ideological effect of the language

disclaimer on his relationship to his students.

Researcher: What did you find the language disclaimer? Did you feel comfortable
with using the language disclaimer in your class?
Han: I felt not so comfortable. I think the disclaimer separates us from students.
This may make students think of that, “This TA is not from our country.
This TA is not a native speaker. Maybe I cannot get close to him”
Researcher: Are you gonna use that again?
Han: No. I don’t know.
(from an interview with Han, April 14, 2016)

125
Through the voice of the dominant, not Han’s own voice, it became clearly pointed out

that the language disclaimer would bring to the fore his ethnolinguistic differences, which

would make his students feel that he would not be approachable. That is, instead of

expressing his own dissent explicitly and directly, Han debunked the truth claim of the

language disclaimer by ventriloquizing the voice of U.S. students. The ‘voices’ of U.S.

students, which were revoiced by both Leo and Han, intertextually echoed those who

complained about ITAs in the news article, ‘Let’s Talk It Over’. In such way, the

presence of the dominant discourse was being projected and disputed in Leo and Han’s

words.

Leo and Han’s reluctance to the use of the language disclaimer is indicative of

their critical awareness of the fact that their identity as ITAs has been racialized as well

as politicized under the circumstance, and that the dominant ideologies have got the ITAs

disempowered rather than empowered in relation to their U.S. students. Eventually, the

SEP course and the discourse emanated from the mandate and state law turned out to be

disempowering ITAs, by extension, “internationals”. Eventually, the diversity discourses

circulating in the SEP class were serving, whether unwittingly or not, to disempower the

“Others”,

Metaphorical rhetoric was another striking feature through which the ITAs’

critical awareness of language was illuminated. Leo’s lexical choice such as ‘harm’ and

‘damage control’ was pointing to his awareness of the underlying ideologies and

asymmetrical power relations with respect to ITAs and international students in general.

The potential ‘harm’ in using the language disclaimer, for Leo himself, would be the

126
devaluation of his professionalism by his students (it might, might make some students

think less of me). ‘Damage control’ denoted his awareness of the dominant discourse that

perceives ITAs in particular, and Others in general, as liabilities.

It’s no harm to say that, for, other people. FOR ME­, I don’t know why do this.
[...]
I don’t oppose it in general, but I try to not use this. Maybe, Mr. Rooney gave this
idea as to, for students to do some damage control in certain ways, I guess. I still
think, when it comes to professionalism, you shouldn’t use that.
(from an interview with Leo, April 15, 2016)

In reference to Mr. Rooney in terms of the purpose of the language disclaimer as a way of

‘damage control’, Leo hedged his statement with two modality markers: the modal

adverb ‘maybe’ and the mental process clause ‘I guess’ giving a subjective marking of

modality (Fairclough, 2003). In so doing, Leo lowered his commitment to the truth

claims of what he was saying while appreciating Mr. Rooney’s intention which might be

well-meaning but unwittingly reproducing the dominant ideologies. The modalized

statements were in contrast to the final sentence in which Leo showed a high degree of

his commitment to professionalism. With the deontic modal verb ‘should’, Leo

emphasized again the necessity for him to look professional to his students. In doing so,

he implicitly refuted the SEP’s claim for the desirability of the language disclaimer.

Leo also demonstrated his metalinguistic awareness of contextualization cues

(Gumperz, 1992) such as prosodic and paralinguistic features as the important

127
components of communication. He considered the contextual components of

communication such as a rate of speech (I speak too fast. Even native speaker, …they’re

saying, too fast.), the volume of voice (some people, just too low, you know, the voice).

This metalinguistic awareness directly defies the dominant ideologies of the language

disclaimer that attribute the perceived ‘barrier’ with U.S. students to ITA’s deficiency in

the English language. Through the metalinguistic talk, Leo represented himself as a full-

fledged proficient communicator with great awareness of “language as an interactive

phenomenon” (Duranti & Goodwin, 1992), thereby resisting to be positioned as a

deficient English language learner (ELLs). As such, he defied not only the institutionally

imposed identity of ITAs but also the racialized and politicized identity of ELLs that has

been traditionally underpinned by the long-lasting language ideologies of native-speaker

superiority and deficit model perspective.

As demonstrated in the above, the ITAs implicitly or explicitly showed their

reluctance to get their linguistic and cultural Otherness highlighted in their interactions

with U.S. students. It appeared to be because under such circumstances the interactions

were likely to be structured around the relationships between native- and non-native

speakers of English and the ITAs’ identities had already been vulnerable to the

asymmetrical power relations. This point resonates with Ms. Briedis, the non-native

English instructor of another spoken English class in my pilot study. Ms. Briedis was a

Caucasian and could speak three languages including English. Ms. Briedis’s physical

appearance as a White could often mislead her ESL students to believe she would be a

native speaker of English, albeit she would not intend to. An ESL program coordinator

128
and her supervisor suggested Ms. Briedis explicitly acknowledging to her students that

she was a non-native speaker of English. They said that Ms. Briedis as a non-native

English teacher could be a good role model for her ESL students. However, Ms. Briedis

was reluctant to do so. Her concern was about that once her students explicitly

recognized she was a non-native speaker of English, the students would question her

credentials as an English language teacher (from a field note on a talk with Ms. Briedis,

April 2, 2013). Ms. Briedis also thought that enforcing her to acknowledge she was not a

native speaker would be a form of microaggression from the dominant native speakers

who might entertain a bias that Ms. Briedis was acting ‘native’. Ms. Briedis’s reluctance

to highlight her non-native speakerness implies her vulnerable identity as a non-native

English teacher under the dominant language ideology of native-speaker superiority. The

vulnerability of the ITAs and Ms. Briedis as non-native speakers of English counters the

topos that the explicit acknowledgement of their non-native speakerness is to the

advantage of the linguistic minority themselves.

In sum, disclaimer can be used as a semantic discursive strategy that contributes

to the positive self-description or the avoidance of a negative impression while making a

negative other-presentation (Van Dijk, 1993; 1995). However, the language disclaimer

suggested to the ITAs by the spoken English curriculum turned out to contribute to the

negative self-presentation of the ITAs themselves. And it was because the ITAs’

linguistic and cultural differences would be markedly foregrounded by the use of the

disclaimer, through which in turn such differences would be framed as linguistic deficit

129
and lack of cultural fluency as non-native speakers of English. Therefore, the language

disclaimer did actually disempower rather than empower the ITAs.

What is worth noting is that ITAs were critically aware of the disempowering

functions of the language disclaimer and that the semantic strategy was driven from a

self-serving bias of social relation enacted by the dominant ideologies. The various

discursive strategies demonstrated by the ITAs in response to the dominant ideologies

were substantive evidence that the ITAs’ have been unconsciously or consciously aware

of power played out, even though the dominant ideologies were not enunciated in the

disclaimer itself. Hedges and modality used in the ITAs’ talk can be interpreted as their

reluctance to commit themselves to the truth claims of the language disclaimer and in

turn the dominant ideologies. Leo and other ITAs revealed that the argument for the

language disclaimers as ‘an excellent way to establish rapport with your students’ was a

self-serving argument in favor of the hidden author or those in power in the social

relations and situation. The deliberate discursive choices such as joke, hypothetical

sentences and ventriloquizing were made from the ITAs’ agency in revealing the hidden

dominant ideologies and negotiating their identities in response to the proffered

institutional position as Others. Up to a point, their identity negotiation can be seen as an

outcome of inequality, as argued by Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004), in the sense that

the ITAs were subject to do so under the restrictive power scheme and ideological act of

Othering that entail dominance and inequality.

In conclusion, the language disclaimer illustrated the ways in which language

played a profound role in constructing one’s identities in terms of power relation and

130
inequality and in which such social inequality was being reproduced and embodied

through discourse in local interactional practices. It was one of the discursive mechanism

through which social relations constructed outside the classroom were translated and

enacted in the local level practices. It was tightly scripted to control interactions by

structuring the relationships between ITAs and their American students within the power

relations between native speakers and non-native speakers of English. As such, the

discursive device was engineering ways of speaking and ways of being within the

controlled interactions, resulting in the perpetuation of the entailed dominance and

inequality.

The Clash of Ideologies in an ESL Classroom: An ESL Space for a Regime of

Language or as a Contact Zone

ESL/ SLA pedagogy has been predominantly informed by the immersion

ideology. The immersion approach to language learning and acquisition justifies the

exclusive use of the target language. The approach is based upon the assumption that the

more exposure to the language is the most effective in learning the language while the

students’ first language (L1) may interfere with their second language (L2) acquisition.

As the exclusion and repression of languages other than English has been justified on

pedagogical grounds, an ESL classroom is usually assumed as a space in which the

English Only policy is implicitly or explicitly presupposed. However, the ESL classroom

is also the very space of a contact zone where cultural and linguistic differences meet and

interact with different consciousness (Kubota, 2013; Pratt, 1991). It is likely to be a space

in which tension between competing ideologies is easily engendered. In this respect,

131
critical studies are needed to investigate the widely held pedagogical assumptions and the

ideological functions of SLA theories and teaching methodologies which are often

claimed as effective or best practices (Tollefson, 2007).

In this section, with a focus upon language ideologies informing the ESL/ SLA

pedagogy, I shall examine how the space of the ESL classroom regimes language and

interaction in the space and how the ITAs in the space negotiate their identities in

response to the ideologies embodied through the instructional practices. In what follows,

I shall demonstrate the cruces at which dominant language ideologies in the ESL

classroom clashed with differing consciousness. I shall examine how the ITAs responded

to the ideologies in negotiating their identities. My focus of the analysis will be upon

discursive properties and strategies deployed in the enactment of the dominant ideologies

in the class as well as in the agentive identity work on the part of the ITAs. I will begin

with a brief description of an interactional instance in order to contextualize the moment

at which divergent ideologies were met and struggling over power and legitimacy. I shall

then analyze and critically account for how the ideologies were being practiced in the

ESL space, how the participants responded to the ideologies, and what social

ramifications those ideologies may have for the ITAs’ positioning and their identity

negotiation.

The ESL instructional practice in the spoken English class was driven by the

combination of different approaches and methods in ESL/SLA pedagogy ranging from

the traditional audio-lingual methods to the currently predominant communicative

language teaching (CLT) approach. The coexistence of the different approaches may

132
imply diversifying beliefs and perspectives about L2 acquisition, teaching and learning,

and L2 learners. The beliefs and perspectives point to language ideologies concerning

how language should be learned and used and who are the language users. Around those

divergent ideas and practices, there were certain recurring instructional patterns observed,

around which the classroom activities and interaction among the participants mainly

revolved. The spoken English class instruction heavily relied upon traditional audio-

lingual methods in which the students primarily got engaged with class activities of

mechanical pronunciation drills with a long list of words and dictation in a

decontextualized situation. With a focus on accent reduction and enunciation, the

emphasis of teaching and learning was primarily placed upon prosodic and paralinguistic

features of the English language characterized as a stress-timed language. There was

explicit teaching of rules about language forms and structures. A great deal of class

session time, sometimes, even more than half of a session, was spent on rule-learning

followed by long pronunciation drills.

Such emphasis on the rule-governed nature of language and accuracy in its use

indicated that the instructional practices in general were prescriptive and normative.

Those normative practices amounted to standard language ideology that disregards

varieties and variations in forms and meanings of language across communicative

contexts in practice. The instructional practices in the spoken English class rarely dug

into issues of diversity. Rather, the display of linguistic diversity was being suppressed

through instructional practices of ‘correction’ and ‘repair’ along with the English Only

policy. The restrictive L2 education practices and suppressing language ideologies may

133
have significant bearings on ITAs’ identity, especially given that the ITAs were from

culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. It is because that an ESL classroom

inevitably features an intercultural space where divergent norms and values brought with

the ITAs may manifest and clash with each other, prominently with the dominant

ideologies already inhabited in the space.

Both in Mr. Rooney’s and Ms. Briedis’s classrooms, the English Only policy

appeared to be a taken-for-granted classroom language policy. However, code-switching

practices among students had been frequently noticed in class. The use of students’ L1 in

the ESL space was liable to be a moment of crisis at which ideological dissonance

evidently surfaced. The students seemed to strategically employ their L1 in the L2 class

while such code-switching practices were constantly subject to control. The teachers and

the students had different perceptions about the use of the students’ L1 in ESL class,

which were associated with differing beliefs about L2 learning and acquisition, how

language should be used, and who are the L2 learners.

The following instance came from my pilot study, which illustrated the conflicts

between the dominant monolingualism and the heteroglossic practices of multilinguals.

This discursive instance occurred in Ms. Briedis’s classroom before a class session

began. The students were still getting at the room and were not settling down for the

day’s session yet. While Ms. Briedis was setting up for visual aids for the session,

Zhouxin, a Chinese female student, walked into the room. After exchanging pleasantries

with Ms. Briedis and other students in the room, Zhouxin initiated a small talk with Ms.

Briedis. She began complaining about the midterm test she took in her discipline course,

134
telling that she did not perform well on the test and justifying a few mistakes that she

made. In the meantime, Wang, another Chinese female student, walked into the

classroom and took a seat next to Zhouxin. Wang also exchanged in English the usual

pleasantries with others. And then, Zhouxin and Wang switched to Chinese (Mandarin, to

be precise) and began talking between them in their L1. (Later, Zhouxin told that they

were talking about her midterm test, as she did earlier in English with Ms. Briedis).

While the two Chinese students kept chatting in their L1, Ms. Briedis interrupted to stop

them from using the L1 in the class as shown in the following Excerpt 9. My focus of the

textual analysis on this discursive event is placed upon how the students’ L1 was

strategically positioned and how the students’ identities were (re)constructed in the

process of the interaction.

Excerpt 9 Language Control: Power Mitigated by the Humorous Key and Laughter

( Zhouxin, Wang = Chinese female students, Ms. Briedis =teacher)

1. Zhouxin + Wang ((speaking in Chinese to each other))
2. Ms. Briedis Is that English?
3. Zhouxin + Wang ((laughter)) No.
4. Zhouxin I am complaining (about the midterm exam)
5. Ms. Briedis Can you complain in English so that I can hear you?
6. Zhouxin I have already told you.

(February 22, 2013, in Ms. Briedis’s classroom)

Ms. Briedis’s question, ‘Is that English?’ (in line 2), was not an authentic question

expected to be answered by the students. The question was a rhetorical question with an
135
illocutionary force that implicitly conveyed the intentionality of the speaker (Searle &

Vanderveken, 1985). The rhetorical question was in effect an indirect command implying

the message of the English Only language policy - ‘you are supposed to use English only

here’. It functioned to convey Ms. Briedis’s implicit intent of control over the use of the

students’ L1 in the ESL classroom. The immediate consequence of the illocutionary force

of that utterance was that the talking between the Chinese students was truncated and

abruptly dropped. As a result, the entire context of the interaction was reframed. The

language code of the talk was switched from Chinese to English, and the participant

structure, that is, the structural arrangements of interaction (Philips, 1972), was also

rearranged from the framework of the interaction among the students to that of the

teacher-controlled interaction. Consequently, the restriction of the use of the students’ L1

came to control the entire interactional context in a way in which the English Only policy

was enacted. The rhetorical question was illustrative of a discursive ploy for the strategic

restriction of language use, resulting in the enactment of the linguistic hegemony of

English. The interactional event above was indicative of a strategic orientation of the ESL

classroom in which discursive practices and interactional relations were disposed in a

certain way and regimented by the dominant language ideologies (Gruber, 2001;

Jakonen, 2016; Kroskrity, 2000; Razfar, 2005).

Another component of this discursive event to note was its tone, manner, or spirit

referred to as the ‘key’ of the speech act (Hymes, 1974, p. 57). The rhetorical question

was delivered in a slightly humorous tone and the students responded with laughter to the

question. The students’ laughter seemingly contributed to the construction of a

136
cooperative key by releasing the tension that might be possibly engendered by the

rhetorical question. As a result, the question, which intended to control the use of the L1,

came to sound non-serious, non-coercive or non-punitive. As the jocular key and laughter

functioned to diffuse the potential tension, the ideological power of the rhetorical

question could be mitigated (Norrick & Spitz, 2008). In such a way, the power was

exerted subtly enough so that it could conceal its ideological dominance on the surface

level, not getting to the participants’ consciousness.

Meanwhile, the students’ laughter had significant semantic effects on the ways in

which the students would negotiate their identity and the hegemonic ideologies operate.

On the one hand, given the less powerful positions of the students, the laughter can be

interpreted as conceding and acting not assertively (Orbe, 1998). By diffusing the

potential tension in conjuncture with Ms. Briedis’s jocular tone, the laughter enabled the

students to avoid the possible confrontation with a person in power. The laughter was

similar to a powerless speech (Bradac & Mulac, 1984; Erickson, Lind, Johnson, &

O’Barr,1978) but was a strategic move with which the students negotiated their identity

as less powerful L2 learners under such a restrictive circumstance. On the other hand, the

laughter may be indicative of the students’ acknowledgement of the English Only

language policy in the ESL class. The acknowledgement appeared to be expressed as a

form of the conceding laughter out of embarrassment when the breach of the

commonsensical classroom language policy was indirectly pointed out.

In effect, in order for a rhetorical question to operate with its semantic effect,

there must be an assumed and commonsensical understanding of the question among

137
participants (Blackledge, 2005; Fowler, 1991). That is the nature of the condition of

rhetorical questions; the assumption that every participant would have common sense in a

situation where the interaction occurs. Thereby, consensus may be assumed among the

participants. Accordingly, the underlying assumption of the rhetorical question, ‘Is that

English?’, is that the students might also have the same ideology of monolingualism and

English Only in ESL class. The laughter of the students in reacting to Ms. Briedis’s

rhetorical question, therefore, implies the shared and commonsensical language policy of

English Only among them, even though it was not clear at the time of observation when

they achieved such consensus. Given these students had already been exposed to ESL

classrooms prior to the spoken English program and the dominant immersion discourse in

public, it may be possible that the ESL discourse which has been rehearsed elsewhere

functions as a source for their implicit understanding. Thereby, the ideology and

discursive practice of immersion gain the status of common sense, which renders them

naturalized. The commonsensical assumption that English Only is the best way to acquire

the language contributes to making naturalized the restriction of the L1 in ESL and SLA

contexts. Because of the hegemonic nature and obviousness of the ideology, its

suppressing effects on the ESL users become difficult to recognize and resist.

Lexical choice in the discursive event above was also striking. In line 5, ‘Can you

complain in English so that I can hear you?’, the verb ‘hear’ implies a perception of the

fact of action often independent of the hearer’s will or intention in comparison to

‘understand’, a verb of a mental process as a response to an action (Quirk et al.,

1972/1995). In the discursive event above, the students’ talk in Chinese was a fact of

138
action which was definitely within earshot of the teacher. The talk must have been

‘heard’ by anyone in the classroom given the small size of the space. Thus, language use

not perceived as legitimate English appeared to be most often not welcomed in the ESL

class, which ideologically implied that under such circumstances, the multiple languages

of the students other than English could be relegated to the status of un-preferred

languages of Other, even equivalent to silence, which would not be ‘heard’ in the ESL

space.

As alluded to, the teachers and the students had different and otherwise opposing

perceptions about the use of the L1 in L2 class. The differences in perception between

them were evident in the interviews with Ms. Briedis and Zhouxin which were conducted

respectively after the interaction event above took place.

Excerpt 10 Dominant Ideology of Immersion Approaches to L2 Education

( I=interviewer, Ms. Briedis =teacher)

1. I : There are many Chinese students in your class. Sometimes they code-
switch to, you know, Chinese. I noticed at the beginning of the class they were
talking in Chinese. And you said, “Is that English?”
2. Ms. Briedis : ((laughter))
3. I : How do you feel about their code-switching?
4. Ms. Briedis : Well, I keep trying to control THA:T as much as I can. So, well,
I like to encourage them to use English… as much as possible. Ok. I assume that
very often they don’t really get to use their English all that much. In lecture they
Continued

139
Excerpt 10 Continued

just listen to people talking. They are in their labs and they just work on
something really not talking among themselves. (…) They, they, they don’t really
get to use that language. So, this is finally their chance to practice their English.
So, I encourage them, like, to use English as much as possible. Whenever
possible. So, this is my duty as an English language teacher to encourage the
students to give them opportunity to practice as much as possible. Once they are
out that door, there isn’t something I can do about it. But as much as I can do
here, you know, so, as much as I catch that…yeah…

(Interview with Ms. Briedis, February 22, 2013)

The linguistic features in the talk demonstrated that the students’ L1 was

predicated as an object of control. Whereas English was described as the language that

the students were ‘encouraged’ to ‘practice as much as possible’, the use of the L1 in

class was being actively suppressed. In the same vein, it was also revealing how

differently the students’ L1 and English were referred to. As evident in the first and last

lines of the utterances, the students’ L1 was never referred to as a ‘language’. On the

contrary, with the use of the deictic ‘that’, the L1 was simply referred to as ‘that’ in need

of being controlled and caught. In contrast, English was overtly referred to ‘THE’

language as seen in ‘they don’t really get to use that language’.

Another thing worth noting was the way in which the students were textually

represented through the linguistic features. With a classic ‘door’ metaphor as a language

border (Jakonen, 2016), the teacher implied that the ESL classroom was an exclusive

space only for English in which the students would be exposed to it as much as possible.

140
The students were assumed that they would be less engaged in activities of the use of

English outside the classroom. They were portrayed as passive in that they ‘just’ listen to

people or ‘just’ work on something. Likewise, they were assumed to be not ‘really

talking’ among themselves although they might be talking whether in English or not.

Thus, the negative assumption of the students was highlighted, which is a typical strategy

of reproducing the social relation of dominance by representing Others deficiently (Van

Dijk, 1993).

On a broader social discourse level, the primary approach and rationale upon

which Ms. Briedis grounded was immersion which has been predominant in L2

acquisition and pedagogy as well as in public discourse on language education. From this

approach, in principle, the more exposure to a target language, the more opportunities to

improve the proficiency of the language. However, the dominant language ideology of

immersion was restrictive in the ESL classroom in which the L1 was suppressed while

sanctioning English as the only legitimate language. With teachers often conceptualized

as policy makers (Menken & García, 2010; Zavala, 2015), the larger language policies

and ideologies had affected the local practices of the instructional practices, mainly being

reproduced and reinforced by the teacher’s deficit perspective of the English language

learners. As the effects of the language ideology of monolingualism in L2 class often

entailed the suppression and/or exclusion of languages other than the selected and

privileged one, the teachers’ well-meaning intention to help her students’ English skills

was unwittingly marginalizing the students and their L1.

141
 The power scheme of dominance and subordination, however, was often reversed

by the students’ code-switching practice particularly when the code-switching occurred

on the margins of the classroom interaction. For L2 language teachers, code-switching or

the use of the L1 may be considered as corrupt and incompetent language practices.

However, it has been well documented and acknowledged by now in the research on

cultural and linguistic contact zones (Pratt, 1991) including bi/multilingualism (Heller,

1995; Hornberger, 2007; Scotton, 1988), translanguaging practices (Canagarajah, 2016;

García & Sylvan, 2011), and language crossing (Rampton, 1995), that code-switching is

employed for various purposes by L2 learners such as solidarity, exclusion of others,

extension of their language repertoire, and so forth. Code-switching is an indicator of

multilinguals’ capacity of flexible and fluid multilingual practices and their

metalinguistic knowledge about appropriate uses of language across diverse

communicative contexts. Further, as code-switching is understood as a socially motivated

linguistic code choice and discursive means available to multilingual speakers (Rampton,

1995), with their keen metalinguistic awareness (Parmentier, 1994), multilinguals may

strategically deploy code-switching to unsettle well-established ideologies and challenge

the symbolic domination. This point was substantiated in the case of Zhouxin, the

Chinese female student in Ms. Briedis’s class, who was frequently observed to use her L1

in class.

Prior to the interview below, Namhee, a Korean student in the same field of

studies as Zhouxin, performed a microteaching as a TA on a topic from her own

discipline of Biochemistry. The other ITAs in Ms. Briedis’s class pretended to be

142
hypothetically American undergraduates. While Namhee was doing a microteaching,

Zhouxin was observed to talk in Chinese with another Chinese student next to her. After

the session was over, I interviewed Zhouxin to learn about her ideas about code-

switching practice of multilinguals. Of interest was not only her perspective on the use of

the L1 but also the linguistic features and discursive moves that Zhouxin deployed in

explaining why she code-switched in the ESL class.

Excerpt 11 Code-switching as a Means of Communicative Strategies

(Zhouxin= Chinese female students, Namhee= Korean female student)

Zhouxin: Because the content is not so good, if I speak in English. (it was) Not
about the content, not about the content of the class. About something like, umm,
something like, uh, when MH presented, the picture she put was the structure of
DNAs, but she said that was protein. So, I’m sure that kind of, you know,
information. Because, that’s, uh, I don’t think it’s quite good if I speak in English.
And I, I thought if MH had heard that, she would’ve become, she would’ve
become much more nervous. That’s not my purpose.

(From an interview with Zhouxin, March 8, 2013)

Some linguistic properties and discursive strategies were noted to denote how

Zhouxin would represent herself. A few technical terms in her speech such as ‘the

structure of DNAs’ and ‘protein’ indicated that the discourse was occurring in an

academic setting, not in an everyday life context. In so doing, Zhouxin tried to position

herself as a knowledgeable person and member of an academic community with which

she associated herself. What is more, Zhouxin deployed a face-saving strategy (Brown &

143
Levinson, 1987) to manage her positive impression by justifying that her code-switching

was a deliberate act on her part for the sake of Namhee. This justification may denote

Zhouxin’s metapragmatic awareness of the exclusionary practice of code-switching

particularly in such an intercultural setting, which would be a potentially face-threatening

act of the speaker herself.

As such, Zhouxin’s code-switching was understood as a discursive practice of

multilinguals that indexed her flexible capacity of communicative competence and was

associated with her identity negotiation as a multilingual (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004).

Zhouxin considered the content of her side talk with another Chinese student as irrelevant

to the ongoing main class activity and inappropriate for her classmate. As ‘speaking in

English’ in that situation would not meet her own communicative purpose, Zhouxin

switched to her L1 (Chinese) to exclude from the conversation the Korean student who

would presumably not understand the language of switching. Zhouxin’s L1 was part of

her ample and viable linguistic repertoire for identity negotiation. Further, the fact that

the use of the L1 was taking place in a side talk, namely, on the margins of the

interactional practices, implied that the students would be consciously aware that English

Only was a norm and expectation in the space while other languages being marginalized.

In other words, the marginality of the L1 in the interactional practice denoted the

students’ critical language awareness of the power relations of dominance and

subordination - under the English immersion circumstance, their L1 use would run

counter to the English Only language policy and possibly unsettle the dominant ideology.

In consequence, the code-switching allowed for constructing on the margins the third

144
space (Bhabha, 2004) within which the linguistically suppressed would be liberated to

find their expression and thereby the dominant power scheme centered around English

Only could be subverted. On that account, the students’ code-switching practice was an

art of resistance taking place on the backstage (Scott, 1990), which enabled them to

counter the suppressing power and subvert the power scheme, albeit within the margins.

As seen in the restriction of the students’ L1 in the ESL class, all languages and

discursive practices in language instructional contexts do not necessarily serve the

purposes of communication and meaning making. Education is a common domain for

ideological debates about appropriateness and correctness in language use and ways of

speaking (Blommaert, 1999; Cameron, 1995; Lippi-Green, 1997; Shannon, 1999;

Silverstein, 1993). As social differences are translated into cultural and linguistic

differences in L2 class, instructional practices may reproduce the social relations and

embody the dominant social ideologies. The spoken English program for ITAs was in

effect predicated on the ideological domains of social relations particularly between

native speakers and non-native speakers. The program seemed to be geared toward

training the ITAs to sound like a native speaker of English, not simply to communicate

and make meanings in their new language. The prosodic quality of the English language

was central to the spoken English class activities. Native-speakers’ accent was explicitly

or implicitly used as a yardstick for assessing the intelligibility of the L2 learners’ speech

(Golombek & Jordan, 2005). In comparison to the native speakers’ ways of speaking, the

international students were often described as sounding ‘robotic’, speaking in a flat and

boring tone (from a field note on a talk with Mr. Rooney on March 26, 2016). Students’

145
pronunciation had been constantly policed and corrected so that it could be intelligible to

imagined ‘listening subjects’ (Flores & Rosa, 2015), namely, native speakers of English.

A great deal of the class time had been spent on mechanical pronunciation drills.

Correction and repair were prevalent in the language instructional practices, which

implicitly suggested a misleading message that the correction of the ITAs’ pronunciation

and accent reduction could bring about changes in the negative perception of the U.S.

undergraduates, staff and faculty about international TAs. The following Excerpt 12 is

illustrative of the case in which students’ English pronunciation had been constantly

subject to correction and remediation not necessarily for the purpose of communication

or meaning-making.

This discursive instance came from class discussion activities in Ms. Briedis’s

class. The topic of the class session was American undergraduates’ social life. The

teacher asked the students to read in advance for the discussion an article that contained a

chart showing a survey result of activities in which American undergraduates would get

involved.

Excerpt 12 A Deficit Model and Remedial Instructional Practice

1. Ms. Briedis Was there any striking, something shocking, interesting?

What did you discover as you looked at the chart, as you read about
undergraduate students’ life? Anything?
2. Kai Uh, male, uh, a portion for〔fesbuk〕[
3. Ms. Briedis [ I’m sorry?
Continued
146
Excerpt 12 Continued

4. Kai [ on the chart.

5. Ms. Briedis There, there, nothing, uh..
6. Kai A portion of 〔fesbuk〕on the chart.
7. Ms. Briedis FA::STFOOD?
8. Kai 〔fesbuk〕
9. Zhouxin 〔feis〕book.
10. Ms. Briedis O::h!
11. See? Communication breakdown right there.
12. Say〔ei〕, FA::CE.
13. Kai 〔feis〕
14. Ms. Briedis Very nice. See? Assume you just read it. FA::CEBOOK. [...]
15. That’s a very nice question what you can, that you can ask your
undergraduate students.
16. So, ask them the question, how much time they spend on
FA::CEBOOK, OK?
17. Everybody, FA::CEBOOK.
18. Ss FA:CE [
19. Ms. Briedis [ FA::CE, FA::CEBOOK.
20. Ss FA::CEBOOK.
21. Ms. Briedis Uh, should be longer, 〔ei::〕, yeah, 〔ei::〕, FA::CEBOOK.

(Class observation, February 22, 2013)

Pointing out that Kai’s pronunciation was culpable for the communication

breakdown in line 10-11, the teacher elongated and repeated the vowel in the word,

FA::CEBOOK, to the extent that the problem segment of the word sounded rather

147
exaggerated. Whereas Ms. Briedis was concerned with the students’ pronunciation, the

students seemed to be attending to the content of the discussion. It was only the teacher

who had not realized until in line 10 (O::h!) that Kai was talking about Facebook by

pronouncing it as [fesbuk]. As shown in line 9, the other students had already realized

that Kai meant Facebook. Kai’s ‘Facebook’ pronounced with Chinese phonology

appeared to be intelligible enough to the other students who were attending to the context

of the discussion rather than the pronunciation of the single word itself.

The overall pattern of the class interaction was seemingly remedial, which was

indicative of the instruction based upon a deficit perspective on L2 learners. Remedial

methods similar to speech therapy were being adopted to the ITAs’ pronunciation

correction and accent reduction. For instance, Mr. Rooney often used a rubber band and a

kazoo in accent reduction and pronunciation drills for his students. He highlighted the

prosodic features of the English language by stretching the rubber band or making a

buzzing sound with the kazoo, putting the prominence upon the stressed segment of

speech. That method might be effective initially to draw the attention from the ITAs and

raise their awareness of the language form, but it could appear to infantilize the adult ESL

learners.

Meanwhile, the teachers were not the only ones who would engage in the policing

of the students’ language use. The ITAs were forced to monitor their own language and

ways of speaking for themselves as well. For instance, after performing a microteaching

in the ESL class, the ITAs were asked to self-assess their microteaching presentation

based upon a set of criteria on a microteaching goal form. The form was composed of

148
two different sections: focus on language skills and focus on teaching skills. In the

language skills section, the ITAs were asked to monitor their language by listing their

problem words or expressions. The words and expressions were supposed to be broken

down into sub-categories of linguistic features, including vowels, consonants, prosody

(intonation, rhythm, word stress, and other), grammar, and vocabulary. In the descriptors

of the rubric in the form, accuracy and fluency were key criteria to assess the ITAs’

language skills.

Those interactions and instructional practices in the spoken English class above

illustrated that the act of correcting linguistic features and forms was not necessarily for

communicative and instructional purposes but rather an ideological practice particularly

in the asymmetrical and hierarchical settings between the participants. Silverstein (1993)

and Cameron (1995) argue that the common understanding of linguistic correctness is

part of language ideologies going along with the ideology of monolingualism. All the

debates and claims about appropriateness and linguistic correctness are metalinguistic

practices, mainly regulating the language use for particular purposes of whatsoever

(Cameron, 1995; Lippi-Green, 1997; Silverstein, 1993). In that sense, such talk about talk

is typical evidence about language ideologies (Agha, 2007; Jaworski, Coupland, &

Galasiński, 2004). In fact, the practice of the correction of language learners’ linguistic

forms can be used for the disciplinary purposes, by those with authority or power,

whether teachers or native-speakers (Jakonen, 2016; Park, 2015; Razfar, 2005).

Correction and repair practices occurred in the ESL would be neither corrected even nor

noticed if such incorrect speech is spoken by a native speaker of English, who is often

149
represented as Chomskyan ‘ideal speaker-listener’ in traditional ESL/SLA pedagogy.

Mostly, the remedial instructional practices are not based upon linguistic facts or

pedagogical effectiveness (Razfar, 2005; Tollefson & Yamagami, 2013). Rather, the

correction practices are attributed to the social representation of the learners and their

languages. That is, the correction practices may rest on the social representation of the

ELLs as deficit, which is informed by standardized language and native-speaker

superiority ideologies deeply entrenched in conventional ESL/SLA classrooms.

Finally, the ideology of academic ways of speaking was another dominant

ideology embedded in the spoken English class. The orientation toward the academic

ways of speaking was illustrated in detail in the analysis of the way in which the ITAs’

microteaching presentations went through the process of planning and structuring. The

ITAs were expected to perform a microteaching in the spoken English class on a regular

basis in preparation for a mock teaching test scheduled at the end of the semester. Their

microteaching presentation was evaluated by both the teacher and their peers on the basis

of the rubrics, and followed by the teacher’s tutorial feedback. The following excerpt of a

peer evaluation sheet shows in what ways the ITAs’ speech was supposed to be planned

and structured.

Excerpt 13 Technologization of Academic Ways of Speaking

Peer Evaluation
Presenter
I understood % of this presentation
Presentation was engaging
Continued
150
Excerpt 13 Continued

Organization was clear

Examples were helpful
Pronunciation was clear
Speech was smooth and fluent
Speech rate was acceptable
Eye contact was acceptable
What was the major weakness?
What was the major strength?

(From a peer evaluation form)

As expected to occur in an academic setting, ITAs’ microteaching performance

was supposed to follow the conventions of academic speech characterized by greater

formality than a daily life conversation. Students’ speech went through the process of

planning and structuring before entering into real interaction. Their speech was likely to

be drafted, edited, or rehearsed before an actual performance. According to the evaluation

sheet above, the ITAs’ speech would be assessed based upon a set of the conventions of

the academic speech genre: the clarity of the organization; the inclusion of evidence or

examples; the seamless flow and fluency of the speech; the clarity of pronunciation; the

acceptability of speech rate; and the interaction with their audience in an engaging way.

Those conventions were engineering the students’ discourse in accordance with the genre

of academic speech. In doing so, the students were supposed to “learn to recognize,

reproduce, and manipulate in order to become a competent member of a particular

community” (Johnstone, 2008, p. 182).

151
 At the broader societal level, the ITAs’ microteaching presentation was the genre

of a simulation characteristic of the technologization of ways of speaking (Fairclough,

1995), which may be designed as context-free discourse techniques. Namely, the

planning and structuring of academic speech was associated with “discourse

technologization” based on “the strategic calculation of their effectivity” (Fairclough,

1995, p. 105). As mentioned above, the ITAs’ speech was likely to be drafted, edited,

and/or rehearsed before its actual performance. Their microteaching was a kind of pre-

planned oral performance, with great formality and less variations similar to the written

forms of language rather than spontaneous spoken forms. The teachers as an ‘ESL

specialist’ were playing a role of the “expert discourse technologists” (Fairclough, 1995,

p. 103) who did the policing of discourse practices by checking, correcting or

sanctioning. The ITAs’ ways of speaking thus were being engineered towards the

standardization of the academic speech characterized by greater formality, rhetorical

sophistication, and loads of technical terminologies. Such academic discourse was

normative and prescriptive in nature, not situated in contexts and practices (Antilla-Garza

& Cook-Gumperz, 2015; Galloway, Stude, & Uccelli, 2015; Preece, 2015). The rigid

formality of the academic language implies the tendency of the commodification of

language as a quality product and the technology of communication skills (Agha, 2011;

Cameron, 2002; Heller, 2010), which is undergirded by the ideology of standardization of

ways of speaking. As such, the old ideology of standard language was being in continuity

in conjunction with the new ideology of academic speech as effective communicative

skills and commodified language (Shankar & Cavanaugh, 2012).

152
 In conclusion, given that the ESL classroom itself was predominated by the

English Only ideology, what was learned and taught in the ESL class was not the matter

of which codes of language would be used. Rather, it was a matter of which form of the

English language should be taught as a privileged one. That is, it was the matter of norms

and values: in terms of (effective) communicative skills in American academic settings,

whose ways of speaking would be ideologically accepted and taught as a normative way

of speaking, styles and genres, and to whose advantages. It may be a difficult, if not

impossible, task to tackle sociopolitical and ideological dimensions from critical

perspectives in educational spaces which have often been sanitized against sociopolitical

discourse. However, teachers and researchers of English language learners have an

ethical responsibility to raise critical awareness of ideologies underlying their claims for

pedagogical practices (Tollefson, 2007). They are also responsible for the social,

political, and economic consequences of the educational policy and pedagogical practices

that they uphold on their students. I would develop further this line of arguments with the

discussions and implications of the findings in the ensuing chapter.

153
 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

Informed by critical discourse studies and ethnographic educational research, the

present dissertation has investigated language ideologies embedded in the discourse of

diversity in relation to the issues of international students’ identity negotiation as

observed in a U.S. university ESL context. In doing so, this study sought to better

understand the relationship of ideologies in the diversity discourses and identity

construction. The following research questions guided this dissertation research:

§   What are the language ideologies of the ESL classroom? How are these

ideologies taken up, resisted or transformed in teachers’ and students’ teaching

and learning of English?

§   How are these ideologies practiced? What discursive strategies are constructed

and how do they work in the ESL classroom?

§   How do ITAs experience those discursive practices of language ideologies?

In what follows, I shall begin with discussions about the main findings from

Chapter 4. The findings will be interpreted and discussed in light of the present research

questions, the theoretical frameworks used, and the applicable literature. I then proceed to

154
discuss the theoretical, methodological and pedagogical contributions that this

dissertation makes to the scholarship on discourse and identity and to the ESL/SLA

pedagogy and practice. The recommendation for future research will be followed. The

dissertation concludes with a brief summary of the research and its implications.

What are the language ideologies of the ESL classroom?

How are these ideologies taken up, resisted or transformed in teachers’ and

students’ teaching and learning of English?

As diverse individuals came into contact with one another, bringing their

heterogeneous resources and ideologies, ideological conflicts abounded in the ESL space.

The conflicts entailed constant tensions and resistance, which made the participants in the

space engage with ongoing negotiations in various ways. The tensions revolved around

dominant monoglossic ideologies deeply ingrained in ESL/ SLA pedagogy and discourse

of cultural and linguistic difference. The monoglossic nationalist language ideologies,

including monolingualism, native-speaker superiority, and language standardization,

were predominant on the social and institutional level of discourses as well as on the

local level of the ESL classroom interactions. Those monoglossic ideologies were

intertwined with one another and undergirded by the overarching social ideology of

Otherness. All of those ideologies appeared to be restrictive and exclusionary in nature,

whether explicitly or implicitly, because they were used for discriminatory practices.

My analysis on the intertextual links between the state bill on TAs’ oral English

proficiency and the Spoken English Program (SEP) practices at the Midwestern

university illuminated what ideologies were assumed and how the broader social level of

155
a language policy has been interpreted and implemented at the institutional level. The

way of the policy interpretation and implementation at the university ESL program made

explicit the underlying ideologies of native-speaker superiority. The findings illustrated

that the language policy of the state was underpinned by the commonsensical assumption

about culturally and linguistically different Others in the first place. It might have been

viewed as a matter of fact or taken-for-granted that the language policy would apply only

to non-native TAs, exempting native TAs from the screening measure by default, even

though the law did not explicitly stipulate as such. The state bill seemed to acutely sense

the discourse of politically correctness. The bill did not limit the scope of the English

language proficiency regulation to internationals. That is, the legal document did not

specify that the law would apply only to internationals or non-native English speakers,

but it only referred to ‘all teaching assistants in the state’. In so doing, the bill appeared

to be left open to possibilities of various interpretations of the policy in the process of its

implementation at institutions. In fact, the spoken English program at the Midwestern

university screened only international TAs’ oral English proficiency and native English-

speaking TAs were not the object of the language policy.

The ideology of native-speaker superiority was intersected with the long-lasting

social ideology of Otherness. Those ideologies amounted to other nationalist ideologies

such as monolingualism, standardized language, English Only, and immersion, all of

which have been complexly working together in discursive practices. Through the

process of entextualization (Bauman, 2004), the shared assumptions and presuppositions

about cultural and linguistic differences were clearly articulated even if the state bill did

156
not explicitly state its underlying assumptions about the linguistic deficit of foreign/

international TAs. Under the restrictive language policy and the ensuing language

screening program, the cultural and linguistic differences were marked off to exclude the

ITAs as Others. The intertextual links between the state language policy and its

implementation at the university ESL program attested to the process of

recontextualization through which hegemonic ideologies were disseminated (Wodak,

2000; Wodak & Fairclough, 2010). The durability and persistence of the hegemonic

ideologies across various social levels beg a significant question about what substantive

consequences the language policy might have for the ITAs.

The spoken English class for the ITAs appeared to be about how the international

student’s linguistic practices were heard and evaluated. The formation of linguistic

stereotypes was one layer of ideologies embedded in the ESL classroom. The ways of the

ITAs’ speaking were often described as sounding robotic, flat, or boring. The routinized

instructional practices focused upon the prosodic features of English, stress rules, thought

groups, and so on. More than occasionally, what actually happened in the ESL classroom

was an instructional practice for accent reduction and correct pronunciation. The

ostensible purpose of the course was seemingly to reduce the foreign accent of the ITAs

so that the ITAs might be intelligible to native English-speaking undergraduate students.

Flores and Rosa (2015) critique as “raciolinguistic ideologies” the notions of

intelligibility and appropriateness that solely focus on speaking subjects in

communication. They assert that the linguistic practices of language minoritized

population may be perceived as deficient and deviant regardless of how closely and how

157
well these students could model the linguistic practices after the White speaking subjects.

It is because their linguistic practices may be perceived in racialized ways by the White

‘listening subjects’. Their argument parallels the contention of native-speaker superiority

and standard language ideology in that linguistic difference is being used as a means for

social discrimination. As the SEP program mainly focused upon accent reduction and

pronunciation drills, and the ITAs were being tested and evaluated in terms of their

intelligibility to native speakers of English, the SEP program and the oral proficiency test

played a role of the White listening subjects. In such a way, the dominant ideology of

native-speaker superiority and listening subjects served to exclude the Other.

As is the case of the matched-guise test (Rubin & Smith, 1990), the biggest

limitation of the earlier approaches to linguistic diversity and ITAs was that they

primarily focused on the listeners’ perception, that is, how the native English-speaking

students, staff, and faculty perceive non-native, foreign or international TAs. What most

often resulted is the enactment of such language profiling practices (Lippi-Green, 1997)

at universities and colleges through ESL language programs. And the language programs

may be geared towards remedying the problem accent and pronunciation of the ITAs. By

looking at communicative problems solely from the viewpoint of the ‘listening subjects’

in power with respect to the intelligibility of the non-native ‘speaking subjects’ (Flores &

Rosa, 2015), the language profiling practices do not see the multiple contextual

dimensions of communication, let alone the reflexivity upon the power relations and

language ideologies they serve. The responsibility for communication has been placed

upon the non-native speakers of English while there has been less or otherwise no effort

158
to increase the intercultural awareness of linguistic diversity on the part of the

corresponding native speakers of English. Rather, by perceiving the Others’ ways of

speaking and their language as deficit, the existing approaches to linguistic diversity

reinforce the native-speaker superiority ideology and perpetuate the unequal power

relations between native speakers and non-native speakers.

Meanwhile, under the restrictive language policy of English Only, students’ first

language (L1) was constantly subject to control. The monolingualism ideology rests on

the dominant pedagogical ground that the use of the L1 may disrupt or delay second

language (L2) acquisition. As demonstrated in the instance of the L1 control in the ESL

class, L1 interference with L2 has been widely spread in public discourse in conjunction

with the ideology of immersion, both of which were emanated from the research on L2

acquisition in the 1960s and 1970s and deeply ingrained and upheld in ESL/SLA

pedagogy and practice. The assumption of the contrastive method in SLA is that L1 may

interfere with the development and acquisition of L2, and that the use of L1 while

learning L2 may confuse the language learners (Ellis, 1994). That is, the use of L1 has

deleterious effects on the identity construction and intellectual development of the

language learners as well as it impedes their L2 acquisition. From this point of view, one

might argue that languages must be kept separate while the L2 learners should get

exposed to their L2 as much as possible.

What should be noted is that within the dominant discourse, the ideology of

linguistic interference comes to be extended to cultural interference. The use of L1 is

often seen as a refusal or an inability to integrate into the host society and culture. Within

159
such discourse, the culture of the students’ origin is deemed not conducive to the

students’ cultural adaptation or assimilation in the new culture. Like any other space

where educational activities take place, the ESL classroom should be supposed to be

conducive to learning. However, the nationalist monolingual ideologies and native-

speaker superiority have eclipsed the richness and multiple possibilities of diversity.

Diversity as resource in effect has been crippled by these ingrained institutional

ideologies in the ESL space. Even though there has been a growing recognition of the

multiplicity, complexity, hybridity of language use and ensuing efforts for theorizing and

practicing those concepts in the area of bilingualism (Baker, 2006; García & Sylvan,

2011; Hornberger, 2004), ESL/SLA pedagogy and practice have not yet incorporated

such dynamic discourses of diversity into their area.

Immersion language ideology is widespread in public discourse on language

learning and education, shaping people’s beliefs about language use and language

speakers. As Ms. Briedis described her English classroom as an exclusive space for

English, the ESL classroom was saturated with the discourse of language immersion in

conjunction with the English Only policy. The door of the classroom symbolically

functioned as a language border, which indicated the embodied disposition of the ESL

space. Indeed, the ESL classroom was the very space of a regime of the language

(Kroskrity, 2000). The ESL space itself not only was regimenting language use but also

the interactions and relationships between participants in the activities taking place in it.

According to the affordances and constraints the regime of the English language

constructs, the students may be defined as either competent or incompetent, proficient or

160
non-proficient. Bourdieu’s (1991) concept of habitus can account for the historically

embodied nature of the ESL classroom. From this point of view, the ESL classroom can

be seen as an institutional space which orients, directs, and/ or coordinates human activity

toward certain ways in which certain dispositions come to be inhabited and embodied in

the space. Those dispositions do not just emerge or are constructed by immediate

interaction. Rather, the dispositions are pre-projected or pre-existed as tacit habits of

human activities in the space and then are activated by or condition human activities. The

embodied disposition conditions humans in the space to act in certain ways. As such, the

students’ and the teachers’ familiarity with the typical ESL instructions and with the

institutionally defined identities of those students as ELLs resulted in the typical remedial

instructional practices. Due to their familiarity with the ESL contexts, their classroom

relationships came to be organized by the enactment of the relationships between a native

English teacher and non-native ESL students. Since complex ideologies were laminated

in the ESL space as such, it was doubtful what identities would be affordable that the

students could adopt with their agency under such circumstances. The substantive

consequence may be the incidental learning of the ideologies evoked in the instructional

practices, which is part of the hidden curriculum (Giroux, 2001). The covert message that

the students read from the space may be that they are the Others whose languages are not

legitimate in the space.

Another ideology was concerned with the concept of communicative competence.

In ESL/ SLA contexts, native-speaker-like language competence has long been conceived

of ideal for L2 learning and acquisition. The emphasis on the oral English proficiency has

161
been linked to a deficit perspective on English language learner. The deficit view is

fundamentally grounded in the ideology of native-speaker superiority. The deficit model

and the language ideology have resulted in vulnerable identities of both English language

learners and non-native English teachers, as was the case of Ms. Briedis in my pilot

study. The ideal native speaker ideology has had an effect on how the ITAs perceived

their language and language use. The traditional ideology of native-like linguistic

competence in ESL has disqualified the language education and English learning

experience that the ITAs have gained in their country of origin. The ITAs thought their

education failed them since they were not able to successfully communicate with native

speakers of English when they came to the English speaking country, the USA, and they

had been placed in the remedial ESL course for that reason. English education in non-

English speaking countries has been critiqued in that the emphasis has been on literacy

with a focus on grammar and vocabulary expansion rather than oral competence. This

indicates that the ideology of native-speaker superiority successfully was being

indoctrinated and internalized into the English language learners.

For those non-native English-speaking students and teachers, they may have a

preconceived notion of linguistic competence of native speakers of English. The

prevalence of the immersion approach based on the model of linguistic competence as a

total language hinders alternative visions from being made and in dialogue with one

another (Blommaert, 2010). The total language competence undergirds the ideology of

native-speaker superiority, against which the ITAs’ proficiency in English and

communicative competence were measured and evaluated. By attributing their inability

162
to communicate with native speakers of English to the failure of the English education

they have received in schools, the students were being engaged with the power relations

of native speakers and non-native speakers. In doing so, they were unwittingly

reproducing the ideology of native-speaker superiority.

The long-standing language ideology of native-speaker superiority (re)produces

the dominant public discourse and in turn perpetuates the inequality entailed from power

struggles over norm. With native speakers idealized as an unmarked norm, English

language learners are forced to acquire the native-speaker-like proficiency. The

normalization means constructing value-laden implications about ELLs. ‘Englishes’

spoken by ELLs may be considered as defective against the norm, the English language

of the native speakers. The ELLs’ English might be deemed most distant from the norm.

The ELLs seen as incompetent in the English language may be considered as not

competent in participating in academic activities and in broader intellectual activities

(Park, 2015; Razfar, 2005). This restrictive ideology often makes an appearance of being

normal, commonsensical and homogeneously accepted particularly in ESL/ SLA

educational contexts. As mentioned above, the dominant ideology makes even the

students relegate their educational experience as a failure and feel their English is

illegitimate or defective. The disempowering effect of the dominant ideology on the

marginalized is primarily due to the fact that society fails to validate non-native speakers’

English usually acquired through many years of schooling in their country of origin.

Further, Chomskyan ideal speaker-listener is entrenched in conventional English

language classrooms despite the research debunking the myth. Rather, that misleading

163
notion has been widely circulated in public discourse on language learning and has

profound pedagogical consequences for language learners’ identity. The persistence of

the ideal speaker-listener notion attests to the ideological function of language that

sustains the vested interests of the dominant groups while suppressing the linguistically

minoritized groups (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Lippi-Green, 1997; Rampton, 1995).

The normative instructional practices observed in the ESL class suggested that the

instructional methods and approaches to language were driven by the monoglossic

structuralist stance. The normative practices in the ESL class were premised on the

concept of a target language. The target language is often presumed as a fixed and

unchanging language and not subject to variation, which is far from the nature of

language in everyday practice. From this point of view on language, ELLs are deviant

from the target language and their less proficiency in the language is often attributed to

their incompetence. Along with the standard language, the concept of a target language

creates illusion that a native speaker may have expertise in the language, idealized as a

target language speaker with ‘no accent’ (Lippi-Green, 1997). For instance, in my study,

Kun employed joke as a discursive strategy with which he avoided making a language

disclaimer in performing his microteaching. Kun, who received his master’s degree in a

Midwestern region, made an excuse of his accent by attributing it to the regional accent.,

In a personal conversation with me later after the class session, Mr. Rooney dismissed

what Kun said in class, saying there was no accent in the region. Kun’s own linguistic

and cultural experiences in the region came to be assessed and illegitimated by the

authority of a native speaker of English, which has often been ‘ideologized as no accent’

164
in a normative model of American ‘accent’ (Lippi-Green, 1997). The normative practice

in the ESL class begs several critical questions: who defines what is regarded as

American norms?; on what authority?; what criteria are used for defining the norms?; and

what kind of knowledge of a language is deemed appropriate or by whom? Those

questions fundamentally touch upon power relations and in turn contest dominant

ideologies undergirding social relations.

The ESL instructions based on those restrictive and homogenizing ideologies do

not justice to the complexity and multiplicity of linguistic resources brought with ITAs.

Given their transnational trajectories crossing cultural and linguistic borders, the

international students bring together with them their multiple identities which are

qualitatively different than those presupposed or stereotyped by people in the receiving

countries (Canagarajah, 2013; Creese & Blackledge, 2015). However, their multiple

identities have been eclipsed by the institutional identities. The students’ cultural and

linguistic diversity would be rendered illegitimate and not viable in the ESL space in

which the rigid language ideologies of homogeneity were practiced through various

discursive strategies of Othering, to which I shall turn for further discussion in what

follows.

How are these ideologies practiced? What discursive strategies are constructed and

how do they work in the ESL classroom?

The language ideologies revealed above were restrictive and exclusionary in

nature since in conjunction with the discourse of difference those ideologies were being

practiced to mark and exclude Other on various layers of discursive practices. In the

165
identity politics, the ideological legitimation of exclusion relies upon discourses of

differences (Kerschbaum, 2014; Lin, 2008; McCall, 2005). Bucholtz and Hall (2004)

point out the way in which differences are manifested in identity work. They note that in

identity politics, the ideological commonality among discourses on Other is obscuring

differences among the same members while manufacturing or underscoring differences

between in-group and out-group. In the ESL space, language varieties and variations

within the same group of native speakers are obscured to represent all native speakers as

standard language users with ‘no accent’ (Lippi-Green, 1997) or Chomskyan ideal

speaker-listeners. Their own individual varieties and variations in language use, registers

across various social domains in which they get involved, dialects, and idiolects, are

made invisible in this identity work that delineates the divide between in-group and out-

group in terms of linguistic difference.

Further, the discussion on culture in the spoken English class was mostly

organized around the contrastive rhetoric between the West and the non-West, more

specifically, between American culture and the students’ cultures of origin. The

discussion was framed in a contrastive way in which cultural difference and sameness

were brought to the fore. The contrastive approach to culture was liable to lead to the

conclusion which would represent American culture as normal, rational, democratic,

students-centered while the ITAs’ cultures as the opposites. The talk was framed within

the dichotomous cultural dimensions of Hofstede’s (1980;1983) which have been

criticized of their stereotyping of certain cultures and people. The class discussion on

culture was likely to be culminating with the essentialization of Others. The contrastive

166
approach appeared to reproduce and reinforce the essentialist understanding of Others

and their culture, thereby perpetuating the inequality between the rigid boundary of ‘us’

and ‘them’.

Under the restrictive language policy and instructional practice, one prominent

characteristics of the ESL classroom was the powerless speech of the students (Bradac &

Mulac, 1984; Erickson et al., 1978), which was illustrated in the ITAs’ speech featuring

hedge and conceding smile and laughter. The international students particularly from

Asian cultures have often been stereotypically described as passive, which is mainly

attributed to the cultures of origin valuing the authority of teachers and to differing views

of knowledge from American culture (Kubota, 2010). However, Giroux (2001) points

out that “powerless is often confused with passivity” (p. 55). The confusion between

powerlessness and passivity was apparent in the English language class, which was

illustrated in Ms. Briedis’s description of her students as passive assuming that they

would ‘just listen to people talking’ or ‘just work on something’.

What is even more problematic is that through the discussion on cultural

difference, racial identities were discursively constructed and the cultural and linguistic

difference was becoming a proxy for racial difference (Kubota, 2013), which was a form

of new racism describing the groups in cultural terms in place of explicit racial terms

(May, 2001; Schmidt, 2002). As outright racism is not acceptable in public domains,

racial terms have been replaced with and shifted to euphemistical terms such as culture or

cultural difference. The euphemism relies upon a color-blindness liberal stance of

equality and allows for marking Other and their cultural practices as ‘too foreign’ or

167
‘alien’ to accept them as the same members of the majority community, or the in-group

members (Blackledge, 2005; González & Melis, 2000; May, 2001). The linguistic and

cultural intolerance and the liberal stance of equality have resemblance to racism in that

they do not attend to and otherwise disguise the underlying power relations which

legitimate discrimination against the dominated and results in linguicism (Blackledge,

2005; Van Dijk, 1993). Such implicit work of linguicism becomes evident in how ITAs

have been categorized and represented through various Othering strategies.

Othering strategies: The Label of ‘International’ in Place of ‘Oriental’

The representation as ‘international TA’ or ‘international students’ is not the self-

representation of those students. Rather, the sociopolitical context surrounding the

students is the source which gives the representation to these students through the

institutional and administrative category. In looking at how the institution categorizes

international students and how the students themselves experience the label

‘international’ affixed to them, it enables us to see how social identities are created in

relation to sociopolitical relations through such semiotic acts of identification. It is

common that various semiotic references are drawn upon in positioning people from

different backgrounds (Kubota, 2013; Rymes, 2001). Others are often marked with

certain affixes, as is evident in the use of various ethnolinguistic labels such as ITA, ESL,

ELLs. Such institutional categories and labels are created, circulated, and consumed

around the educational institutions to enact the social relations constructed by the

Othering strategies. What matters is that those labels may be loaded with social

connotation, which thus carries indexical meanings and social order. The categories are

168
not just descriptive but indexical of how those students are perceived by the institutions

(Rymes, 2001). In that respect, the labels can serve as proxies for ideologies hidden in

them.

Through the process of categorization and identification, people are demarcated in

terms of certain social differences and then excluded to inequality (McCall, 2005). For

the ITAs, the sweeping act of categorization made the students’ ethnic origins conflated

into the label of ‘international’. The term ‘international’ could take on different valences

on American campus depending on where the person comes from and what

ethnolinguistic backgrounds the person has. In effect, the category of ‘international

students’ was being used to primarily refer to students from Asian countries. This

message could be implicitly read from the composition of the SEP/ ESL class. The

population of the students in the SEP program was mainly composed of those students

from non-Anglo European backgrounds. More precisely, students from various Asian

countries were being lumped into the category of ‘international’ students and/ or ITAs

while those from Anglo-European countries would not be included into the label

probably even in the first place. In early studies on international TAs, Rubin and Smith

(1990) point out that the negative perception of ITAs bears on ITAs’ ethnolinguistic

backgrounds, especially, Asianness, due to the increasing number of students from China.

Therefore, with the term ‘non-native English TA’, they try to distinguish the foreignness

from ethnicity issues because linguistically Asian cultures are more distant from Anglo-

European countries. Indeed, the ITAs in my study were also experiencing the label of

‘international students’ as the equivalent of ‘the students from Asian countries’. As such,

169
through the process of categorization, students from different countries would be

demarcated in terms of their ethnolinguistic qualities and then some of them, who might

be culturally distant, would be excluded to inequality.

The composition of the student body of the ESL program implies what Othering

strategy is used at the institutional level. As implied in the demographics of the students,

the program itself has become a way to perpetuate the dichotomous divide of the West

and the East. The enduring dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’ has been transformed or

replaced with the various euphemistical terms referring to people from the East. Through

the process of categorization and identification, Asian students’ ethnic origins are

conflated into the category of ‘international’, which thus would be interchangeable with

‘Asian’. That points to the manifestation of Orientalism (Said, 1978) deeply ingrained in

the Western consciousness of Others as a threat or problem. The topos of threat or

problem is substantiated by the way in which ITAs have been perceived as a ‘problem’ in

U. S. settings (Bailey, 1983). Therefore, the term ‘international’ is rhetoric which is

euphemistically used in place of ‘Oriental’, and the category of international is a vestigial

prejudice of the old Other. Through the process of the categorization of Other,

internationals may be represented as an anonymous mass and potential problem or threat

to the U.S. academic community. In such ways, the long-lasting topos of threat has

legitimized the exclusionary practice against Other.

The fact that Asian students are overrepresented in the ESL program implies the

ideological role of the language program itself in the categorization and identification of

Other. The ESL program utilizes the oral English proficiency assessment tool to screen,

170
demarcate, and exclude the culturally and linguistically distant Other. English language

proficiency has been used as a significant threshold for entry to American academic

community, which in effect plays a role of a listening subject (Flores & Rosa, 2015)

gatekeeping and justifying exclusionary policies and practices. With the use of a bridge

metaphor, the ESL programs at colleges and universities in the United States often define

their role as a coordinator, as was shown in the general information text of the SEP

program. What they really are doing, however, is a role of a gatekeeper and language

border that scrutinizes the international students’ language and categorizes them as Other.

What should merit further discussion is the normalization process taking place in

the ESL classrooms. The instructional practices taking pace in the ESL classroom were

set up in norm-oriented frames within which American academic cultural norms and

expectations were deemed legitimate while other possibilities were considered not

legitimate or deviant. The ITAs were being trained to adopt American ways of teaching

and classroom interaction as normative instructional practices. In the space, how teachers

and students would interact in U. S. academic settings was presupposed as a norm against

which difference or deviation from the norm would be measured up and subject to

correction or repair.

As such, American TAs and native speakers of English come to gain the default

status of unmarked norm in opposition to the marked identities of the international TAs

and non-native speakers of English. The linguistic and cultural prescriptivism and

normativity require international TAs to become like ‘American TAs’, to sound like

‘American TAs’. This process of normalization is the ideological process of hegemony

171
which renders naturalized, unmarked, and invisible the default status of we-categories,

creating the illusion of American language practices and cultures being internally

homogeneous (Irvine & Gal, 2000). Meanwhile, the linguistic and cultural differences of

the Other are seen as deviation and/or failure against the norm and in turn becomes a

justification for social inequality (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004; McCall, 2005). The

ethnocentric normativity cancels the celebratory rhetoric and diversity discourses

advocating plurality, which is contradictory to the diversity initiatives of the university

itself. The homogenizing normativity could be problematic in intercultural interactions

because of its ethnocentric orientation and insensitivity to intercultural differences. An

ESL classroom is not just a space where an individual learns the English language but

also is an intercultural context or contact zone (Pratt, 1991). In the intercultural context,

normativity issues must be critically examined and discussed. Any normative practices

may be subject to the ethnocentric orientation toward cultural and linguistic differences.

The normativity issues in contact zones are even further compounded when

ideologies and interests from different scales come to be in interaction primarily due to

globalization in that context (Blommaert, 2010). The presence of international students

on U.S. campus and their transnational mobility are “a global scale level of events and

processes” (Blommaert, 2010, p. 155). Yet, a very modernist and nation-scale response to

the international students has been made through higher educational institutions that

utilize the modern nation-state mechanism of social selection and exclusion based upon

differences (Blommaert, 2010). Under the circumstance, the transnational students have

been imagined and treated on the ground of traditional ESL students and subject to

172
assimilationist approaches to differences. Under restricting conditions of the modern

nation-state ideologies of homogeneity and assimilation, the students who are part of

globalization processes are to be disabled rather than enabled, excluded rather than

included, and repressed rather than liberated (Blommaert, 2010). Blommaert (2010)

attends to the nature of the indexical order among the multiplicity of norms, pointedly

asserting that the multiplicity of linguistic resources and norms does not mean that they

are “equivalent, equally accessible or equally open to negotiation” (p. 41). For the ITAs,

they would experience the contradicting language ideologies. On the one hand, most of

them started learning English as a foreign or additional language which is associated with

elitism of learning additional languages for intellectual sophistication and access to

upward social mobility (e.g. higher education, employment). In that case, English

learning is enrichment for them. With their environment shifted from such a circumstance

to the USA, however, the ITAs become English language learners often viewed as

deficient in English proficiency and cultural knowledge. They are likely to be placed in a

remedial language classroom in which the multiplicity of their cultural and linguistic

capacity would be suppressed as deficit by monolingualism. Put differently, their prior

experience of the English language learning is an additive one while the latter in the U.S.

setting is a subtractive one, both of which operate on a logic and mechanism of exclusion

though.

The power scheme between the center and peripheries offers a possible

explanation for the ambivalence about diversity with respect to the burgeoning presence

of international students and faculty in U.S. higher educational institutions. From the

173
view of the world system that explains the differentiated valuation of social and cultural

capital between the center and the peripheries of the globe (Wallerstein, 2011), the

discourse of diversity with respect to globalization needs to be distinguished in terms of

its flow; from the center to the peripheries as resources and globalization while the

opposite flow, from the peripheries to the center as problems, localism, or regionalism

(Blommaert, 2010). From the sociopolitical and ideological dimension of language,

languages are hierarchically layered resources with orders of indexicality (Silverstein,

2003). In addition, this hierarchical order of language as resources can be shifted into the

global power scheme among nations. In this respect, for instance, English learned from

the peripheral countries may be subject to a certain hierarchy of language when its

speaker shifts into an ESL classroom in the center (Blommaert, 2010). Through the

hierarchical indexical order (Silverstein, 2003), the language ideologies make ‘foreign’,

‘non-native’, or ‘international’ accent as a marker of those international Others’ identity.

The power differentiation between the center and the peripheries can account for

the scaling strategy through which the culture of the center would be up-scaled whereas

those of the peripheries would be down-scaled in an intercultural interaction (Blommaert,

2010). The comparison between American cultural norm and that of students can be

interpreted as pitting against different scales with different value attribution. As the

validity of American norm may have higher scales on the global level, an upscaling

strategy may be used to validate American norm in the ESL instruction. From the frame

of the center-peripheries world system (Wallerstein, 2011), native English can be seen as

one of prestige languages over non-native speakers’. As a result, students may tend to

174
devalue their English register that they have learned throughout their education in the

country of origin. But the access to and distribution of the prestige register are

constrained by institutions which play the role of gatekeeping (Agha, 2011; Blommaert,

2010).

To recap, the presence of international students on U.S. college campuses is an

instantiation of globalization. Whereas the transnational mobility of the internationals and

their translingual practices are in the wake of globalization process featuring diversity,

the response to the presence of the international Other is a very modernist reaction and

localism (Blommaert, 2010). From the transnational globalization perspective, diversity

may be more likely to be a resource to enrich a society, but on the other hand, from the

modernist nation-state ideology the same diversity may be a problem to the social

cohesion. Under such circumstance, the contradictory discourse of diversity may force

the Other to be integrated into the nationalist notion of one-nation-one language, by

unlearning their language and cultural practices. As a result, discourse of diversity

invoking globalization comes to be in a paradox in U. S. higher educational contexts.

As was analyzed through the intertextuality between social discursive practices

and local interactional practices in the ESL class, the broader socio-political discourse of

social difference is translated into cultural and linguistic differences in the classroom.

One revealing ideological work of the native-speaker superiority in the spoken English

class was that the native-like proficiency in English might guarantee the quality of

teaching. The state’s language policy implicitly associated TAs’ oral English proficiency

with their teaching competence and skills. As a result, the socio-political dimension of

175
social order has been transformed into the technical issues of teaching skills in ESL

practices. Thereby, social problems are structured as individual problems of deficit which

are in need of remedial interventions by ESL ‘specialists’. In so doing, the structural and

ideological constraints to the ITAs are downplayed in their role of the ideological state

apparatus (Althusser, 1971).

In addition, the ITAs themselves were not free from the dominant public

discourses on English as a privileged language. They had a unified view that English is

important to their future life and career. Their view echoed the public discourse on the

importance of English for one’s career that the mastery of English might entail social and

academic success and therefore one must make efforts to improve their English if they

would like to succeed. The underlying assumption is that one’s lack of effort is to blame

for their less oral English proficiency. In fact, most of the focal ITAs in my study

attributed their less proficiency in English to their lack of effort to improve it. The

prevalent discourse on English as a privileged language overlooks the underlying power

relations among social differences. The dominant ideology disguises the gatekeeping role

of institutions, working at every layer of interactions and justifying the discourse

positioning the ESL learners as deficient. Meanwhile, the inability of the institution to

embrace cultural and linguistic diversity suggests that hard work and an increased effort

on the ITAs’ part would not suffice to change the prevalent deficit perspectives on these

students.

It is evident that the ITAs were acutely aware of how their language choice had an

impact on the relationship with their potential students and others. However, what they

176
were not aware of was the underlying ideologies associated with the broader structural

discourse excluding Other on the basis of difference. As demonstrated in the response to

the language disclaimer, the ITAs were reluctant to have their perceived cultural and

linguistic difference highlighted in the case their priority would be to represent

themselves as a professional academic and to build rapport with U.S. students.

Meanwhile, their thought was that as time changed, today’s international students’

English proficiency was getting much better than that of the foreign TAs in the 1980s.

They assumed that thanks to globalization, cultural differences were getting less than

before and the problem of ITAs with less proficiency in English would not be a problem

in more globalized world. This is also the success of the language ideology that attributes

the ‘problem’ entailed from sociopolitical power to the Others’ individual problem,

asserting the solution is the individual’s linguistic proficiency improvement, not broader

collective institutional changes to resolve the intercultural conflicts. At this point, critical

language awareness is much more needed to shed light on those subliminal workings of

ideologies in language education.

Yet, the ITAs’ various reactions to the language disclaimer demonstrated their

heightened linguistic awareness. Their critical awareness sensitized themselves to the

ideological workings of discourse so they were able to deploy discursive tactics to

negotiate their identities accordingly. For instance, in a microteaching presentation in

which the ITAs were supposed to make a language disclaimer, Jun deployed a discursive

strategy to shift the responsibility of communication from ‘I’ to the inclusive ‘we’. In so

doing, he suggested the mutual accommodation and responsibility for understanding and

177
knowledge construction in the intercultural context. Jun was able to negotiate equal

positionality for all involved, irrespective of cultural and linguistic differences as opposed

to the dominant power relation of native speakers and non-native speakers of English in

the ESL context. What matters was not whether the ITAs’ discursive strategies were

successful or not for their identity negotiation but the fact that they exercised their agency

in choosing the discursive strategies to respond to the dominant ideologies.

The metalinguistic awareness of the ITAs has significant pedagogical

implications for ESL/SLA pedagogy. Based upon the findings of the present study, I

would emphasize the importance of critical reflexivity on language and social relations in

ESL/SLA pedagogy. My argument for critical reflexivity is also aligned with the tenets of

other critical moves in L2 pedagogy (e.g., Kubota, 2010; Norton & Toohey, 2004). The

critical reflexivity has been conceptualized as Critical Language Awareness (CLA) in

education (Clark et al., 1990; 1991). CLA is a situated educational practice that would

engage all students in critical reflection on power issues in discursive practices and

enable them to be aware of their positionality in certain contexts and to explore the ways

in which they take actions in response to such situations or oppression (Achugar, 2015;

Fairclough, 1992; Mosley Wetzel & Rodgers, 2015). Both ITAs and U.S. students need

to be aware of discursive options and possibilities as available resources which have

respective social, political, and personal significance, and thus accordingly they should be

able to choose to align themselves with one or another of social positions. For U.S.

students, they may have less chance to engage with critical reflexivity on their

stereotypical perception of the cultural and linguistic Others. Early studies on ITAs

178
simply call for the ways to encourage U. S. undergraduates to ‘tough it out and stick with

non-native English speaking TAs’ (Rubin & Smith, 1990). The U.S. students may not be

encouraged to critically reflect upon why they may have the ethnocentric attitudes toward

linguistic differences in the first place and what and how ideological power has been

implicitly operating to shape their beliefs about a language and its speakers, namely, their

own language ideologies.

How do ITAs experience those discursive practices of language ideologies?

As explicit in ITAs issues of the old media article and the enactment of the state

language policy, the spoken English program was established in the first place from the

perspective of ‘language-as-problem’ rather than ‘language-as-resource’ (Ruíz, 1984). In

the ESL space, ESL students were deemed liabilities rather than embraced as those with

rich cultural and linguistic resources contributing to the enhancement of diversity on

campus. Not only their language but also their cultural capital and knowledge come to be

questioned and deemed deficient within the remedial English program. The dominant

deficit discourse may make students themselves problematize and denigrate their own

language use, knowledge, culture, and even their own self. It was commonplace that the

discussion on culture in the ESL class was structured into the dichotomy of American

culture and the cultures of the ITAs’ origins. Cultural differences in the views of

knowledge and in the relationship between teachers and students were compared,

contrasted, and evaluated. Such contrastive discussions often resulted in the discursive

construction of the ITAs’ academic culture as non-democratic and irrational, education as

knowledge transmission, teachers as authoritarian, students as passive learners while the

179
corresponding American culture and classroom environment were idealized as

democratic, co-construction of knowledge, and active participation of students in class.

The linguistic repertoires and epistemic potentials of the international students were

rendered not viable within the ESL space. Rather, under the circumstance, the diversity

appeared to be deemed unconducive to the growth and development. Thereby, diversity

in effect was seen as problem rather than as resource within the institution.

What the students were incidentally learning in the spoken English class may be

the implicit message that they would not be a legitimate English language speaker within

the confines of the ESL classroom and presumably in U.S. higher educational

institutions. As shown in the analysis of the language disclaimer urging the ITAs to

acknowledge their ethnolinguistic differences, the ESL programs forced those students to

accept the unequal power relations between native speakers and non-native English

speakers. Such discursive move made the ITAs view their language as problematic.

Ultimately, the language disclaimer was like a powerless speech (Bradac & Mulac, 1984;

Erickson et al., 1978) which disempowered the students by reproducing the institutional

norms and unequal power relations. The ESL programs did little to foster the linguistic

and cultural diversity even though they were the central sites of cultural and linguistic

contact zones (Pratt, 1991). On the contrary, the ESL programs were faithfully playing a

key role of ideological state apparatus (Althusser, 1971) which would produce and

reproduce the nationalist ideologies of assimilationist and English Only.

By definition, and in effect, most of the ITAs in the spoken English class were

multiple language users. Other than the English language and his L1, Leo was proficient

180
in Japanese and had rudimentary proficiency in German, and another Chinese student,

Kun was learning German at the time of data collection. Their multilingual repertories

denoted the dynamisms of ‘truncated multilingualism’ (Blommaert, 2010) and ‘bits and

pieces of language as resources’ (Canagarajah, 2016), which are challenging the static

notion of language as a rigid autonomous system and communicative competence in a

whole language grounded in the myth of an ideal speaker-listener. From this new view on

multilingualism, an ELL who has been positioned as a deficient language learner may

become a versatile communicator in a multicultural and multilingual context. In the

contact zone, developing the ability to negotiate diverse norms of languages may be of

substantive intercultural communicative competence.

Further, the ITAs were required to be certified through an oral proficiency test

whereby they would be positioned as ‘a certified language user’ in relation to the English

language. The oral proficiency test was implemented by the institution against a certain

idealized standard variety. Thus, the ESL class was focusing on the reduction of

variations, accent reduction, error correction, and linguistic drills. The ITAs were being

tested whether they had learned the selected features of the English language and their

linguistic competence was measured against the selected standard criteria. As such, the

testing was an ideological act in that the ITAs were being classified as a success or failure

according to the test results. The ideological work of the language test was not confined

to the ITAs’ English language proficiency but extended to include the credibility of the

ITAs’ expertise, knowledge, and teaching credentials in the academy. The provision of

language support, albeit ostensibly well-meaning, was in effect being debilitating the

181
ESL students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds by assessing and

evaluating their communicative competence reductively against the ideological criteria of

the dominant.

Amidst the dominant ideologies and ensuing Othering discourses, international

TAs were expected to emulate their native English-speaking counterparts against the

established American norms. The discourse of international students and international

TAs constitutes new categories or new groups of ‘real’ students and ‘real’ TAs in

opposition to the ‘Other’ students and the ‘Other’ TAs. In this discourse, domestic and

native English-speaking students and TAs are created by default as new categories of

‘real’ students and ‘real’ TAs who belong to and are legitimate in the university in

contrast to their Other counterparts, that is, the ‘Other’ students and the ‘Other’ TAs.

These Others are conceived of those who have one or more deficits of some kinds in

comparison to the perceived norms of their corresponding ‘real’ categories. This scheme

of normalization legitimizes the way in which the institution scrutinizes the Other

students’ and the Other TAs’ linguistic proficiency in English and cultural fluency in

U.S. settings. As a result, the institution places the students into a remedial ESL

classroom where the Others may be under a sweeping linguistic Other category of ESL

students or ELLs in the latest euphemistic term. On that account, the dominant diversity

discourse is far from the categorical justice that is often promulgated by humanities and

liberal emancipatory discourses.

Being labeled as ITAs and placed in the ESL class factors into the ITAs’

experience and their sense of themselves in the U.S. academy. As illustrated in the

182
remedial instructional practices of pronunciation drills and accent reduction in the spoken

English class, the label has pathologized the international students by viewing them as

deficient. The institutional category and its indexical meaning have been reinforced and

sometimes even internalized into the students. Without any critical thoughts and

awareness of the ideological effects of the label, the students were adopting the

institutional category when they would introduce or represent themselves to others (e.g., I

am an international student.). The student’s sense of agency can be lost when they are

consistently positioned by their perceived ethnolinguistic features. The grand Discourse

surrounding the students and the institutionally imposed identity may preclude the

emergence of their multiple identities or deter the identity negotiation with agency, to

which I shall turn in what follows.

In the study of identity negotiation, it is crucial to look into how individuals

negotiate identity options available to them. Some of the options would be accepted or

resisted. Or through a process of negotiation, the individual would claim other identities

or assign alternatives to the given options. Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004) distinguish

identities in terms of negotiability: imposed identities which are not negotiable; assumed

identities which are accepted and not negotiated; and negotiable identities which are

contested by groups and individuals. The ITAs and ESL student identities are the ones

that have been imposed upon the international students and are the least negotiable

identities in that the identification is in conformity with a topos of authority of law

(Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). In other words, the requirement for English proficiency at the

university and the state’s mandate of the language policy leave no room for resistance,

183
contestation, or self-positioning. The imposed identity as a non-native speaker of English

does not allow the full negotiability for the ESL students. In the present study, for

instance, Leo was critical of his experience of the placement test and the ensuing spoken

English class. While other ITAs accepted the placement test results and the ensuing

decision that assigned them into the spoken English course, saying that it was the way a

policy worked (policy is policy), Leo resisted being placed in the spoken English class.

His test score fell a little short of the cut-off criteria of the placement test. Since he

believed he was orally proficient in English enough for social interactions and already

had prior teaching experiences in the U.S., Leo contacted an ESL coordinator in charge

of the placement test to negotiate. But the negotiation was rejected. Leo’s resistance to

being placed in the spoken English class denoted that the ESL classroom had been

perceived as an already stigmatized space in which the students would be viewed as

deficient. Those who refuse or are not able to conform to the dominant ideology may be

marginalized, denied access to the symbolic resources, and/or excluded (Tollefson &

Tsui, 2014). While ‘ITA’ might be one of the institutionally imposed identities on those

students, their multiple social identities may be made irrelevant in that space. As such,

the matter of difference is not simply about diversity but essentially about a power

differential among different social groups or individuals. Under such circumstances, the

identity politics inevitably entails inequality and therefore identity negotiation is an

outcome of the asymmetrical power relations (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004).

Further, as for the ITAs, they were in an ambiguous situation in which both

negotiating their identities and conforming to the institutional ideologies might entail

184
personal risks. The state’s language policy about TAs’ oral English proficiency carries

certain material consequences for the international students and those who do not speak

English as their L1. Given their powerless social status as those in between in every

aspect of their positionality, it may be risky for the ITAs to contest the dominant

language ideologies. In terms of their employability, for instance, working as a TA

provides them with tuitions, stipends, or teaching experience opportunities. Besides,

whether they would be seen as a failure or success is grounded in the very material

conditions. They should pass the oral proficiency test to be certified to be a TA at the

university. Otherwise, they may have to spend extra time and effort during next semester

or more than that, or they would never have opportunities to have teaching experiences at

the university, let alone the financial support. As such, all the institutional level

implementations of the language policy affect access and equity in education (Tollefson

& Tsui, 2014). The dominant discourse that privileges only American ways of speaking

and writing was reinforcing the asymmetrical power relations which have significant

consequences for the language minoritized population in terms of their access to higher

education and employment. The state’s mandate and the institutional language policy

were non-negotiable power and ideologies to the ITAs.

As such, the ethnolinguistic Otherness entails the vulnerability of ITAs’ identity.

ITAs may face numerous psychological challenges while living in a new culture and

sometimes experience trauma, all of which may impede their success in the academy.

Such challenges faced by the ITAs are usually compounded by the institutional and

ideological constraints to international students. Instead of the inclusion and validation of

185
their identities, the ITAs were being experiencing exclusion and disqualification in the

academy. Their cultural and linguistic differences factored into the institutional

discourses that dictated how they should speak and act. English proficiency requirements

for international students appeared to be unconducive to the ITAs’ self-esteem and

motivation to succeed. The portrayal of the international TAs as academically less

proficient simply because they are less proficient in oral English or have a strong foreign

accent is a problematic extrapolation which results in a feeling of failure and

incompleteness on the part of the ITAs. It is of significant relevance for ITAs how to

craft their position under the suppressing circumstance. The deficit perspectives and

reactionary stances on international students stand in the way of the development of the

ITAs’ academic and scholarly identity as well as their social identity. It needs to be

considered how the students take a risk in stepping up for themselves and how this risk-

taking entails the consequences that come with it. The challenges faced by the ITAs must

not be seen as individual problems. The problems should be addressed as ones emanated

from the linguistically and culturally stratified social order. These concerns cannot be

cast aside but need to be addressed by the collective efforts on the social and institutional

level.

Theoretical and Methodological Implications

This dissertation makes contributions to the critical scholarship of discourse and

identity and to the ESL/SLA pedagogy. The dissertation contributes to: (1) the

understanding of the notion of language ideology and its central role in the formation of

social relations and inequality in educational settings; (2) the understanding of the

186
dialectical nature of discourse and ideology in the interconnection of the broader social

order and the local interactions; (3) the analytical capacity of critical discourse studies in

investigating power relations in educational settings; (4) and the reconceptualization of

key concepts used in the identity studies and ESL/ SLA pedagogy.

Critical Discourse Studies on Language Ideologies: In the present dissertation,

I illustrated how ideologies were discursively constructed, how the ideologies were

enacted and legitimized through discursive practices as a hegemonic commonsense, and

how individuals appropriated discursive resources and strategies for their identity

negotiation. In so doing, I attempted to enlarge our understanding of the workings of

ideologies and the agentive identity work of individuals in educational settings. For the

present study, the concept of language ideologies is used as a heuristic tool to uncover the

assumptions in the dominant discourse and their material effects that shape ITAs'

experiences and identities. By language ideologies, I mean commonsensical and

naturalized perceptions, interpretations, and social practices about language, language use

and language users. Ideologies of language are “multiple and constitute alternative

visions of the same linguistic reality” (Gal, 1998). The notion of ideology has often been

associated with Marx and Engels’ (1974) concept of false consciousness. Marx and

Engels’ materialism could be relevant to my understanding of the fundamental nature of

ideology in that it attends to the concrete and materialistic effect of dominant ideologies

in daily life. However, the idea of ideology as false consciousness is to construe ideology

only on the part of the dominant, assuming the absolute truth which may be only

understood by the dominant or some of the intellectuals (Eagleton, 1991; Woolard,

187
1998). Therefore, the understanding of the ideology of this kind does not acknowledge a

multiplicity of opposing ideologies lived by the less powerful and the dominated.

My understanding of ideology is premised on the multiplicity and complexity of

ideologies based upon the view that any positioning and ideologies are partial. The

partiality of what we know is fundamentally pertinent to the epistemological stance that

we just approximate the whole picture of the reality from our own perspective to make

sense of our experience, the world, and social relation where we live (Gergen, 2009;

Hatch, 2002). From this perspective, ideologies are a kind of interpretive frameworks

formed throughout the history and social relations by which individuals make sense of

their experience and social relations and the world (Eagleton, 1991). Thus, ideologies are

not simply in the service of the dominant, but they are engaged with by the less powerful

as well. Every society and its subgroups, whether or not the powerful or the less

powerful, may give rise to the ideologies of their own. This view of multiple ideologies

makes it possible to construct alternative visions of the same reality. What matters is the

way in which an ideology becomes dominant and whether it is homogenously and

commonsensically accepted (Gal, 1998). Ideologies cannot be confined within

abstraction of ideas. Since they are actualized and embodied through practices to have a

significant impact on individuals’ life, ideologies are extremely material and are a politics

of consciousness (Althusser, 1971; Eagleton, 1991; Volosinov,1973). Because of its

obviousness, the power of the hegemonic ideologies that prevail in everyday life is often

ignored. In that sense, there is no such thing as something neutral in social practices.

188
 The intertwinement of the social and the individual merits further investigation to

do justice to the multiple identities and complex interactions between social discourses

and positionality in language class. The ITAs’ various discursive strategies in their

identity work illuminated by the present research attest to the capacity of critical

discourse analysis to critically investigate the relations of structure and agency. The

relationships and positions emerging during interactions with one another in the spoken

English classroom were the very material embodiment of discursively constructed

identities. Again, ideologies are not only abstract ideas but also a set of practices with

concrete material forces that mediate their effects through institutions into everyday life

and experience. On that account, critical discourse studies on language ideologies cannot

be just limited to the methodological refinement of describing what is happening. The

studies on language ideologies should aim to investigate how linguistic practices are

imbued with social meanings and values and how the linguistic practices are

differentially valorized with respect to the stratified social order. The primary goal of

critical discourse studies should investigate ideological maneuvers operating tacitly or

explicitly in our daily discursive practices. As such, critical studies in education can lead

us to reflect upon discursive practices both at institutional and instructional levels.

One of the primary reasons that the present dissertation research draws upon

Fairclough’s framework of discourse analysis is that the research sets out to situate the

analysis of the empirical data in the historical and socio-political dimensions of

discourses. Language ideologies usually operate underneath the surface and do not easily

get to one’s consciousness. However, these ideologies are always present in discursive

189
practices and social interactions, let alone the interactions in language classrooms. Since

the language ideologies are usually constructed in broader social and historical contexts

and then come to inform the classroom interactions, the analysis of what happens in

classrooms should be extended to embrace the understanding of how broader social

relations are connected to and have an effect on the classroom interactions. The broader

social and institutional level discourses and contexts affect how language functions in the

local level of everyday interactions. Therefore, it needs to situate the texts and talks in the

historical contexts in which they have been produced and reproduced. The concepts of

intertextuality and interdiscursivity are useful analytical concepts that critical discourse

studies can draw upon to account for the historical and socio-political dimensions of the

discourse. It is because the multiple contextual dimensions of discourse construct and

influence the macro and micro level discourse practices. These theoretical concepts can

account for the process of the production, reproduction and/or transformation of

discourse.

Theoretical accounts on the discursive and the social teach us that without a

critical engagement with the instructional practices and texts and talk in the ESL class, it

could be difficult to tease out the complexity of the language ideologies embedded in the

ESL/SLA pedagogy. The combination of critical discourse studies and ethnographic

educational research allowed for the present study to investigate language ideologies

played out both on the macro level of social structure and the micro level of particularity.

The research on language ideologies cannot be fully confined to the analysis of text and

interaction in schools. As discourse is defined in relation to social practices including

190
both discursive and non-discursive semiotic systems, discourse studies on language

ideologies should go beyond textual analysis and be extended to include the

multimodality expressing the text and broader social contexts impacting on the

interactions that take place in them.

My research also attested to the theoretical and analytical viability of Fairclough’s

(1992) notion of cruces. The notion of cruces can be employed as a significant analytical

point to locate ideologies at work for critical discourse studies. The cruces are moments

of disjuncture between and within ideologies played out normally in the relationships of

domination and subordination in interactions. Discursive conflicts manifested at the

moment of cruces indicate the multiplicity of ideologies about the same linguistic reality.

Some of those ideologies become dominant while others become rendered less powerful

and otherwise invisible. For the present dissertation, the cruces captured in the ESL class

revealed ideological conflicts among the participants. Particularly, in intercultural

communication contexts where individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse

backgrounds bring with them the norms, expectations, and language ideologies of their

own, it would be more likely that the clash between the differing norms and ideologies

would be salient. For that reason, the individuals would be pushed to be aware of

divergent ideologies, and they may need to negotiate their identities with heightened

intercultural sensitivity. The ambivalence of diversity discourses was evidence of the

internal ideological incoherence, which itself was a crux. The moment of the clash

between differing ideologies in the ESL class became the crucial impetus for me as a

researcher to trace back the genesis of the discourse. The historical and social contexts of

191
discourse allowed for looking into why and how the discourse surrounding ITAs was

constructed in the first place. This historiographic work included investigating chains of

discourses produced and reproduced through the intertextual links among the texts and

talks across broader social discourse and local discursive practices.

Identity Negotiation and Negotiability in a Power Differential Situation: The

concept of identity negotiation is concerned with how individuals would articulate their

identities with agency. A postmodern point of view on identity embraces the social,

cultural and political contexts in which identity is constructed. From this point of view,

identity is conceptualized as a social, cultural, and political construct and as motivated for

social achievement (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 382-383). Thus, the emergence of multiple

identities is possible and those identities are seen as negotiated across different contexts

as an individual interacts with diverse people in diverse situations. This viewpoint of

identity allows for a more dynamic perspective on the relationship between identities and

contexts than the traditional psychological perspective of identity which often hinges on

social categories and is subject to essentialism. This agentive perspective of identity

allows for interactional negotiation while avoiding the essentialist and reductionist

approaches.

However, my contention is that the emphasis of the social actor’s agency without

considering the power relations in an interactional context can be a limitation of the

notion of identity negotiation. When the identity work happens in a power differential

situation in which the actor is a subordinate, inequality may result. Under such a

circumstance of the asymmetrical power relation of domination and subordination, for

192
instance, no matter how an ESL student’s linguistic practices are getting closer to those

of the native speakers of English or no matter how adequately the student negotiates his

or her identities with agency, the recognition and acceptability of the negotiated identity

are determined by those in power. Therefore, identity negotiation is an outcome of the

inequality of the social relations (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). The outcome may force

the dominated to compromise their own identity, thus resulting in the reinforcement and

perpetuation of inequality.

Diversity in Liberal and Emancipatory Discourse: In the emancipatory discourse

informed by critical pedagogy, linguistic diversity is often linked to the concept of voice

with respect to the empowerment of the linguistic minority. It has been argued that

linguistic diversity manifests the ways in which diverse semiotic systems are in use and

action to represent ‘voices’ (Freire, 1972). Getting the minoritized voices heard has been

believed to enable the individuals to get empowered and emancipated. However, like

neoliberal egalitarian discourse, the emancipatory discourse of diversity less attends to

the issues of the differentiated valorization and unequal distribution of linguistic

resources across different social groups. Culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings,

1995; 2014) is also concerned with the empowerment of the minoritized by expanding

the notions of funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005), communicative

repertories, and linguistic resources. The argument for the linguistic repertoire expansion

of language users believes the expansion of repertoire is empowering the language users

and enabling the exercise of agency. However, valuing diversity for its own sake should

attend to differentially attributed values to cultural and linguistic resources. With respect

193
to the discussion on linguistic diversity as resource, as Blommaert (2010) argues, if the

resource does not enable the individuals to get out of where they are or just makes them

stay in place where they have been marginalized, the resource fails to empower the

individuals. The argument for linguistic diversity that embraces varieties and variations

of language is correct in its definitional sense. It is plausible to imagine that pluralizing

differences could get the historically marginalized and muted voices heard and

empowered. However, the liberal pluralism arguing for the equality of all languages in

terms of their meaning-making potential (Milani, 2013) does not account for the stratified

valorization of languages and its ideological effects on the language speakers.

The issues of empowering and disempowering should be concerned with the

sociopolitical process of the valorization and misrecognition of linguistic resources

(Bourdieu, 1991). Since linguistic differences are converted into social inequality through

normative social practices (Agha 2007), it cannot be said that all linguistic resources are

equally valuable in term of the symbolic domination. In the discussion of language as

resource, therefore, what matters is not the form/function and meaning but the form and

value. This is “because ways of speech are not free from evaluative attitudes towards

variant forms” (Ferguson 1994, p. 18). This point is congruent with Bourdieu’s (1991)

conceptualization of language as symbolic capital. The acknowledgement of the language

forms and their socially and symbolically associated values is where the notion of

language ideologies is driven. As does a colorblindness neoliberal discourse of diversity,

the liberal discourses of language as resource, funds of knowledge, or linguistic repertoire

may be untenable unless they are aware of such differentially attributed socio-economic

194
valorization. Therefore, it should be considered that one’s deployment of certain

linguistic and cultural resources could be fully free from the social and economic value

attribution to the repertoire even when such identity work is out of the exercise of the

agency. Within the asset-based pedagogies of the kind, the identities of the minoritized

students are liable to be politicized (Gallo & Link, 2015) if those cultural and linguistic

resources cannot make the language users able to get out of where they have been

marginalized. As Blommaert (2010) argues, if the linguistic resources have a capacity

which enables its speaker to move out by means of the resources, this is empowering. If

the resources fail or are used to keep those already marginalized in place, this is

disempowering. Simply celebrating diversity may fail to account for the ways in which

the politicized linguistic resources often construct social inequality. I would argue that a

critical move toward linguistic and cultural diversity should shy away from the neoliberal

and egalitarian voice in advocating equity and social justice without addressing the

stratified social order. Therefore, the argument for the linguistic diversity as resource and

funds of knowledge should take a more critical stance given the fact that language itself

is already not a neutral but ideological construct.

Reconceptualizing Language, Communicative Competence, and

Intelligibility: As discussed earlier, the normative practices in the ESL class suggested

that the ESL class was mainly informed by the traditional monoglossic structural

linguistics that views language as a rigid autonomous system. The key concepts, such as

target language, communicative competence as a total language competence, a native

speaker as an ideal speaker-listener, and intelligibility, were still at the heart of the ESL

195
instructional practices. ESL/SLA education in schools conventionally has given an

illusion that its goal is to teach a total language and ELLs should acquire the native-like

total language competence. Besides, based upon the concept of ideal speaker-listener, the

intelligibility of ELLs has been used for discriminatory practices against those with

‘foreign accent’. There is a discrepancy between school English and heteroglossic

practices in everyday life. The school English may be more normative and closer to

academic literacy and register distant from language in practice. The dominant ideology

of ideal speaker-listener with a total language competence reinforces the inequality

between the normative school English and everyday heteroglossic practices replete with

varieties and variations, by legitimating the former while denigrate the latter. As I would

argue, an ESL space is a contact zone (Pratt, 1991) where differing cultural and linguistic

norms and practices meet among multiple language users. When it comes to linguistic

diversity and language education in a globalized world, therefore, language and

communicative competence need to be reconceptualized.

There has been new critical scholarship on multilingualism that reconceptualizes

language and communicative competence in terms of heteroglossic practices (Blackledge

& Creese, 2014; Cenoz & Gorter, 2014; García & Leiva, 2014). The Bakhtinian notion of

heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1981) is productive to account for linguistic diversity with respect

to multilingualism. With increasing transnational mobility and intercultural contact,

people may deploy bits and pieces of their communicative resources for a specific

purpose and task in a certain context (Blommaert, 2010). People may expand their

communicative repertoire as they cross cultural and linguistic boundaries. In such

196
transnational contexts, multilingual competence may be more likely to be fragmented and

therefore may not necessarily refer to the native-like competence in a whole language. As

opposed to the structuralist static concept of language and communicative competence

which traditionally is often bounded to a territory of a nation-state and its national

language, Blommaert (2010) argues for “truncated multilingualism” as a more viable

concept of communicative competence and repertoire in the ever-increasing

transnationalism and super-diversity. From this point of view, language is conceptualized

as a resource and the target of language learning should be learning registers for specific

tasks and functions in a specific domain, not necessarily achieving the whole language

competence.

When language is reconceptualized as a resource for flexible discursive practices,

language education should be oriented to expanding the heteroglossic repertoire of

language learners. The fragmented bits and pieces of language can be seen as legitimate

in specific domains of social life. Language education can aim to socialize language

learners into such various domains. From this perspective, for the ITAs, what they were

learning in the ESL class may be seen as a kind of register, not the English language as a

total. The academic ways of speaking with which the ITAs should be engaged in the class

can be reoriented as a teaching profession register for educational domains. If we

understand language learning in terms of heteroglossic repertoire and register, the

hegemonic standard English is considered as one kind of registers in one’s linguistic

repertoire (Agha, 2004). In addition, the intelligibility issues can entertain competing

ideologies against the discriminatory ideology of ‘accent’. In schools, to achieve

197
intercultural communicative competence, language classroom should accommodate those

varieties and diverse accents so that students can develop their intelligibility as the

interlocutors in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts. Holding on to a certain

standardized norm, e.g., native-likeness, may be an untenable argument in ever-growing

intercultural contexts. As the ever-increasing population of international and diverse

students has changed the cultural and linguistic landscape of U. S. colleges and

universities, it could not be assumed anymore that the makeup of undergraduate class

would be entirely monolingual domestic students. For teachers, training them against

native-norms may not enable them to cope with the diverse population in their class.

Finally, such global changes may afford new social relations that have significant

relevance for international students about how to fashion their identities. The same

student being labeled as an ELL and mostly deemed deficient in the English language and

U.S. culture may be seen as a transnational communicator crossing linguistic and cultural

boundaries. In that way, we can move forward to realize linguistically and culturally

inclusive pedagogies in language education. However, one caveat should be added here.

As I critiqued above the neoliberal and emancipatory discourses on empowerment, the

concept of language as a resource and repertoire should be taken with critical awareness

of the differentiated valorization and unequal distribution of linguistic resources across

different social groups and even further across the world system of the center and

peripheries.

198
 Pedagogical Implications

A key pedagogical implication of the present dissertation research is its strong

emphasis on critical perspectives on the workings of power relations and ideologies in

ESL educational contexts. My study concerns the role of the language ideologies to

unpack how language works in education in creating and maintaining boundaries

between different social categories. An educational context is a nexus of language,

society and culture in which the social and ideological relations are manifest in

instructional practices and interactions among participants (Urciuoli, 2009; Wortham,

2005; 2008). Schools are sites where important ideological work takes place. Schooling

and education are the primarily social selection mechanisms which enable or disable an

individual to move upward in a society and have access to such opportunities and certain

social status. As such, education is a typical domain of the ideological state apparatuses

(Althusser, 1971). The ideological work of education inevitably entails inequalities. That

is why the investigation on language ideologies in educational institutions is significant.

More critical educational research is needed to locate ideologies creating and sustaining

inequalities in educational settings.

The ideological workings of language should not be treated as epiphenomena

since they are materialized in the lived experience of the linguistic minority. As discussed

so far, ideological baggage is deeply entrenched in ESL/SLA pedagogy. The ideologies

embedded in social and discursive practices are materialized through L2 instructional

practices. An ESL classroom is a space which is ideologically saturated and thus is more

readily available to analysis. As a microcosm of the social and the individual, an L2

199
classroom is one best site where language ideologies in practice can be examined. As an

ESL classroom is a key space in which language ideologies are practiced, investigating

interactional practices in the ESL classroom is to seek manifestations of language

ideologies which pervade the language classroom. Existing L2 education tends to refuse

to take up the significance of the hidden curriculum (Giroux, 2001) that has ideological

relevance in its practice. The unwillingness to investigate the ideological hidden

curriculum contributes to perpetuating the dominant ideologies and inequality in

education and in social order. ESL/ SLA pedagogy should be revisited from a more

critical perspective investigating how its own belief systems and assumptions about

language and language learners construct and maintain linguistic and social differences,

and how such language ideologies work in mundane everyday practices.

It is axiomatic that all students have the right to educational equity. This

fundamental principle of pedagogy should not be dismissed in ESL/ SLA education. At

the same time, it cannot be said that such a liberal and egalitarian ideology in education is

innocuous when it fails to address the fact that the ideology entails inequalities both in

education and in society at large. Ignoring power issues or taking a color blindness stance

in education will beg ethical responsibility for educators, researchers, and practitioners

working with the linguistically and culturally marginalized populations. Teachers and

educators need to be historically and theoretically mindful of the problems of ideologies

and their social effects on students’ lives. Without understanding what the suppressed and

dominated should fight over, liberal discourse that advocates ‘voice’ might sound empty

or otherwise romanticizing. A renewed attention should be paid to how linguistically

200
minoritized students respond to the dominant ideologies and reflect upon their discursive

practices. Such critical reflexivity is what this dissertation argues for.

Another pedagogical implication of my dissertation is about how teachers should

stay critically attuned to their students’ needs and possibilities for the agency. This may

point to a fundamental pedagogical principle that learning should be related to students’

own concerns. The present research findings imply that critical language awareness

should be an integral part of language education given the consequences of discursive

practices on the subjectivity of the language users. At the epistemological level, the

awareness of discursive effects is integral to knowledge construction and making sense of

the world and relations to others. Both students and teachers need to be aware of

discursive options and possibilities as available resources which have respective social,

cultural, political, and personal significance (Carpenter, Achugar, Walter, & Earhart,

2015; Razfar, 2012). They need to engage with fundamental pedagogical issues of how to

tease out possible functions of discourse to challenge the dominant ideologies and how to

harness the critical awareness for change in education.

Finally, for L2 teachers, practitioners and policy makers, the linguistic diversity

brought with students can be considered as enriching their professions and empowering

all students (Gebhard & Willett, 2015; Seloni, 2012). Such consideration can enable them

all to be sensitized to diversity which has become a norm in more globalized worlds. The

novel perspective gained from the present dissertation on the relationship between

language ideologies and identities may contribute to advancing knowledge, informing

201
pedagogical interventions and shaping language policy and planning in a way that

benefits all students as well as culturally and linguistically diverse students.

Recommendation for Future Research

A suggestion for future research derived from my research findings is to increase

the knowledge base on culturally and linguistically diverse students and their multiple

discursive practices through more educational research informed by critical scholarship. I

would call for more critical studies that explore how language ideologies are practiced in

affording or restricting discourse of self in multilayered contact zones. More information

is needed about what linguistic and cultural practices multilingual students are engaged

with; what challenges and needs they may have; how the cultural and linguistic diversity

can be harnessed and leveraged in ESL/ SLA pedagogy and practices.

Social and institutional structure provides students with affordances and

simultaneously poses constraints to them. Critical ethnographic educational research

needs to be continued to explore the affordances and constraints that are practiced in

various educational contexts. The combination of critical discourse analysis and

ethnographic research may allow for investigating the following critical power issues in

education that entail inequality: how unequal social relations are produced and

reproduced through class interactions; what tacit interactional rules are played out and go

unnoticed in the class; and how identities are shaped and negotiated in the space. Future

critical educational research needs to explore what gets appropriated, resisted or

negotiated. In particular, forms of resistance and negotiation are not necessarily radical or

reactionary. Appropriation of dominant ideologies may also be an active form of

202
resistance and negotiation. What matters is to explore and distinguish viable forms,

whether latent or overt, to which ethnographic educational research can contribute. The

ethnography may enlarge the scope of educational research into heteroglossic practices of

language users. The ethnographic research in conjunction with critical views will

contribute to denaturalizing what has been naturalized by illuminating ample affordances

of discursive practices offered by the lived experiences. The continuing exploration of

multiple forms of negotiation out of the social actors’ agency may open up possibilities of

transformational changes in language education.

Conclusion

Social, cultural and linguistic diversity has become a reality in contemporary

society primarily thanks to increasing global mobility and cultural contact. Celebratory

rhetoric of diversity has been prevalent in the discourse of diversity that views difference

as valuable resource that enriches a society. At the same time, contradictions abound in

the liberal diversity discourse. The publicly promoted diversity often clashes with the

tendency toward homogeneity that views difference as a problem to social cohesion. In

multilingual and multicultural contexts, difference is markedly visible and differing

ideologies are likely to clash with one another. The ideological clash results in the tension

between different groups and/or individuals. The tension between diversity and

homogeneity becomes conspicuous in the diversity discourses in U.S. colleges and

universities as the number of international students has been ever-increasing.

Around the conflicting discourses of difference as ‘additional value’ and as ‘lack’

(Zanoni & Janssens, 2004), the ideology of homogeneity has been predominant on

203
campus. The homogenizing ideology positions cultural and linguistic difference of

international students as deficit in need of linguistic remediation. Under such a

circumstance, the students are liable to be pushed into a sink-or-swim situation in which

their specific needs are not recognized and left unaddressed. ESL programs at U.S.

colleges and university have played a central role of the agency that scrutinizes the

students’ language and categorizes them as Others. Usually through restrictive language

policies and gate-keeping practices, the educational institutions have embodied dominant

language ideologies in interactional practices.

Much of existing research on ITAs has focused upon the international students’

lack of cultural knowledge and linguistic difference, marking off the ITAs’ linguistic

features, particularly pronunciation and accent. As a result, the existing studies taking on

non-critical stances have reinforced the continuation of deficit views of Other in society

at large. Consequently, those studies and ESL programs grounded in the deficit theory of

language learning are culpable in perpetuating inequity in education as well as in society.

A more nuanced approach is needed to address the issues of the diversity discourses on

campus.

The present dissertation placed language ideologies and their relations to

identities at the center of the critical inquiry based upon the understanding that ideologies

shape the social meanings and beliefs about language, language use, and its speakers.

This study was not simply to describe language practices but attended to what made the

participants choose certain linguistic features and discursive strategies. This study offered

critical explanations to these choices with a focus on the agency of the language users

204
particularly with respect to negotiating their identities. The study illuminated how

linguistic diversity was being muted in the ESL classroom and how monolingual

ideologies have been legitimated at the social and institutional levels. It also illuminated

how an educational institution categorized international students and moved them into a

social position as Others. The findings of the study suggest that social differences are

converted into linguistic differences to exclude cultural and linguistic Others. What was

taking place in the ESL classroom is one of the local level instantiations of a larger social

phenomenon of social order in which stratified social relations are produced and

reproduced through discourse. The findings also denote that the English language

program was ideologically motivated by the anxiety and concern about Other. As the

dualistic perception of ‘us’ and ‘them’ was prevalent in the language classroom,

multifaceted aspects of the students’ identities were conflated under the terms ESL and

international. Those findings are consistent with critical scholarship arguing that

language ideologies regiment language use, interactional practices, identities, and social

relations (Gal, 1998; Kroskrity, 2000). A renewed attention should be paid to students’

identities in ESL class at college level, which is a previously neglected aspect. Critical

examination is needed to look at how language ideologies are played out on campus and

how the stratified social relations are actualized and concreted in educational settings.

The present dissertation also illuminated that under the restrictive and

exclusionary nationalist language ideologies, culturally and linguistically diverse students

were navigating and negotiating their identities through various discursive strategies with

acute metalinguistic awareness. The students’ criticality is substantive evidence of the

205
contradictory diversity discourses in the higher educational institution. Their

metalinguistic narratives on their language and identities defy the portrayal of the

students themselves simply as an ELL or international student with cultural and linguistic

deficiency. Their metalinguistic capacity is indicative of the language users having a fine-

tuned awareness of the relationship between language and identity. The findings suggest

that metalinguistic awareness is an important skill that the linguistically minoritized

students may leverage to gain insights into the ideological work of language influencing

the formation of social relations.

Based upon the findings and the critical scholarship upon which my dissertation

grounds, I would assert that language is not an abstract linguistic phenomenon but an

ideological construct charged with socio-political connotations. This critical view on

language enables critical discourse studies to explicate ideological effects of language on

social relations. As the social relations are produced and reproduced through education,

critical educational research should examine the social meanings ascribed to the linguistic

forms and the underlying ideologies influencing students’ identity in the educational

setting. More importantly, the critical research should be hinged upon the reflexivity

which enables individuals to be aware of how dominant discourses are emanated from

various channels and how these discourses in turn shape their ways of being.

Finally, by definition, international students or ESL students are multiple

language users crossing cultural and linguistic boundaries. They may be versatile and

flexible in utilizing their vast linguistic repertoires which may allow them to negotiate

and craft fluid and multiple identities across diverse cultural and linguistic contexts.

206
However, under the restrictive discourse of diversity, the multilingual students’ languages

may not be viable or otherwise remain untapped resources. Educators need to concern

how to validate the cultural and linguistic resources brought with international students.

The reconceptualization of language as a fluid and flexible resource for heteroglossic

practices may offer different ways of seeing culturally and linguistically diverse students.

The fluid way of seeing language enables a language learner to be positioned as a social

actor engaging with dynamic linguistic practices across contexts. From this perspective,

the multiple languages of the individual can be deemed viable and legitimate

communicative repertoires. The flexible view of language has a significant pedagogical

implication for language teachers and researchers about how they should construct

relationships with their students while striving to seek out ways of tapping into the

resources of their diverse students. The inclusive view of language may enable those

working with culturally and linguistically diverse students to embrace into educational

settings the heteroglossic practices of their students as valuable resources for the

enrichment of all populations. In so doing, we can move toward diversity in educational

settings fostering a climate conducive to the fulfillment of educational equity.

207
 References

Abbott, A. (2004). Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Achugar, M. (2015). Theme: Critical language awareness approaches in the Americas:

Theoretical principles, pedagogical practices and distribution of intellectual labor.
Linguistics and Education, 32, 1-4.

Agha, A. (2004). Registers of language. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic

anthropology (pp.23-45). Oxford: Blackwell.

Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.


Agha, A. (2011). Commodity registers. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 21(1), 22-

53.


Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In L. Althusser (Ed.),

Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp.127-86). New York: Monthly Review
Press.

Antilla-Garza, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2015). Debating the world - choosing the word:
High school debates as academic discourse preparation for bilingual students.
Linguistics and Education, 31, 276-285.

Austin, J. K. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bailey, K. (1983). Foreign teaching assistants at U.S. universities: Problems in interaction

and communication. TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2), 308-310.

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

208
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. (C.
Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans), edited by M. Holquist. Austin: University of
Texas Press.

Bauman, R. (2004). A world of others’ words: Cross-cultural perspectives on

intertextuality. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Bhabha, H. K. (2004). The location of culture. London: Routledge.

Billig, M. (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization.
Discourse & Society, 19(6), 783-780.

Blackledge, A. (2000). Monolingual ideologies in multilingual states: Language,

hegemony and social justice in Western liberal democracies. Estudios de
Sociolingüística, 1(2), 25-45.

Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and power in a multilingual world.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2014). Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy. In A.

Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp.1-
20). Dordrecht: Springer.

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (1998). Debating diversity: Analysing the discourse of
tolerance. London: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. (G. Raymond & M. Adamson,
Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. (Original work published in 1982)

Bradac, J., & Mulac, A. (1984). Attributional consequences of powerful and powerless
speech styles in a crisis-intervention context. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 3(1), 1-19.

Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to Ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the
interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
209
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In S. Duranti (Ed.), A
companion to linguistics anthropology (pp. 268-294). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic
approach. Discourse Studies, 7 (4-5), 585-614.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.

Calleja, D. (2000). The world at your door. Canadian Business, 73(20), 108-111.

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge.

Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and the teaching of ‘communication skills’. In D.

Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp.67-82).
London: Routledge.

Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language

acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923-939.

Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan

relations. London, England: Routledge.

Canagarajah, S. (2016). Shuttling between scales in the workplace: Reexamining policies

and pedagogies for migrant professionals. Linguistics and Education, 34 (1), 47-
57.

Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report, 15(5),
1102-1113.

Carpenter, B. D., Achugar, M., Walter, D., & Earhart, M. (2015). Developing teachers’
critical language awareness: A case study of guided participation. Linguistics and
Education, 32, 82-97.

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2014). Focus on Multilingualism as an Approach in Educational

Contexts. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and
pedagogy (pp. 239-254). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chellaraj, G., Maskus, K. E., & Mattoo, A. (2005). The contribution of skilled
immigration and international graduate students to U.S. innovation. Policy
Research Working Paper, No.3588. World Bank, Washington, DC.

210
Chen, Y. -W. (2014). “Are you an immigrant?”: Identity-based critical reflections of
teaching intercultural communication. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 138, 5-16.

Chiang, S. -Y. (2009). Dealing with communication problems in the instructional

interactions between international teaching assistants and American college
students. Language and Education, 23(5), 461-478.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking

critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Chun, C. W. (2016). Addressing racialized multicultural discourses in an EAP textbook:

Working toward a critical pedagogies approach. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1),109-131.

Clark, R., Fairclough, N., Ivanič, R., & Martin-Jones, M. (1990). Critical language
awareness part I: A critical review of three current approaches to language
awareness. Language and Education, 4(4), 249-260.

Clark, R., Fairclough, N., Ivanič, R., & Martin-Jones, M. (1991). Critical language
awareness part II: Towards critical alternatives. Language and Education, 5(1),
41-54.

Cots, J. M. (2006). Teaching ‘with an attitude’: Critical discourse analysis in EFL

teaching. English Language Teaching Journal, 60(4), 336-345.

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational

settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20-35.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and

violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.

Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.

Curtin, M., & Fossey, E. (2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies:
Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal,
54(2), 88-94.

D’acquisto, G., & D’avanzo, S. (2009). The role of SHALL and SHOULD in two
international treaties. http://cadaad.net/ejournal, 3(1), 36-45. Retrieved on Jan 3,
2017, from http://cadaad.net/ejournal
211
Damron, J. (2003). What’s the problem?: A new perspective on ITA communication.
Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 9(2), 81-88.

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43-63.

Davis, T. M. (2001). Open doors 2000: Report on international educational exchange.

New York: Institute of International Education.

Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36-56.

Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity & difference:

An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied
Linguistics, 23(3), 289-322.

Duranti, A. (2009). Linguistic anthropology: A reader. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive

phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. New York, NY: Verso.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Erhman, M. E. (1966). The meanings of the modals in present-day American English.

The Hague: Mouton.

Erickson, B., Lind, E., Johnson, B. C., & O’Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style and
impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and
“powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(3), 266-279.

Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in
everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1981). When is a context? In J. L. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.),
Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings (pp.147-160). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
212
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language.
London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.

London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.).
Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2. Discourse as social
interaction (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.

Ferguson, J. (1994). The anti-politics machine: “development,” depoliticization, and

bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Fitch, F., & Morgan, S. E. (2003). “Not a lick of English”: Constructing the ITA identity
through student narratives. Communication Education, 52 (3-4), 297-310.

Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and
language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149-171.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/ knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-
1977. (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham & K. Soper, Trans.), edited by C.
Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London:
Routledge.

Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Gal, S. (1998). Multiplicity and contestation among language ideologies: A commentary.

In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language
ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 317–331). New York: Oxford University
Press.

Gallo, S., & Link, H. (2015). “Diles la verdad”: Deportation policies, politicized funds of
knowledge, and schooling in middle childhood. Harvard Educational Review,
85(3), 357-382.

213
Galloway, E. P., Stude, J., & Uccelli, P. (2015). Adolescents’ metalinguistic reflections
on the academic register in speech and writing. Linguistics and Education, 31,
221-237.

García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and Enacting Translanguaging for Social
Justice. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and
pedagogy (pp.199-216). Dordrecht: Springer.

García, O., & Sylvan, C. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms:
Singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385-400.

Gebhard, M., & Willett, J. (2015). Translingual context zones: Critical reconceptualizing
of teachers’ work within the context of globalism. Linguistics and Education, 32,
98-106.

Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of

Research in Education, 25, 99-125.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical. In R. Rodgers (Ed.), An

introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp.19-50). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In C.

Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (pp.3-30). New York: Basic Books.

Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New

York: Basic Books.

Gergen, K. J. (2009). An invitation to social construction. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.

Cambridge: Blackwell/Polity Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Toward a pedagogy for the
opposition. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey.

Golombek, P., & Jordan, S. R. (2005). Becoming “Black Lambs’ not “Parrots’; A
poststructuralist orientation to intelligibility and identity. TESOL QUARTERLY,
39(3), 513-533.

González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practice in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence
Erlbaum Associates.
214
González, R. D., & Melis, I. (2000). Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the
official English movement. Urbana, Il: National Council of Teachers of English;
Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Gorsuch, G. (2012). International teaching assistants’ experiences in educational cultures

and their teaching beliefs. TESL-EJ, 16(1), 1-26.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (Q. Hoare
& G. Nowell-Smith, Eds & Trans.). New York: International Publishers.

Green, J., & Bloome, D. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A
situated perspective. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of
research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp.181-
202). New York: MacMillan Publishers.

Grenfell, M., Bloome, D., Hardy, C., Pahl, K., Rowsell, J., & Street, B. V. (2012).
Language, ethnography, and education: Bridging New Literacy Studies and
Bourdieu. New York: Routledge.

Gruber, H. (2001). Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences.

Journal of pragmatics, 33(12), 1815-1857.

Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin

(Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 229-
252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of

language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed). London:

Edward Arnold.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Heath, S. B., & Street, B. V. (2008). On ethnography: Approaches to language and

literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.

Heller, M. (1995). Language choice, social institutions and symbolic domination.

Language in Society, 24(3), 373-405.

Heller, M. (2010). The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology,

39, 101-114.
215
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). Transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds),
Blackwell Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp 57-76). Oxford: Blackwell.

Hodge, B., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International difference in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.

Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.

Hornberger, N. H. (2004). The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator:

Educational linguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 7(2-3), 155-171.

Hornberger, N. H. (2007). Biliteracy, transnationalism, multimodality, and identity:

Trajectories across time and space. Linguistics and Education, 18(3-4), 325-334.

Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers
and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL
QUARTERLY, 41(3), 509-532.

Hymes, D. H. (1974). Ways of speaking. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations

in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 433-451). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Hymes, D. H. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an

understanding of voice. London: Taylor & Francis.

Irvine, J., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P.
Kroskrity (Ed), Regimes of language: Ideologies, politics, and identities (pp. 35-
83). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Jakonen, T. (2016). Managing multiple normativities in classroom interaction: Student

responses to teacher reproaches for inappropriate language choice in a bilingual
classroom. Linguistics and Education, 33, 14-27.

Jaworski, A., Coupland, N., & Galasiński, D. (Eds.) (2004). Metalanguage: Social and
ideological perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner

(Ed). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13-31).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
216
Jia, C. L., & Bergerson, A. A. (2008). Understanding the international teaching assistant
training program: A case study at a northwestern research university.
International Education, 37(2), 77-98.

Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kerschbaum, S. L. (2014). Toward a New Rhetoric of Difference. Urbana, IL: National

Council of Teachers of English.

Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 359–368.

King, K. A. (2013). A tale of three sisters: Language ideologies, identities, and

negotiations in a bilingual, transnational family. International Multilingual
Research Journal, 7(1), 49-65.

Kroskrity, P. V. (1998). Arizona Tewa Kiva speech as a manifestation of a dominant

language ideology. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.),
Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp.103-122). New York: Oxford
University Press.

Kroskrity, P. V. (2000). Regimes of language: Ideologies, politics, and identities. Santa

Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Kubota, R. (2010). Critical multicultural education and second/foreign language teaching.

In S. May & C. E. Sleeter (Eds.), Critical multiculturalism: Theory and praxis
(pp.99-112). New York: Routledge.

Kubota, R. (2013). Multilingualism and second language learning. In C. A. Chapelle.

(ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistic. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.

LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. San Diego: Academic Press.

LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing & conducting ethnographic

research. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

217
Leech, G. N., & Short, M. (1981). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English
fictional prose. London: Longman.

LeGros, N., & Faez, F. (2012). The intersection between intercultural competence and
teaching behaviors: A case of international teaching assistants. Journal on
Excellence in College Teaching, 23(3), 7-31.

Leung, C., Harris, H., & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealised native speaker, reified
ethnicities, and classroom realities. In A. Duranti (Ed), Linguistic Anthropology:
A Reader (pp. 137-149). MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Li, G. (2006). Navigating multiple roles and multiple discourses: A young Asian female
scholar’s reflection on within-race-and-gender interactions. In G. Li & G. H.
Beckett (Eds.), “Strangers” of the academy: Asian female scholars in higher
education (pp. 118-133). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Lin, A. M. Y. (Ed.) (2008). Problematizing identity: Everyday struggles in language,

culture, and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination

in the United States. London: Routledge.

Marshall, S. (2009). Re-becoming ESL: Multilingual university students and a deficit

identity. Language and Education, 24 (1), 41-56.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1974). The German ideology. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.

May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism, and the politics of
language. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman.

McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Journal of Women in Culture &

Society, 30(3), 1771-1800.

McNamara, T. (2011). Multilingualism in education: A poststructuralist critique. The

Modern Language Journal, 95 (3), 430-441.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their

consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1),
89-118.

218
Menken, K. (2010). NCLB and English language learners: Challenges and consequences.
Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 121-128.

Menken, K., & García, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools:
Educators as policy makers. London: Routledge.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Milani, T. M. (2013). Language ideology and public discourse. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.),

The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

Miller, J. (2004). Identity and language use: The politics of speaking ESL in schools. In
A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual
contexts (pp.290-315). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. New York: Routledge.

Mosley Wetzel, M., & Rodgers, R. (2015). Constructing racial literacy through critical
language awareness: A case study of a beginning literacy teacher. Linguistics and
Education, 32, 27-40.

Mutua, C. N. (2014). Opposite worlds, singular mission: Teaching as an ITA. New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, 138, 51-60.

Norrick, N. R., & Spitz, A. (2008). Humor as a resource for mitigating conflict in
interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(10), 1661-1686.

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL

QUARTERLY, 31(3), 409-429.

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical

Anthropology, 7, 177-182.

Olivo, W. (2003). “Quit talking and learn English!”: Conflicting language ideologies in
an ESL classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34(1), 50–71.

Orbe, M. (1998). Constructing co-culture theory: An explication of culture, power, and

communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

219
Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language in
flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 240-254.

Park, J. S. Y., & Bae, S. (2009). Language ideologies in educational migration:

Korean jogi yuhak families in Singapore. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 366-
377.

Park, S. H. (2015). Teacher repair in a second language class for low-literate adults.
Linguistics and Education, 29, 1-14.

Parmentier, R. J. (1994). Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual

contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ:

Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Philips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm

Springs children in community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John & D.
Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp.370-394). New York,
NY: Columbia Teachers Press. Reprinted in A. Duranti (Ed). (2009). Linguistic
anthropology: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp.329-342). Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell.

Plakans, B. S. (1997). Undergraduate’s experiences with and attitudes toward

international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 95-119.

Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 33-40.

Preece, S. (2015). “They ain’t using slang”: Working class students from linguistic
minority communities in higher education. Linguistics and Education, 31, 260-
275.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1972/1995). A grammar of
contemporary English. London: Longman.

Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London:

Longman.

Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (2015). Theory and method in linguistic
ethnography. In J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds), Linguistic Ethnography:
Interdisciplinary Explorations (pp.14-50). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

220
Razfar, A. (2005). Language ideologies in practice: Repair and classroom discourse.
Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 404-424.

Razfar, A. (2012). Narrating beliefs: A language ideologies approach to teacher beliefs.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 43(1), 61–81.

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and
antisemitism. London: Routledge.

Rodgers, R. (2004). An Introduction to critical discourse analysis in education, In R.

Rodgers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp.1-
18). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rubin, D. L., & Smith, K. A. (1990). Effects of accent, ethnicity, and lecture topic on
undergraduates' perceptions of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(3), 337-353.

Ruíz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15-34.


Rymes, B. R. (2001). Conversational borderlands: Language and identity in an

alternative urban high school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.

Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Malden,

Mass: Blackwell Pub.

Schäffner, C., & Porsch, P. (1993). Meeting the challenge on the path to democracy:
Discursive strategies in government declarations in Germany and the former GDR.
Discourse & Society, 4(1), 33-55.

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? whose context? Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165-
187.

Schieffelin, B. B., Woolard, K. A., & Kroskrity, P. V. (Eds.) (1998). Language

ideologies: Practice and theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, R. Sr. (2002). Racialisation and language policy: The case of the U.S.A.
Multilingua- Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 21(3-
4), 141–162.

Scott, J. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
221
Scotton, C. M. (1988). Code switching as indexical of social negotiations. In M. Heller
(Ed.), Code-switching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 151-
186). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Seloni, L. (2012). Going beyond the native-nonnative English speaker divide in college
courses: The role of nonnative English-speaking educators in promoting critical
multilingualism. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 23(3), 129-155.

Shankar, S., & Cavanaugh, J. R. (2012). Language and materiality in global capitalism.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 355-369.

Shannon, S. M. (1999). The debate on bilingual education in the U.S.: Language ideology
as reflected in the practice of bilingual teachers. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language
ideological debates (pp. 171-201). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Shaules, J. (2007). Deep culture: The hidden challenges of global living. Clevedon:
Multilingual matters.

Shohamy, E. (2014). The weight of English in global perspective: The role of English in
Israel. Review of Research in Education, 38, 273-289.

Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In R. Clyne, W.

Hanks, & C. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and
levels (pp.193-247). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. A.

Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 33-
57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot “standard” in America: Standardization and metaphors

of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis & R. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of
language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284-306). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language
and Communication, 23(3-4), 193–229.

Smith, R. M., Byrd, P., Nelson, G. L., Barrett, R. P., & Constantinides, J. C. (1992).
Crossing pedagogical oceans: International teaching assistants in U.S.

222
 undergraduate education. 1992 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 8.
Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Halt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Halt, Rinehart and Winston.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Tannen, D. (2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational

discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, C. (1994). The Politics of Recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism.

Examining the Politics of Recognition (pp. 25-75). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tollefson, J. W. (Ed.). (1995). Power and inequality in language education. NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Ideology, language varieties, and ELT. In J. Cummins & C.

Davison (Eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp.25-
36). New York: Springer.

Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2014). Language diversity and language policy in
educational access and equity. Review of Research in Education, 38, 189-214.

Tollefson, J. W., & Yamagami, M. (2013). Language ideology in a language classroom.

In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell
Publishing.

Trimbur, J. (2006). Linguistic memory and the politics of U.S. English. College English,
68(6), 575-588.

Urciuoli, B. (2009). Talking/not talking about race: The enregisterments of culture in

higher education discourses. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 19(1), 21-39.


Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

223
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society,
4(2), 249-283.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schäffner & A. L.

Wenden (Eds.), Language and pace (pp. 17-33). Aldershot: Dartmouth.

Volosinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. (L. Matejka & I.
Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wallerstein, I. (2011). The modern world-system IV: Centrist liberalism triumphant,

1789-1914. University of California Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Review article: The theory and practice of critical discourse
analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 136-151.

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wodak, R. (1995). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In J. Verschueren, J.

- O. Östman, & J. Blommaert. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual (pp. 204-
210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wodak, R. (2000). Recontextualisation and the transformation of meaning: A critical dis-

course analysis of decision making in EU- meetings about employment policies.
In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 185-206).
Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Wodak, R., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Recontextualizing European higher education

policies: The cases of Austria and Romania. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 19-
40.

Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The art of fieldwork (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (2006). American English: Dialects and variation
(2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell.

Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B.

Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies:
Practice and theory (pp. 3-47). New York: Oxford University Press.

Woolard, K. A. & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 23, 55-82.

Wortham, S. (2005). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and
academic learning. New York: Cambridge University. Press.
224
Wortham, S. (2008). Linguistic anthropology of education. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 37, 37-51.

Yep, G. A. (2014). Talking back: Shifting the discourse of deficit to a pedagogy of

cultural wealth of international instructors in US classrooms. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 138, 83-91.

Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2004). Deconstructing difference: The rhetoric of human
resource managers’ diversity discourses. Organization Studies, 25(1), 55-74.

Zavala, V. (2015). “It will emerge if they grow fond of it”: Translanguaging and power in
Quechua teaching. Linguistics and Education, 32, 16-26.

225
Appendix A: Class Material: An article, ‘Let’s Talk It Over’

226
227
 Appendix B: Class Interaction Full Transcriptions

1.   Class Interaction: ‘Let’s talk it over’ (January 21st, 2016)

Line Participants
What I'd like to do next is to talk about the reading that you did for
1 T today, 'Let's talk it over'.
2 I asked you to look at three things.
3 (writing on the front board) the students complained. US students
4 the international TA problems
which were the sort of things that the international graduate students
5 have to deal with
6 arriving here and being thrown into teaching situation.
And some of the solutions that the different colleges and universities
7 came up with.
8 Remember I said this articles are about 30 years old.
so, it's, get a little bit about a historical (re)view of when programs,
9 like this, were set up.
10 But, umm, it is not, it's still relevant in many ways today
because international students have the same source of problems,
11 getting situated in a new life once they get to the United States.
and some of the solutions that the different colleges and universities
12 came up with.
13 And American students are likely to grumble
14 when things aren't easy,
when they have to have a little more attention to understand someone
15 (giggle/laughing)
16 So, things haven't entirely changed.
17 (…)
18 what I would like you to do is to talk to the person next to you.
19 We might need to have a few people,..Do we have enough for pairs?
20 Yeah, I think we have enough for pairs.
21 So, just briefly discuss each of these
22 what you notice in the article
23 with your partner.
228
24 Just work with the person next to you to make it easy.
25 Maybe you two can work together.
just, take just about 3 or 4 minutes to discuss what you notice in the
26 article related to these things. OK?
27
28 S1(Junyong) According to this article,
29 what we have so far,
By the way, have you ever joined such kind of GTA trainings? In
30 your first semester?
31 S2 Yeah.
32 S1(Junyong) It is the same thing.
33 S2 Yes, it's similar.
34 S1(Junyong) So, (looking back at the board) what were the problems?
35 (inaudible)
36 ..very hard to understand what TA said during their lectures.
37 Sometimes the way a TA is speaking English is not too good.
38 Broken English.
Sometimes some sounds are silent. Just like the example given by a
39 Taiwan students, the student from Taiwan.
Anyways, it also says that students paid a lot of money to get…..,
40 receive education on the same level
41 grade.
42 How about others?
Maybe, they're thinking TA's giving incomprehensible lectures and
43 S2 unfair grade.
44 S1(Junyong) Sure. Grade.
45 I think grade was mentioned somewhere in the article.
46 I don't know we have enough details.
47 OK. I think, it's here. Grade
48 we just don't have details, but we did have something like this.
49 Let's go to the second question. So, what is it?
50 S2 difficulties that graduate students faced
51 S1(Junyong) OK. What kinds of difficulties did TA s encounter?
I think they are under pressure from the students, parents, from
52 S2 university administrators to upgrade the linguistic standard.
53 S1(Junyong) I think, it is the university who hire TA s.
54 S2 Ok, you think, it means that universities faced the problem
55 S1(Junyong) Sure. Grade.
56 S2 I found that a very important problem is money.

229
57 S1(Junyong) of course
58 S2 The rent prices for TA s are very high. Maybe..
But this number referred to the university’s total income or for
59 S1(Junyong) month. Because it's 980
60 ….
61 T Why don't we come back together?
62 So I would ask you this question.
what were your reactions to reading this article? What were you
63 thinking about?
64 S3 still true.
65 T Yeah. Ok. So still true. Yeah
66 Some of the things are certainly still true.
67 Other things?
68 S4(Korean) Some of them are old.
(leaning toward the student and placing his right index finger behind
69 T his right ear) what's that?
70 S4(Korean) some of them are old.
71 T Ok. Say, what did you notice if they are old.
72 S4(Korean) Like cultural problem (raising intonation)
73 T (placing his right index finger behind his right ear) what's that?
like cultural conflict. I don't think cultural conflicts between
74 S4(Korean) students..
(interrupting) Okay, that's an, that's an interesting, that's an
75 T interesting comment.
76 uh, what do you think that is?
even this culture is different from country to country, but it's getting
77 S4(Korean) similar.
OK. So, there may be certain ways that cultures are approaching
78 T each other.
79 or maybe just that student come here.. Umh
80 S4(Korean) (inaudible) American culture ..in those cases.
81 T Yeah, that could be.
82 How about from the American perspective?
How, so, we say, maybe, you guys have a little more sense of
83 American culture now than maybe students back then
84 because of things like the Internet, you know.
85 I mean there are always movies, like that.
86 but, you know, maybe certain things are more available.
87 How about from the American perspective?
88 Why do you think there's less conflict in terms of students?
89 S4(Korean) There are more international students (raising intonation)
230
 90 T There are more interesting students?
91 S4(Korean) No, no, interna-, international students.
92 T Are there more international students? Oh! Okay.
93 So, you're saying, because, so, you're saying
94 S4(Korean) They're already exposed to the, foreign..(tailing off)
95 T Yeah, that' very important.. Is that, of course.
When it comes to students, they will have different experiences and
96 different contact, umh, with people from other countries.
But, it's, you know, it's certainly true that there are a lot more
97 Chinese undergraduates these days.
Probably many of these undergraduates are, are meeting Chinese
students and other international students in their own classes, getting
98 to know them.
99 30 years is a big change.
100 ….a lot of immigrations in this country.
People, I think you're right, have been exposed to people who were
101 not born here. And more people, certainly.
102 Other ideas, comments, thoughts? Somebody?
103 Did you think American students' complaints were fair?
104 (10'')
105 Han I think another thing.
Teachers are masters in their classroom. Students cannot challenge
106 their teachers, like in China and in Korean.
But American students can question their teachers.. That's the
107 difference between…
Yeah, that's really an important factor because you have your own
experiences and expectations, but so do those, so do the students in
108 T your classrooms.
109 So, we'll go back there in just a little bit.
110 so, anyway,
111 This is ???? You need to think about…I ask you to read that manual.
(picking up the copies of the manual from the desk) This is fairly old,
112 too, manual for teaching assistant.
But the reason I ask you to read this is because it gives you not only
deals with a particular situation but get your ideas about how to
113 approach it.
114 And some of you are teaching.
115 It's important to be able to start applying these things right away.
uh, because it's not the end of the semester when you get into the
116 classroom. So you need to read these things right away.
117 That's a change in our curriculum.
118 Probably I think, I told you universities get set up programs like this
231
 to help support international students.
Our program used to, people in this course used to not being
teaching, and that's sort of expectation for the future, and now I
know that some people taking this course are teaching, which means
119 you have to deal with a lot of these things.
obviously, this course is a semester. We can't do everything in one
120 day unfortunately.
It will be very time-efficient for you guys if we can do everything we
121 want ..in one day.
122 T So, let's move on to talk about that idea of expectations.
123 …….
124 Let's consider some questions here, then.
Compare Table 1, those views of roles and characteristics of
125 teachers and students.
Do you see those as things, something that you agree with? In terms
126 of your background, let's say, when you arrived here?
127 s yes.
128 T Is there anyone who thinks it's not?
129 ..very hard to understand what TA said during their lectures.
What do, what do TA s and American students have in common in
130 terms of what they do things?
131 So, let's look at the views of teachers, the characteristics.
132 Those seem to be pretty similar. Right?
In terms of one word descriptor. We have 'knowledgeable', we have
133 'patient'.
Those mean, you know, the words, they may mean different things to
134 different people.
135 But there is certainly some commonality there.
136 Then we have different idea in understanding..
137 Do you agree with that?
138 should that be understanding…..Table 1
139 Renkun
140 T Can you explain it a little bit?
141 Renkun I mean that's not so much different.
In China, at least nowadays, teachers are more expected to
understand students more. They expect students to question more.
142 They also get more feedback from students on their teaching.
Maybe, like I said, it's the idea of what 'understanding 'means may be
143 T a little different between two cultures.
But what you're saying sounds like what we said a little bit before.
You know there are changes in cultures in both ways. Educational
144 cultures, in particular. Okay

232
 Uhm, and again, that may be a reason why you don't see so much
145 conflict. That might be a reason why.
How about the view of, do you agree with the idea of knowledge
146 transmitter vs guides?
147 Does that ring true for you?
148 Do you understand the expression, ring true?
we use the verb, ring, ring true? (going to the side board and write
149 the expression, ring true on it)
150 It just means sound in this case.
151 …..
152 Anyway, that is something you need to think about.
How about the view of students' role, knowledge receiver vs
153 participator? It sounds like what you're saying, Renkun
154 it may be changing a little bit in China.
I think it is changing in more college and universities but in high
school or lower level….??? knowledge transmitter and knowledge
155 Renkun receiver
156 T Okay, Okay,
That's an important to think about. That's going to come up with a
157 number of disucssions you guys are reading.
158 we're not just talking about universities and college experience.
We also want to found out and look at high school and previous
159 experiences of the students in your classes because it's relevant.
160 …
stress pattern for today is 'ete' words, it also is adjective and noun.
It's very common suffix. It also is very common suffix people make
161 errs
162 tell me what the stress rule is.
163 you should stress
164 what is the rule for stress?
165 what is the rule?
166 anybody has a hypothesis?
167 you paid attention to
168 the suffix matters. Many times, not always.
169 …
170 it's a backformation.
171 it works the other way. it's fake adjective
172 …
173 let me talk about thought groups
174 a couple of dear John letters

233
 2.   Class Interaction: Language disclaimer - Microteaching (February 9th, 2016)

Line Participants
First, I want to make sure that, does everybody here register for Dr.
1 Tiianyou yen …'s class?
2 If you don't, please raise your hand.
3 It's OK. If you make sure you are not in this class, please leave now.
4 Ss (giggling)
5 Tianyou You’re also more than welcome to stay there.
6 …
7 OK. Let's get started.
8 This is Math 51 class.
9 I'm Tianyou Yen.
10 I'm your TA this semester.
And I'm from China. So, maybe my English is not as good as other
11 native TA s.
12 But, yeah, hopefully I can learn a lot from you guys.
And at the end of the semester (???), we can (..) both learn a lot from
13 each other.
14 And we can create some (??) memories.
15 …
16 Han I'm the TA for this semester.
17 My name is (writing his name on the board) Han Dan.
18 You can just call me Han. It's my first name.
19 You know, I am a Mandarin speaker.
20 So, my English is, maybe, a little,
I'm a Mandarin speaker. So, my English is a little different from
21 yours.
So, if you have any questions about..understanding what I'm saying
22 about, you can just feel to interrupt me.
23 I'll take the questions.
24 …
Renkun
25 Yang Okay, let's get started.
26 Good morning, everybody.
27 Welcome to Econ Honor 200, which is ??? Microeconomics.
28 I'm Renkeun Yang.
29 I'm your recitation leader for this semester.
30 Here is my email address.
31 I think I would write my office hour information.
234
32 My office is in Arps Hall 4173.
33 and the times is right after this class on Tuesday and Thursday.
34 OK.
35 So, I'm from China.
Before coming to OSU, I got my master's degree from Wisconsin-
36 Madison.
37 You know, people from Wisconsin usually have heavy accent.
38 So, if you have trouble..
39 T (burst out laughter) hahaha
Renkun (giggling) so, if you have trouble understanding me, feel free to stop
40 Yang me and ask questions, OK?
41 Ss (giggling and laughing) what?
Renkun
42 Yang Any questions?
43 Ss (giggling)
Renkun
44 Yang Let's move on to the syllabus.
45 …
46 Xiaohu Zhao Good morning, everyone.
47 Welcome to the class.
48 I'm a TA in this course.
49 I'm a first year PhD student in Computer Science.
50 My accent is a little different from (what) you are used to
So, if you have any questions, feel free to interrupt me, and ask me
51 questions.
52 Fang ..
53 any questions?
54 Oh!
55 Do you feel ok with my pronunciation?
56 SS (laughing)
57 Fang I'm not a native speaker.
if you have any problems with it, feel free to interrupt me. I will
58 explain.
59 Leo ..
60 Hi! Welcome to the ISE 3200.
61 My name is Cheo Chen.
62 You can call me Leo
63 This course is taught by Dr. Jina…
She's traveling right now, so my job is today to go over the syllabus
64 and make sure everyone has…
235
65 First, let me talk a little bit about myself.
66 I'm originally from Taiwan.
67 I got my bachelor's degree in Business there
and I got my master's degree in Industrial Engineering from Arizona
68 State University.
69 Now I'm a PhD student also in Industrial Engineering.
70 I am actually Dr. Jina's student
So, first thing you have to notice is that there will be two recitation in
71 class…
72 ….
For homework, Dr. SG, she has a very strict policy. So, let’s take a
look. you have to always work on your own before you consult other
73 references.
74 If you are going to do (overlap)
75 T [I don’t get that. I have to work on my own before what?
76 Leo ((looking at Rob)) before you consult other references.
77 T uh
78 Leo Is that clear?
79 T yeah.
OK. If you work with your friends or wanna work in a group, always
80 Leo decide (? ?)
And if you find something on the Internet, you think you wanna use
it, please make sure you don’t just wanna copy it. And you also have
81 to cite where the resources come from.
82 [...]
((looking at paper) There will be some announcements of in-class
83 exercises.
84 Umm, this is [
85 T [there’ll be some what?
((leaning his upper body toward Rob)) Announcements of in-class
86 Leo exercises
87 T Ok
((with a conceding and apologetic smile)) Sorry about my
pronunciation. As I said, I am from Taiwan. So, if you don’t
understand me, please raise your hand and let me know. And
THIS in-class exercise is more like participation. And the next one is
88 Leo grading. [...]
89 ….
(after Leo's microteaching presentation, while the next presenter was
90 T preparing for his turn)
So, that's a good thing to do if you forget to do, like, doing a language
91 disclaimer, it's a good time to bring that up so that people know that
236
 you don't mind them asking.
I am always very happy to help you. So, since I am not a native
speaker, my spoken English might be, some, a little different from
yours.
Please don’t hesitate to interrupt if you do not understand what I am
92 Shilun Hao saying about.

237
 Appendix C: Interview Full Transcriptions

1.   Interviewee: Han
Date: April 14th, 2016, in 724 at Math Tower
Time: 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Line Speaker
I think as international students; we find ourselves very difficult to get
1 Han into American culture.
Because we are all from Asia. So, our culture is very different from
2 culture here.
3 …
4 I'm from Southern China.
5 I got my degree in Science Engineering in Guangdong province.
6 and then I changed my major to Mathematics.
7 So, I obtained my master's degree from there..in Washington University.
8 and then I moved to here.
9 I want to complete my PhD degree here.
10 I am in my first year.
(I have been here) almost two years because when I did my master's
11 degree, in summer break I always went back to China.
12 ..
13 I How many language can you speak?
Including dialect? Because you know in China there are many dialects.
So, they are very different from Mandarin. So, if you only know
14 Han Mandarin, you cannot understand any kind of the dialects.
15 any region has its own dialect
16 I Guangdong dialect, is it different from Mandarin?
17 Han Yeah, very different.
18 I But you understand Mandarin
19 Han I know Mandarin. I think all Chinese people understand Mandarin
20 but dialects..
21 we have thousands of dialects

238
 These dialects are very different from each other. So, if you only know
one dialect, for example, if you know a dialect…from Taiwan, you
22 cannot underhand the dialect in Guangdong.
But I remember when you presented in the class, you introduced yourself
23 I as ' I'm a Mandarin speaker'
24 Han yeah, I remember that.
25 I mean, I can speak Mandarin, but in my hometown I speak the dialect.
26 I When do you use your dialect?
When I speak to my family or people from my hometown, I can speak in
27 Han the dialect, they can understand me.
28 I What about Mandarin?
29 Han Mandarin?
I can speak in Mandarin, too, but I prefer to speak the dialect. I think
30 dialect makes us closer to each other.
31 I you think it makes you feel closer to other people?
32 Han yes, I think it makes us closer to each other.
33 I don't think you have dialects in Korea? Right?
34 I we do.
35 Han but you can understand the dialect?
36 I …
37 Han you have minor differences in accent?
38 in china we have thousands of dialects.
39 …
40 I When did you start learning English?
41 Han from my middle school
42 but we learned very different English from here (giggling)
43 I What do you mean by that?
Because our teachers wanted us to be able to read English and, and to be
44 Han able to write in English.
45 They didn't want us to focus on speaking parts.
So, we didn't speak English well ..when we were in our middle or high
46 school
47 We need to take exam, but the exam doesn't have speaking test.
48 I So, how did you improve your speaking in English?
49 Han We studied to take the part of TEOFL test
50 I TOEFL test?
51 Han yeah, at that time.
52 …
53 I What made you take the (spoken) English class?

239
54 Han Because we're supposed to take that class.
55 I why?
56 Han We have no choice.
57 I no choice?
58 Han Because the university forces us to take that class.
59 Because we need to take an OPCA test. We need to pass the OPCA test
60 so we need to take this kind of class to prepare for the OPCA
61 I Did you take a placement test before you were in the class?
62 Han yeah
63 I What was the test like?
64 Han It was just like a microteaching
65 we did it in class
66 and there was an interview part before the microteaching
67 a four-minute interview part and then an eight-minute micro teaching
68 I How did you feel when you got the result?
69 Han I felt okay
70 and also there are other Chinese students in the class.
71 I Did you find it helpful?
72 Han Yes, it's helpful to me.
73 I Do you have any teaching experience before?
74 Han No, from next semester.
75 I'm on my fellowship for now.
76 …
77 I what do you think about the (international TA) issues?
78 Han I think I can adjust to them.
79 It's Okay to me.
80 It's fine, I mean.
81 I think we all need to do our job well.
82 we need to care about other people's opinion.
83 Students in the United States are not like students in Asia.
84 Students in Asia show respect to their teachers
85 I think we need to accommodate ourselves to this situation.
86 …
87 I How do you define international students?
88 Han I think most of international students are from Asia.
89 culture in Asia is very different from American culture
90 a student, for example, from Europe, he can adjust quickly to the
240
 American culture
so, when you say international students, you refer to usually Asian
91 I students?
92 Han yes, (giggling) because most of international students are from (Asia)..
How do you usually introduce yourself to people? Are you saying ' I am
93 I an international student or I'm an OSU student'
94 Han do you mean people in the university or people out of the university?
I usually say, I am from OSU, and then if they ask more questions, I
95 would say, I am from China and what is my major.
96 …..
97 I is any other language other than Chinese and English?
98 Han my dialect
99 I when you say 'my dialect', do you think dialect is another language?
100 Han Yeah
101 …..
102 I You said, 'I'm a Mandarin speaker', was there any reason for that?
103 Han No. it conveys no different meaning.
104 No difference
What did you find the language disclaimer? Did you feel comfortable
105 I with using the language disclaimer in your class?
106 Han I feel not so comfortable.
107 I think the disclaimer separates s from students.
This may make students think of that, this TA s is not from our country.
108 This TA is not a native speaker. Maybe I cannot get close to him.'
109 I Are you gonna use that again?
110 Han No.
111 I don't know.
112 ……
113 …
114 I What is your biggest concern?
115 Han My OPCA test.
116 I What if you fail the test?
117 Han I need to take the class again.
118 I I believe you will pass the test.
119 Han I don't know. Because the criteria are very picky.
120 I what do you mean?
I don't know. Some people, their pronunciation is not so good, but their
teaching skill is good. So they can pass the test, so I don't know what will
121 Han happen to me.
122 I so, you're saying, there is some confusion between teaching skill and
241
 English pronunciation?
123 Han Yeah, yeah.
124 I for this test?
125 Han yeah, yeah.
Basically, this English program is for improving international TA s'
126 I English pronunciation.
I don't know, but it is both for the improvement of our pronunciation and
127 Han teaching skill.
I think. For exam, a native professor didn't teach his class very well.
128 Han Definitely they can speak English very well, right?
129 I But their teaching is not good.
130 Han yeah
131 I That is a big problem, right/
132 han yeah, especially in Math.
so, you are confused because some people look at your teaching skill and
133 I others focus on your English pronunciation.
so, the only thing we can do is to improve our English pronunciation and
134 Han teaching skill at the same time.
135 we can meet the requirement in this way.
136 I is this big pressure for you?
137 Han a little stressful.
138 we have no choice.
139 I How many courses are you taking?
140 Han including this?
141 five courses
142 four math and this English class.
143 I How could you handle all of these?
144 Han I spend almost of my time studying.
145 I do you have any free time?
146 Han yes, a half day every week, like Saturday afternoon.
147 …(Buckeye Village English conversation club)
148 Han my wife goes to the English conversation class.
149 She found it very useful for her.
150 She has a chance to talk to native speakers
152 I what did she do back in China?
She accomplished her master's degree in Engineering before she came
153 Han here with me.
154 I how many languages can she speak?
155 Han she can speak four languages.

242
 156 The dialect for her hometown, Guangdong dialect, Mandarin and English.
157 I what language do you use between you?
158 Han we use Mandarin, not dialect.
159 because we don't understand each other.
160 I do you speak in English to each other?
161 Han No, it makes us embarrassed.

2.   Interviewee: Leo
Date: April 15th, 2016, in room 320, BS Engineering Building
Time: 11:00 a.m. – 11:40 a.m.

Line Speaker
1 I could you tell me about yourself?
2 Leo My name is Leo Cheo Chen.
3 I am a first year PhD in the Ohio State University
4 I major in Industrial Engineering
Before coming to OSU, I, I got my master's degree from Arizona State
5 University
6 And I am originally from Taiwan
7 I so, you are from Taiwan, right?
8 L Yes
9 I How many languages can you speak?
10 L uh, for languages, do you consider a dialect as a language?
11 I Yes
Ok. So, I speak Mandarin, Chinese. That's there the official language in
12 L Taiwan
13 I also speak a dialect. It's Taiwanese
14 My graddparent, and basically when I went home, I speak in Taiwanese
15 and English, of course.
And I also know some basic expressions of German because I took a
16 credit in German classes at college
17 and that's it.
18 I Ok. It sounds really amazing
19 you said a dialect, right
20 L Yes
21 I What do you mean by dialect?
22 L it's only used in a certain area
So, I get it from Taiwan. I mean that not every person knows the dialect,
23 especially young generation.

243
24 Some of them don't even speak
25 But I speak it because my family speaks that a lot
26 I so, when do you use your dialect?
27 L when I am home.
28 It's like a switch.
29 when I am home, I barely speak Chinese.
So, I speak the dialect with my parents, with my sister, and my
30 grandparents. Yeah.
31 I Your dialect is totally different from Mandarin?
32 L Yes, the pronunciation is totally different.
I think in the south part of China, they also speak a similar, similar
33 dialect.
34 You know in China, each province has its own dialect, right?
35 So, Taiwan is close to the south of China.
36 Some of them immigrated in ancient time.
37 They immigrated from south China
38 So, we can speak the same dialect
39 I Which language do you feel (most) comfortable?
40 L you mean dialect? And?
41 I Any languages?
42 L comfortable?
I think, I am basically comfortable with using Chinese, Taiwanese, Ger..,
43 uh, English.
44 Just not German cuz I only know basic German
45 I can switch between these three very easily (laughing)
46 I It sounds really great
47 Basically, you have, you can speak four languages, right?
48 L Oh, yes
49 I including German.
50 That is Ok
51 I can say you are multilingual, a multiple language user.
52 L for language, how do you define language?
53 Because I can understand a little bit Japanese, too.
54 I In that case
55 L (interrupt) Does that count?
56 I Yes, of course
57 When I say multilingual.
58 Competence, proficiency in those languages doesn't matter.
244
59 L Oh, Ok!
60 I also know a little Japanese (with more confident tone)
61 cus I can sing Japanese songs.
62 I can read lyrics
63 I know the phonics
64 cus I think I took Japanese courses for two months, three months.
65 but I still remember the pronunciation
66 Like, how I remember Germans' pronunciation rule(s)
67 Maybe, grammar, I am not good at it.
68 Probably I don't know some of grammar,
69 but the pronunciation I am good at it.
70 I still remember it.
71 I I think these languages are great resources for you
72 L You mean in learning?
73 I In your life.
74 L In my life? Yeah, yeah.
Sometimes, I find connections in here industrial engineering to study a lot
75 of mathematics
76 So, some of the terms actually came from German.
77 Maybe people are not aware of that.
78 But I can tell cu when I see them, 'Ok, it's from German'
79 Yes, something like that.
And actually, there are so many words in Japanese, the word roots are
80 actually from German.
81 So, like..
82 I You can tell that?
Yeah, like, part-time job in Japanese is "arbiter". This actually came from
83 L German.
84 In German, 'work' is 'arbeit'
Everyone will say, Japanese, they have a lot of foreign words. They are
85 just translated directly from English, but that's incorrect
Japanese have many medical terms, and some of them, they use, ..they
86 are from German
87 I you have great knowledge of language, I think
88 Let's talk about your English
89 When did you start learning English?
90 and where?
91 L when I was nine.
92 And my mother sent me to an English (academic) institution.
245
93 They taught us Sesame Street.
94 I learned English there.
95 And its policy was no Chinese.
96 But the first stage, it has six stages.
97 The first stage is,
98 We only learned songs, chants, poems or music.
99 So, it's really free.
100 No pressure.
101 Yeah, I started learning English from nine.
102 I You started very early, right?
Yeah, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan requires students to learn
103 L English, to take English class from middle school.
104 So, I am a little bit earlier.
105 I Do your parents speak another language?
106 L No, they can't.
107 Their education, they didn't have good chances to get educated.
108 My mom has a high school degree
109 My father, he only has a middle school degree.
110 I What about your American experience?
111 Is this your first country you have ever studies abroad?
112 L Yes.
113 Was there any reason you chose America?
114 L That's a good question.
115 You mean why I chose here other than go to Europe?
116 I Europe or any other countries.
Maybe because I started to learn English very early and I had a chance to
117 L have exposure to American culture.
118 cuz Sesame Street is totally based on American culture.
And, I, kind of, feel like American culture is something I am very
119 comfortable with.
And, we all know that when it comes to engineering, finance, technology,
120 the center is here (laughter).
121 Every great prof, researcher, resource, you know.
122 They are all here, in the United States.
123 That's why I chose the United States to study abroad.
You said, you feel comfortable, you feel confident in terms of American
124 I culture.
125 L Yes.
126 I Have you ever encountered any difficulties in terms of language or
246
 culture?
127 L Ever since I came to the United States?
128 I Yes.
129 L Well, I mean, after all, we're all foreigners.
130 I try to eliminate those kinds..
131 I eliminate?
132 L those kinds of experience before it happens
133 I came to the United States in 2013.
134 At the beginning, my English was not fluent like this, but I tried to be so.
135 I kinda, borrowed a book.
136 It tells me what kinds of (???) conversation I can use.
137 I did study some.??? And memorize those things.
138 So, it's like, my brain is a database.
So, I know, ' Okay, right now, people are talking about (??). Maybe I
have some sentences I can use. People are right now talking about social
events, People are talking about something, (like) go to a bar or meeting a
139 girl. Something like that. I have database and corresponding sentences.
140 But, meanwhile, I also learned from class.
141 So, I have served American students how to ?? Instructor
If I heard something very useful, you know, how to ask questions, how to
answer and interact with instructors, you know, I'll write it down
142 (laugher). Kinda, like that.
143 I started with imitating.
144 I I think you used great strategies to improve your English.
Yeah, but I don't know whether it's correct or not because it's like, I'm
145 L imitating their tone, their way of speaking.
146 I don't know whether its' formal or informal.
147 But it's just how I learn it.
148 I Sound great
149 you're taking Ron's class, the Spoken English class, right?
150 L the speaking class?
151 I Yes, the speaking class.
152 What made you take this course?
153 L (laughter) Because we wanna apply for a TA position.
154 But I'm serving as a TA right now.
155 I Oh, you're teaching now?
156 L Yes. Here's the thing.
If your score, your OPA score, your speaking score is 4.0, you don't have
157 to take the class.
247
158 I What was your score?
159 L 3.75
160 It's almost pass
But the department requires us to have only 3.5. If I get a score over 3.5,
161 I'm eligible to be a TA.
162 So, this is my situation.
I can be a TA right now, but I still have to take the class to waive this
163 speaking, uh, speaking situation.
164 I So, how did you feel when you found out you had to take this course?
165 L (laughter) Good question.
I actually wrote an email to Ron and said, " I don't understand why it
166 happens.
When I was in Arizona State, in the first year, I served as an
167 undergraduate math tutor.
168 I taught American freshman and sophomore students
169 I So, you already have teaching experience.
170 L In Arizona before I came here.
171 And I also served one semester as a graduate teaching assistant there.
172 But it seems like they don’t care.
173 I They just cared about your score.
174 L Yes.
175 So, I wrote an email to one of the coordinators.
176 Then, they actually set up a meeting with me.
177 I Who was the coordinator?
178 L Yu Chen Lihn
179 I You mean the ESL coordinator?
180 L I don't know exactly how to pronounce her name, but I know it's Lihn.
181 She probably still remembers me cuz my reaction was kind of strong.
I was, like, " Do you have any, uh, strict evidence, that, showing 'I'm not
182 able to teach. I have so many experiences.
And the professor in this department, Dave, in the department, but also
183 my faculty advisor, they all think (thought) I am OK'.
184 I Yeah, yeah.
185 L Yeah.
186 Ju::st (elongated and stressed) the test.
So, I, at first, I think " It's unfair." cuz THIS (elongated) test, from my
187 opinion, I think it's a little bit subjective.
188 cuz you can see from our class every student is male.
189 They are from China.
190 I mean, did it tell something about it?
248
191 And I know my colleagues and teaching assistants.
192 some of them are teaching assistants.
193 They are girls and their English is not as fluent as me.
194 But they passed the test.
But that's OK. Because in this class (the speaking class) I eventually learn
195 some techniques in classroom contexts.
196 I think it's..
197 I what does that mean techniques? Teaching?
Like, paraphrasing or when students ask questions, you don't know how
198 L to answer.
These are some techniques Ron introduces us, he gives us a lot of his
199 ????, you know.
200 Some of the information, I consider it very useful for me personally.
201 So, I still learn something there. So, it's Okay.
I'm just not satisfied with the test result (at the) beginning, but taking the
202 class is not a problem for me.
When I paid my first visit to the class, you were discussing an article,
203 I which was as about international TA. It was a very old newspaper article.
204 L Oh, Ok!
205 I Do you remember that?
206 L Yes, I remember it. Some students from OSU wrote it, right?
No, the article was written in 1985. it was talking about international TA's
207 I problems.
208 L Ok, I remember that one.
209 I You were discussing the issue on that day.
210 L I don't remember what I said exactly.
211 I In that class, general ITA, so-called ITAs.
212 What do you think about the issue?
213 L It's true. It still happens right now.
214 I think it can't be solved by personal improvement (in English).
215 cuz you know, we're foreigners after all.
216 I think the key point is, you cannot satisfy with your language skills.
I know some people, some of my classmates, they are already pretty
217 satisfied.
They think, ' I got a 3.0. It's fine. I just need to take the class, the stupid
218 class. Then I can be a TA.'
219 But, to me, it's not.
220 I'm still improving my English speaking every day.
221 Every day I have to find a chance to talk in English.
222 (to the interviewer) You're from Korea, right?
249
 You understand even if you don't speak English for a whole day, you're
223 still good. Right?
224 Something happens to me.
225 Even if I don't speak English all day, I'm still good.
226 There are always Chinese students around me. Right?
But I still try to find some changes to speak English, like, saying hello to
227 my American students and chat with them a little bit
I talk to professors and staff even if it's just one minute, two minutes. I
228 think it's helpful.
229 I English is important to you.
230 L Right now, yes.
231 I In terms of what?
232 L In terms of my future career.
233 After my PhD, I would like to find a job here and in the academic area.
So, in order to be a kind of professor, you need to be able to teach, do
research, you know, research and do writing, and you have to be able to
234 present, presentation.
235 You have to get people to understand what your work is.
236 So, English is important.
If the world, right now, the strongest, dominant language is Chinese, I
237 would say, 'Ok, English is, you know, fair.
238 But it's not.
239 I you gonna get a job here?
240 L Try to, try to
241 There are so many ???
242 I don't know what will happen in the future.
243 I will try my best.
244 I Another question is about language disclaimer.
245 Do you remember that?
246 L Maybe you can help me.
Okay. Language disclaimer is like, in your class, the students were
encouraged to use this one, for example, ' I am not a native English
speaker. So, my English will be a little different from yours. So, if you
247 I don't understand what I'm saying, please feel free to interrupt me. '
248 L Ok. This is an English disclaimer.
I watched your microteaching. It was about the first day you introduced
249 I the syllabus to them, but you didn't use that, right?
250 L I didn't
251 I didn't say that at the beginning.
252 I You didn't say that..

250
253 L Until Ron, he has probably made me to use the disclaimer.
254 I You remember exactly.
255 L Yes.
256 I Did you intend it or ..
257 How do you feel about using the language disclaimer?
258 L I don't oppose it.
If I said it at the beginning, I would've felt like, they would think less of
259 me.
260 So, I should be professional and fluent in the first place.
And if they have questions, maybe, I can take a chance to, not just make a
261 disclaimer, but I also can say,
262 " Ok, Sorry. I speak too fast. Yeah, you can let me know.
So, it's not like, I'm focusing on this, 'I'm a foreigner. I'm a foreigner. I'm
263 sorry if you don't understand me.'
264 I don't wanna just focus on this.
Because even for native speakers, sometimes, you're still confused about
265 what they're saying, right?
266 Like, too fast, or some people, I guess, are too low in their voice.
267 So, I guess, did I intend not to say it?
268 Maybe. I don't remember
But I think. 'This is the introduction of the syllabus and I this is the first
269 day of the class. I need to be professional and be fluent.
270 I Let me paraphrase what you have said.
so, you want to present yourself like a professor or a teacher, for example,
271 as authority
272 Does that make sense to you?
273 You want to be professional.
274 L To let students, feel, 'I'm professional' in a certain way.
if you used this language disclaimer, it could damage your authority as a
275 I teacher or the respect of your professionalism.
276 L Ok. You can say that.
277 It's no harm to say that to other people.
278 But for me, I don't know why to do this (language disclaimer).
279 But I think, yes, my students will think less of me.
Like, 'OK, he's an international students. He's an international TA. So,
maybe, he will mess up with what he would say, mess up with the
280 teaching.'
I heard some complaints from students. Yes, a true story..about a TA.
281 He's hard to understand.
282 I Which TA, you mean.
283 L Not in OSU. In ASU.
251
284 I international TA or?
285 L Yes, an international TA.
I'm always thinking if I am a TA, I don't want my students to think they
286 don't understand what I'm teaching.
287 …
they don't understand the subject cuz it is too hard. Or the question is too
hard. Rather than they think, 'I don't learn how to do this because the TA's
288 question is a problem.
even though the problem is, the question is easy because they suck in
289 speaking English I don't know how to do that.'
290 I don't want that situation to happen
291 …
In general, I don't oppose the idea (of the use of language disclaimer), but
292 I try to not use it.
I also have class with Chinese professor. No one does that. None of TAs,
293 No TA ever does that.
Maybe Ron gives this idea as???? To do some damage control in certain
294 ways, I guess.
295 I think still when it comes to professionalism, you shouldn't use that.
The conclusion you made about the language disclaimer, yes, it was my
296 intention.
297 ….
298 I am kinda embarrassed.
You kinda see through me. I'm kinda embarrassed. I'm just surprised.
299 Maybe other people didn't notice that, but you noticed that.

252
 3.   Interviewee: Kun
Date: April 14th, 2016, A Hall, Room 193
Time: 11:00 a.m.- 11:50 a.m.

Line Speaker
1 J Tell me about yourself
2 R I spent most of my life in China.
After college graduation, I came to US for my master's study in Wisconsin
3 Madison.
4 And then I got a master's degree there.
5 And then I came here to continue my PhD career.
6 So, I'm also, yeah, I'm a typical, typical international students in US school.
Consider that, I, I, I have been to two schools, both of them have a lot of
7 Chinese, Chinese students.
8 So, that's one thing that the practice time is limited, you know.
9 J practice of what?
10 R English.
11 J Ok
It's interesting because if you have a lot of students or friends around
you..with the same backgrounds, with the same language, sometimes, you're
12 R just taking, like, Chinese. You're Korean, You speak (in) Korean.
13 Yeah, that sometimes confuses me.
14 Because you don't want to act like, ' I'm not a guy (of) your group.'
15 I always wanna (???around) US students, US friends.
But that will limit your, your, your time spending in speaking English, you’re
16 getting their culture.
Sometimes, it's a different case from those guys, like, there's only one student
17 from my country in this school.
For them, the problem is that 'I'm a minority, I'm the absolute minority.
18 There is only me who knows my language'
But for the larger groups, like, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, they would think,
19 'OK, I've got a lot of friends here from our country.
20 So, it's different. But, yeah, that's the thing I consider about a lot.
21 J You said, you are a typical international student. What do you mean by that?
22 R I haven't studies in high school or college in US.
23 So, it's like..
24 So, I'm not familiar with their, their culture, their student life.
You know, guys are pursuing a graduate degree in US. Most of them are
25 pursuing an academic life.
So, sometimes for PhDs, you don't care much about how we are, uh,
26 interacting with US guys.
27 We only care about how we're doing our own research or degree. We don't
253
 care much about our language, our pronunciation, something like that,
although it's a requirement for a teaching assistant.
So, but for, but, if you came here when you were very young, like, in your
high school or college, you will care more about this kind of stuff, whether
I'm hanging out with US friends, whether I am speaking English in a very
decent way, blah-blah-blah, whether I have the same life style, whether I'm
28 getting their culture, things like that.
29 Sometimes, graduate students don't think much about it.
It's actually a bad thing because it's like an obstacle between international
30 graduate students and native students.
31 J You said it's an obstacle, you mean the culture or language?
32 R Both.
Sometimes, for graduate students, international graduate students, they just
work here. They're actually, it's not like, we're not living here. They don't
33 have many native friends.
Although I mean, I've been here America for several years, I don't know
34 what's their life style.
35 I know a little about their life, a little about their culture.
36 All the things I know is learned from life textbooks or on the Internet.
37 It's like, I'm an, I'm an outsider living here.
38 for graduate students, I think, this is a problem, sometimes.
What do you think about the category, international students? How do you
39 J feel about that?
40 R (laughing) I'm fine with this category.
41 Of course, we're ..uh,
42 J You said, you're an outsider, right? an outsider of OSU or of US culture?
43 R Maybe both (raising intonation)
Yes, it's a problem for international students. But..for individuals, I mean
44 (on) individual level, we don't feel so confused about this problem.
45 We just, we also have our, our life. So, it's fine.
It's fine. I mean, you separate the two groups, native students and
46 international students because there are a lot of differences.
47 We need to treat them differently.
48 We have a different text/tax (??) system
49 We have a different resident system.
50 So, of course, there should be some categories about this.
51 So, it's fine to have this identity.
But in more cases, when I'm in my office, I have US friends. I have other
52 friends from other countries.
53 In that case, I think we are just the same.
54 Just living another life, life style (raising intonation), I think it's fine.

254
 How do you feel about international students using their first language? For
55 J example, your first language is Chinese, right?
56 R Uh
57 J with another same international students. How do you feel about that?
58 R You mean on campus?
59 J on campus or anywhere.
60 R Some other guys taking their own native language?
61 J uh or in class.
62 R In class, I mean, it's better to speak English.
It does no harm to speak your own language if it's just, just a talk happens
between two or three in a small group that they are talking about their own
63 things.
64 But if you like..
65 I remember one thing.
66 One of my professor is also Chinese.
He will never speak Chinese; He doesn't speak Chinese with us if there is
67 another student or teaching assistant or another guy there.
Because you should, you should, I mean, if you speak Chinese, there is, like,
a natural limit. The thing happens only in your group. If another guy is there,
68 it's not respecting them. Right?
But in general cases like on campus, in restaurants, any places, I think it's
fine. I am Okay with the guys speaking English, I'm Okay with two Hispanic
guys talking their own language although I don' understand what they are
69 talking about. It's kinds of diversity. It's fine.
70 J Is English important to you? Why?
71 R English is like a bridge. We don't have another..
72 J a bridge?
73 R a bridge between different groups.
74 we don't have another language which can cover, like, almost all the world.
75 If you meet a Germany or French guy, you can only speak English, right?
It's a tool. You have to have the basic English skill to talk to people because
76 you cannot always hang out just with the guys from the same country.
Also, for me, myself, you know, academic life is what I am pursuing. So, all
77 the papers are written in English.
78 the best work is written in English (?????)
79 Of course, it's important for me because it's necessary. It's necessary.
Of course, when you know more about ??? You can always feel the beauty in
it. You can feel the cultural background and also a lot of information about
80 the language???
81 That's another thing, but the most important thing is that it's necessary.
82 About my own language,,,,

255
83 It's quite different. It's very different.
You know, English, Germany, French, they are all Latin.., they are all
84 letter..letter languages.
85 J You mean alphabet? Roman alphabet?
86 R For Chinese, it's totally different.
87 Our language comes from pictures. Things like that.
88 Each word has some origins from pictures.
So, it's hard for us to get their language compared with those with the same
89 language system.
90 It's fun to learn more languages.
91 J How many language can you speak? How many languages did you learn?
92 R I can just speak English and Chinese, but I also learned German.
93 J Where did you learn it?
94 R By myself.
95 I've got some apps on my phone.
96 J Why are you learning this language?
97 R For fun.
98 Sometimes, you also can have some from other countries.
Different languages are sometimes a way to view the link between you and
99 them. Right?
We don't need to be able to speak other languages, like German or other
languages fluently, but as long as you know some words, you know a little
100 bit about the languages, you can have better interactions with them.
101 I can have some relax time.
102 J Is there any specific reason why you chose German?
103 R To be honest, it's a random choice.
104 J When did you start learning English?
105 R From my middle school. I was ten or so.
106 J In schools?
107 R Yes,
108 My parents know nothing about English.
109 So, when I first came in US, three, two years ago.
I was like, 'OK. I am happy to study…..but I know nothing about English. I
110 cannot talk to people.'
111 It was a shock for me, but, as time goes by, you can speak better
112 J Is there any other way you practice or study English other than this class?
113 R Not a specific way, I think.
114 You just talk to your, like, classmates, your professors.
115 That's main things to do

256
116 I don't have a language partner.
117 But my roommate, who is also Chinese, he has a language partner.
118 That is also a good to practice, to learn more about how English works.
119 J What made you take the Spoken English class?
120 R It's a requirement.
121 We need to pass our English test before becoming a teaching assistant.
So, it is required to take this class if your test score in the first place is not so,
122 not so good. (laughing)
123 J what kinds of test? Did you take a test?
124 R Yes, OPA.
125 Oral proficiency..
What is the test like? Did you have an interview with a native speaker of
126 J English?
Yes, actually it was an interview with Ron's colleagues. Those guys were the
127 R interviewers.
128 We just had ,kind of, two terms in our own field.
We also need to explain to them what they mean, what implications they
129 have.
130 They also asked questions about them.
How did you feel when you found out that you had to take this course if you
131 J want to be a TA.
132 R I was actually happy with that.
133 J Why?
The thing is that, in my master's years, two years' master, I have, we had 54
134 R students in our program.
135 And 30 of them were Chinese.
136 Basically, I could only speak English with professors.
137 Although I am in US, I am around Chinese.
138 I thought it didn't help my English skills.
At least class like this forces me to practice English, it forces me to think
about 'how should I speak things in English? How should I communicate
139 with US students?
140 I think it's a good for me.
Teachers, like Ron, always can tell us something we cannot learn from our
141 classmates or professors.
Because when we communicate with our friends, as long as we can
understand each other, it's fine. They wouldn't give you so much suggestion
about your mistakes. Sometimes you make a mistake. They wouldn't point
142 that out, but Ron would do that.
So, you want somebody to correct your English when you make some kind
143 J of mistakes in pronunciation or grammar?
144 R Right, right.
257
145 J Have you ever heard about international TA s before you took this course?
You discussed that in class. You read an article about that. Do you remember
146 that?
It was a very old article about international TA s. You discussed ITAs as
147 problems, its solution,
You and another students came up with some solutions to the problems,
148 right?
149 Have you heard about international TAs before that?
150 R Most of the TA s I met in my class are international TA s.
151 So, yeah. Some of them are familiar to me, some of them are not.
152 I think it's better to have such a class requirement. At least it helps a little bit.
153 J Is there any domestic TA in your department?
154 R Yes, sure.
155 But not so many, though.
156 J Do you think they are taking the class like this one? A training program?
157 R I don't know.
158 Maybe they don't have to. They don't have to.
159 The class is mainly about language part
160 They are native. So, they don't need to.
161 Of course teaching skill is required.
162 I think the requirements are different across schools.
163 In Wisconsin-Madison they don't have so many classes to prepare for TA s.
164 They also have a test, but it seems very easy to pass the test.
As long as you can communicate in English, basically, you can pass at least
165 on the second try.
166 But here we get more requirements.
167 J Have you had any training for TA s other than this class?
168 R No.
169 J Are you currently teaching?
In my department, first-year graduate student has fellowship. So, in the first
170 R year, we don't do TA or RA jobs.
171 from the second, we will serve as a TA
172 We have a lot of course work. So, the first year is for adjustment.
Especially for international students, if it is the first time for you to speak
173 English every day, and you start to teach, it will be terrible.
174 J How many courses are you taking this semester?
175 R I'm taking three, but I have ten exams this semester.
176 J Ten?
177 R Ten exams in 14 weeks

258
178 So, it's a lot.
Although we have the semester system now, before that, we had a quarter
179 system.
180 But in class it is still remaining.
for the first seven weeks we have the first part of the course. And for the next
seven weeks, we have the second part of the course. We have different
professors. So, each seven weeks, we have a midterm and final. A midterm, a
181 final, a midterm, a final for each course.
182 J you're in Econ, right?
183 R Yes.
184 J I heard Econ people have to pass quali(fication) exam almost every year?
185 R In the first year, we have to take a written exam, basically problem solving.
186 Only when we pass the exam, we can continue the program.
in the second year, we ?? Exam. Some ?? Are papers, some ?? Are still
187 problem solving.
188 And third, fourth year exam should be like an oral defense.
189 J What if you fail the qualification exam?
190 …
191 Are you gonna teach from the upcoming fall semester?
192 R Yes
193 J what class?
194 R I don't know yet.
195 I think it's not decided by ourselves.
196 The department decides which course I will teach.
197 And there are three kinds of TA jobs.
198 One is a grader. So, just grade. We don't have to lead recitations.
199 The other is a recitation leader, and the third one is an instructor.
200 J Do you have any teaching experience before?
201 R When I was a senior student, I served as a teaching assistant, but in China.
202 J So, you taught undergraduate students?
203 R Kind of.
204 recitations and holding office hours, like that.
205 J In Chinese
206 R In Chinese
207 J What is your biggest concern right now?
208 R Concern? Concern about teaching?
209 J Concern about your life here?
210 R I am concerned about my research (raising intonation)

259
211 Econ students start their research on their second or third year of their PhD
212 I still don't have a clue about how good I am at doing research.
213 So, it takes time for me to get started.
And also reaching higher standard, something like that, I think it’s the most
214 important part.
And I need to improve my English. But I think it will happen later in my
215 daily life. So, I don't worry about that.
216 J in terms of improving your English, do you mean your oral skill?
217 R Both. Oral and written.
How do you practice your writing? Do you have any way to improve your
218 J writing?
219 R first thing is that, I need to practice it every day.
Basically, I write notes for papers I read. I read every day. So, it's a way to
220 practice it.
221 There are some online resources, like, grammar check.
222 And also we have a writing center in the university.
223 J Have you tried the writing center before?
224 R Yes, in Wisconsin-Madison.
225 I got my papers to the writing center for a couple of times
I didn't visit the writing center here, but in my second year, I will visit there a
226 lot.
227 I think that's a good way.
228 And also we have native friends. They can help with writing
Because when I was talking to my professors in my master years about my
paper, he told me, 'OK. About writing thing, I would not talk anything about
229 writing things, because you should learn it by yourself.
Of course we have bad writing skills. Of course we don't use that language.
230 Before we came to US.
231 Of course we cannot write well.
232 so, it takes time.
I know some students, including international undergraduate students, have
233 J to take writing class. Have you taken that class?
234 R I passed the test. So I didn't need to test.
235 If I failed the test, it is still find. At least I could practice
236 but time is limited.
237 the coursework is huge amount. So..
You have to tradeoff between your course work and your research or your
238 English class.
so, you're saying these kinds of classes are useful for international students to
239 J improve their English, but the amount of work could be pressure?
I have this class this semester and I have three courses in Economics. So, I
240 R am fine.
260
241 But if I have one more writing class, I think it would be too much.
242 J I want to ask you about your microteaching.
I remember when you practiced the first day introduction of the syllabus, you
243 were encouraged to use language disclaimer. Do you remember that?
244 I saw you said, 'my accent is different because I came from ..
245 R (laughing) It was a joke.
246 J What did you find about language disclaimer?
Actually I haven't met TA s in my classes who had claimed that thing on the
247 R first day.
So, I don't know because nowadays most of TA s are international students.
You have so many international students. So, students may be used to these
things.
248 So, they have their expectations for the TA s.
So.. Maybe I will make a language disclaimer on the first day, maybe not
249 necessary.
250 Maybe. I don't know.

Do you think American undergraduate students or other native speakers of

English may have some difficulties in understanding what you say because of
251 J your pronunciation, accent?
252 Have you ever had such an experience?
253 R yes.
But, as long as they ask and I explain it again, most of the time, it was not a
254 big problem.
255 Of course, a problem is there.
256 we should improve communication skills and language skills.
The real life is not so difficult because you can always ask, you can always
communicate back and forth. So, you can change your tone, or anything
257 about it. You can explain it. So, it's fine, I think.
And for me, myself, I think my pronunciation is at least not that hard to
understand compared to some..Indian students (laughing) or.. Indian students
258 are very fluent, but their accent is..(laughing) a big problem.
Maybe native speakers understand them, but I can hardly understand some of
259 Indian students.
There are so many different Englishes. And we're not familiar with the
260 J diverse Englishes, right?
261 R Right.
262 J So-called Englishes. Konglish, Manglish, do you know these words?
263 R for us, it's Chinglish.
264 J you're a Mandorin speaker?
265 R Yes, a Mandarin speaker.
266 …..

261
267 R I like it(cooking)
Although (the) campus has a lot of Chinese restaurants, but compared to the
268 situation in China, it's not enough, right?
269 So, we cook. I try to improve my cooking skills.
270 That is at least fun for my life.
271 J Is there any Chinese community you belong to?
272 R No.
We have seventeen students in our program. Four of us are Chinese. And
there is a Korean who grew up in China. I think it's already kinds of a
273 community for us.
274 J What is your plan after you finish your degree here?
275 R I will try to get an assistant professor position in North America.
276 I will also consider jobs in China. I am not so sure yet.
277 It depends on job markets whether I can get a job in US.
if you want to get a job here, do you think your English skills, proficiency is
278 J important? A significant factor to get a job here?
279 or to get a job in China?
if you're talking about language skills, communication skills, it's the same in
280 R US and in China.
If you're talking about specific English skills, it's quite important for job
281 searching here.
Actually I know a guy in Madison, who got really good research work. He
282 had very good publications in his PhD years.
That is competitive enough for a job position in top 20 schools in US. But
finally he had only one offer from a Hong Kong university.
283 Just the most important thing was his English.
284 J Spoken English?
285 R Spoken English.
286 So you have good work but you also have to sell them
Another example is, the guy's name is Shon Lee, who is, you know, Gang
287 Yang Lee in Singapore, the leader of Singapore?
288 J No,
this student is his grandson, who is a students of Stanford. Economic
289 R department.
I haven't met him, but I heard he was one of the best speakers in our
290 profession.
That helped me to get a job position in Harvard, although his publication, his
291 research work was on the same level as others'
He got the best job because he could really sell them. He could really be
292 convinced other guys.
English skills as well as communication skills are always important in this
293 process.
294 It's not always case that as long as I have good publications, I can find an
262
 assistant professor position. It's not always the case. Although your research
is a fundamental thing, your English skill is also important.
295 J It's really striking.
296 R That reminds me that English IS (stressed) important.
And also the guy that I mentioned before, who grew up in China, basically he
knows four languages, English, Chinese, Korean and Japanese. It's a cool
thing to have those languages. In my department, he can use different
languages with different classmates. He speaks Chinese with us. He speaks
Korean with Korean friends, Japanese with Japanese friends, and English
297 with others. It's a cool thing. It seems ?? special link between those guys.
so, you're saying language is an important means to make networks, get a
298 J job,?
299 R Yes. It might not be necessary, but it's helpful at least. Right?
Even native students, if one of them can speak a little bit Chinese, we will
view ' Ok. We have a link that is closer rather than the other students.
300 Although we all are good friends, but language is always a help.

263
 Appendix D: Interview Field-Notes

Interviewee: Kun
Date: April 14th, 2016, A Hall, Room 193
Time: 11:00 a.m.- 11:50 a.m.
Key language/issues My Note

bridge Kun used a few metaphors for the role/function of English in term of
how it makes people connected, communicate with each other
link
tool
He can speak Chinese, English and rudimental knowledge of German
for fun he is learning German
happy with ESL
class
typical international Kun : "I am a typical international student"
students' I : "define typical international students"
not much get involved with social activities; so concerned about their
research and studies; so he needs chances to be forced to get involved
with activities with native speakers of English, so that he could
practice his English; Mr.R's feedback on his pronunciation are helpful;
even though he passed the writing test, he would be fine if he would
have taken the class. at least he could learn something
English involved class or activities are necessary, but the amount of
work is burden when considering the course work requirement in his
trade off department; he should trade off which one should be sacrificed
“generally fine”. Not in the presence of others because it is not
L1 use respectful
Kun lamented that he realized he knew nothing about English even
though he has been schooled in English; which implies that school
English/ normative/ standardized/ educated English is different from
informal/ colloquial English which are used in everyday life; but this
gap between language practice in real life and language education has
substantive effect on how L2 language learners experience the
language and how they perceive the language education in their own
countries.
jointly co-construct new norms
egalitarian and inclusive norms/ attitudes
264
Interviewee: Han
Date: April 14th , 2016, in 724 at Math Tower
Time: 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Key language/issues My Note

'international' seems to be used to replace 'East', like 'culture' is
replaced for 'race' as a means of Othering; Han's definition of
'international' students from Asian countries, while those from
European countries are not included into the category of
'international' students; Han explains this with cultural similarities
between USA and other European countries, which is a conventional
public perception of 'West'; in addition, Han's perception of
'international' could be affected by how 'international' students are
portrayed/ classified at the institutional level through for example,
demographic statistics released/ used by the university, and the
demographics in the ESL classroom. in effect majority of the ESL
students are from Asian countries, in Han's class, all of them are
international Asian and male.
when asked how many languages he could speak, Han asked me
whether he could include dialects, which is the same response from
Leo. I answered positively, and Han said he spoke 3 languages,
Gwangdong dialect, Mandarin, and English. His perception of
'dialect' is not like that of linguistics which usually refers to varieties
of a certain language with variations but still understandable each
other. Han's explanation about his hometown dialect and other
dialects in China is like different individual languages because he
said speakers of different dialects could not understand each other. so
they use mandarin to communicate with people from difference
provinces. Mandarin is a national language in China and used as a
medium of instruction. Han told me that teachers from local
provinces use Mandarin in class and use their local dialects in
informal activities.
His wife can speak four languages, her own dialect, Gwangdong
dialect, Mandarin and English; Han and his wife use Mandarin at
home. Otherwise, they cannot understand if they use each one's
dialect dialect
Cf. Leo (from Taiwan), he sometimes referred to Chinese when he
meant Mandarin and differentiated it from his own 'Taiwan' dialect.
He said he could speak his own dialect, Chinese, English, Japanese.

265
 While Han feels more comfortable with his dialect and distinguishes
it from Mandarin as a language, he defined himself as a Mandarin
speaker in his first microteaching demonstration in which he was
supposed to introduce a syllabus to his students on the first day of the
semester. When asked whether there was a reason he did so, he said
no, and said, there is no difference between “I am from China” and “I
am a Mandarin speaker”; this reflects the nationalist language
ideology of the equation between one nation-state and one language;
which has been deeply ingrained in public consciousness; Han
seemed not to be aware that he was in the contradictory/ conflicting
“I am a Mandarin ideologies between the national mono/standard language ideologies(
speaker” Mandarin) and his own dialect and other dialects
language disclaimer Han said, “it separates us from students”
Han said, he got confused about the criteria of the test; is that for
teaching skill or oral English?
test score/gatekeeping cf. Compare Leo's case

Interviewee: Leo
Date: April 15th, 2016, in room 320, BS Engineering Building
Time: 11:00 a.m. – 11:40 a.m.

Key language/issues My Note

language disclaimer:
“not opposes it, but . Misunderstanding happens in general communication, including
not necessary” among the native speakers.
“I don't want to Other reasons for not understanding.
emphasize I am a
foreigner. Need to
look professional to
my students. If they
ask questions, I could
take it as a chance to
clarify again. I speak
too fast. Or voice is so
low”.
Leo has teaching experiences in Arizona university; fluent enough
in English, acknowledged by the faculty in his department; but he
was forced to take the spoken English class, he actively contacted
the coordinator of the ESL assessment, and asked her to provide
evidence of him not being qualified as a TA because he already
had lots of teaching experiences; but she didn't allow him to be
exempt from the course;
now he feels he is okay because he can learn teaching techniques in
the class; so the spoken English course seems not match up with its
original purpose to screen TA's oral proficiency; or it assumes that
English proficiency would guarantee a person's teaching skills,
test score / SEP which is very problematic ideology of native-speaker superiority;
266
 simply by the fact that a person is a native speaker of language,
they are assumed to possess the ability to teach the language to
Other.
this issue of the assumption of native speakerness guarantees one's
teaching qualification of the language, intercultural competence is
problematic; in the 1985 the state's bill regulating TA's oral
proficiency in English did not specify the nationality of the TA.
however, the spoken English program specifies the TA who should
be subject to the oral proficiency assessment are international
students, saying this policy is in conformity with the state's law;
and the contents of the program consists of pronunciation practices,
teaching skills and cultural knowledge, which implies the
conflated goals of conflation of those three into one; conflating the goal of English
English proficiency language learning and the goal of learning in general or teaching
and teaching skills /culture; so problematic ideologies
so, it needs to change the nature/ purpose of the program itself and
the process/ contents/ criteria of screening test so that it
accommodates the students' needs; TA needs more teaching skills
rather than the pronunciation drills; along the reform in the purpose
of the program, the teaching staff also should be those qualified as
teacher educators with strong pedagogical background and
expertise in pedagogy, not simply native speakers or language
teachers/ language trainers/ speech therapists.
Leo's recount for Japanese/ German word can be seen as a strategy/
tactic of metalinguistic/ metapragmatic strategies gained through
his own language learning experiences as multilinguals; which is a
strong and valuable knowledge of L2 learners.

cf. metalingustic knowledge of L2 learners

267
 Appendix E: Class Observation Field-Notes

Date: January 21, 2016, Thursday

Time: 09:35-10:55 AM

Entry Students Teacher

assigning topics for the students,
all male students checking individually with topics
(14, Asians) and students
small talk: snow
philosophy of
American assigned topics for planning on
education reading and discussion
video: pragmatism
(teacher wrote 'John Dewey' and
pragmatism on the side board
teacher asking students whether
they know John Dewey, but no
description response from the Ss
how to contribute to (handout materials spread out on
the class discussion the teacher's desk)
three things US
students complain
on ITAs' problem
some of the
solutions different
colleges and
universities came up
with
activity:
discussion (in pairs) two
about the students next to
ITAs issues/ me begin
solution discussing the
topic
s1 (in hoodies):
less cultural
whole group conflicts, more
discussion increasing
268
 international
students
T: Do you think American Ss'
complaints are fair?
s2 (with glasses
in red trimmed
jacket):
topic:
expectation changing curriculum
(reading material
about
'expectation'/intr
oduction to
discourse
intonation
what do they have in common in
terms of expectation
s3: there are not
so much
different; mine: stereotypical cultural
nowadays, dimensions are still used ;
Chinese teachers comparison across cultural
changed differences
teacher explains the phrase of ring
ring true true
S3 (with
glasses): at
college levels,
not much
difference, but
high/middle
school will be
similar to those
descriptions
s1: what is
different between
eager to learn/
teeter-totter willing to learn?
willing, perhaps positive,
S4: different
types of classes
require different
types of
participation and
interactions
teacher handout: whose responsibilities is
talking about it?

269
his TA
experience
(passing out
the handout:
whose
responsibility
is it?)
S5 (in
orange/black
strips cardigan):
what does it
mean by a make-
up test?
(a student in
front of S5 trying
to explain in
Chinese) (T: wrote the expression, make-up)
4 class
observations
for a T: everybody should get your
semester feedback sheet
assignment:
experienced
TA interview arrange a class observation and
assignment experience as a TA
(explaining what to observe, e.g.
verbal , non-verbal languages
pronunciation
drills:
consonants stressed syllable and longer vowels,
clusters with pitches higher
ad-prefix stress, pitch, elongation
explaining the rules of putting
stress on the second syllable when
words begin with ad-prefix
T: rules exceptional rules,
'command'
(continue pronouncing the words
on the projector, while students
listen to teacher saying the words
Ss: laughing from the list)
the stress
pattern for (T pronouncing some of words
today is "ate" from the list and then asked what
word rule there is
(T uses the term, suffix, root, prefix
words, but not explained those

270
 terms to students, students even
didn't ask what they mean)
(T uses the term, shwa, but didn't
explain it , no way to know whether
students understood it or not)
(T use the conjugate/ conjugation,
but not explaining)
(T ' uses' backformation, briefly
explaining the term to students' but
students' didn't show any response

mine: T read two different versions

Dear John without stresses or variation of
letters tones imitating non-native speakers
2nd version
let me be/ leave me alone
how to group words/ stress words
matter
the point is different meanings/
pragmatics depending on stress and
pitch, intonation
thought (showing a pyramid: thought
groups for group- focus word- stressed
next class syllable- peak vowel
(non-native speakers of English
version; don't talk like that, people
don't understand you)
(T exaggerated the ways of non-
native speakers' speaking)
cf) reading material from the last week, students discussed this topic based on
three questions; US students' complaints/ ITAs problem/solutions

Schwartz, J, Gibbs, L, Dieta, K, Kelley, T, Himmelsbach, E, and Bock, P.

(1985). Let’s talk it over: Foreign TA’s, U.S. students fight culture schock.
My note Newsweek on Campus, December.
all students started beginning to speak in their L1 right after the class was over.
Cf.) in the spoken class, less talk between students.
the material on ITAs written in 1985 was drawn upon in class, which reflected
the public discourse on ITAs or Other, (interdiscursivity/ intertextuality), but
not reflecting the changing landscape over the last 30 decades. This public
discourse also implies the power of established discourse which is not easily
gone once it was established in public

271
Date: January 26, Tuesday
Time: 09:35-10:55 AM

Activity Teacher Students Note

topics, starting
with the talking
of American
opening philosophy
discussion/ students' 1st: question about when
presentations they would get the feedback
1st presenter: talking about
pragmatic philosophy of
teacher's education, starting with
role/programmatic posing a question
(Korean student: answering
questions, he would let them
discuss
1st' own educational
philosophy; teacher should
be a participant
teacher's personality in the
discussion /teaching
(s: teacher should give a
summary)
(s2: teacher should be a
coordinator; make sure
everyone is participating in
the discussion)
1st: American teacher,
facilitator, coordinator,
realistic teacher;
s3: pragmatic teacher
272
mine: before the
class I stroke a
conversation with a
Korean student
studying
psychology, 1st
year, now in the
second semester; JK
about this class, a
little bit much
assignments
requiring time, he
didn't take seriously
when he decided to
take this course
(workload for the
1st year student)
along with other
assignment from the
disciplinary courses)
mine: the 1st student
uses the comparison
between American/
their own culture
what do they mean
by a pragmatic
teacher?
 1st Q: can you compare
these two kinds of teacher
Q2: who has the right to
educational right education?
rich people/ high tuition
s4: that's why we have
public schools
governments' role to extend
the public education
politically incorrect
s5: taking about the
I think that is acceptance/ admission of
not true OSU
1st: let's move on the mine: is that
American educational possible to
philosophy? generalize it?
s6: homework (here, the differences
creative) through comparison
students' choice of courses
difference of educators'
attitudes
(Korean: dictatorship/
democratic, good thing for
students; in middle/high
school, students learn in
more democratic ways
1st: students make
themselves more
comfortable
mine: they are
talking about
differences between democratic ways of
teachers/ who has the right education they tend
to education/ difference b/w to generalize the
American/ others' complexity/
educational philosophy diversity
t: curriculum/
each teacher
speak
democracy
teacher summed up/ differently
comment cf. state standard
common
questions on the
website;
recording from
another assignment the students
273
 (mine; question/
answers patterns,
questions/ practice q/a in a
answers certain category
mine: many
activities on culture
the relationship b/w stuff are through
teachers/ s comparison,
at high school/
college,
university level;
the relationship
b/w ts/Ss
class
observation/
experienced
ITAs interview,
one-page
reflection,
double- spaced
they are talking about the
syllabus, relating to their
discussion into departments, finding
three syllabi two groups; similarity
grouping by
same or similar students discussing (in a
departmental group); in a group recorded
backgrounds (4, students (econ/ psychology
three discussion 5, 4 persons in students) are talking in pairs;
groups each group) not actually in a group
(going around
groups, listening
or sometimes
t went out and came talking to (econ student, this university
back students is a standard;
(grading/ sequences/ make-
up exam/ policies)
T: one more
minute to wrap
up, share (econ students, misconduct,
together long-page of the syllabus)
s2: large details, to give
T: how those more information about
whole class syllabuses are college/university
discussion different experiences
s3: textbooks
s4(Korean); where they get
274
 books
s5(econ): a lot of detailed
information about grading
bomb an exam;
blew up; s6: the portions of grading,
disasters broken into a little parts,
s7: the recommendation of
the course level, the benefits
of the course taken for the
future direction
s8: strategies to be
successful in the course;
how they can do well in the
course
mixing with people
from other groups
discuss the
cultural
differences different attitudes/
between characteristics of each
(10:25 am) departments department
teacher
distributing
rubber bands
to students
(preparing the
pronunciation
drills) after
writing some mine: comparison is
words on the used as a main way
side boards (e.g. to make sense of
project, 'culture', e.g.
progress, American
patriciate, educational
participator, philosophy,
coordinate, departmental
coordinator, culture/ educational
educate educator culture
Korean: computer science,
whole class very efficient, 2 pages, we
discussion brief comments have 10 pages
(on the
projector, a
pyramid;
thought group-
pronunciation drills/ focus word-
words stressed (rearranging their chairs)

275
 syllable- peak
vowel)
how do we
make stress
sound (stress/
higher pitch/
salient)
higher pitch
longer vowel
teacher question
on stress rules of
two syllable
word stress noun/ verb
teacher using a
rubber band to (repeating teacher’s
show elongation pronunciation/ stretching a
of vowels rubber band)
mine: (teacher
explaining the rules
ate verbs/ actor noun of stress)
teacher using a
device to show
the stress of a students repeating the stress
word patterns

what did you

notice the
difference
between 't'
sounds in
educate/
educator
flap sound /t/
(writing down
the phonetic
sound of the flap
t, on the board,
explaining the
sound rules of
unstressed t
sound
regularity of the
stress patterns
train your ears,
practice
try to recognize
276
 the patterns cuz
there are lots of
rule based
patterns
(kazoo); using a
kazoo to show
handout for -ion the stress
suffixes patterns, e.g. ion
explaining
different
pronunciation,
ion, ssion, tion,
predictable/
regular
explaining the
exceptional
words from the
rules, e.g.
intersection,
Intersection,
without contexts
it might be
confusion
keep the rubber
band and
practice key
terms/ linking
the vowels

Date: January 28, 2016, Thursday

Time: 9:35-10:55 AM

Activity Teacher Students Note

(T: to the 1st presenter; he
prior to the can be relaxed during the
class adjusting the projector rest of the semester)
2nd presenter: the
relationship between
2nd student teacher/students in high
presenter school/ college
277
(on the sideboard, he
wrote 'ear muffs'.
When he saw the
students in the hall, he
began a small talk of
the weather , saying he
forgot his ear muffs
and the weather
forecast of the nex
week)
 posing a question
any differences
T: (to correct S2's
knowledge of high S2: the number of classes/
school in USA) students
korean students: (office
hours/ T available to Ss
presenter; high school
teachers are more
approachable
(s3; middle eastern)
for each class?
multiple teachers
presenter: the relationship
teachers are specialized between teacher/Ss in
in subjects college
(teacher doing research/
teaching
S1:
S2: depending on the types
of college
Korean: college students
are grown-up
presenter
s5: high school mandatory
college tuition/ between
USA/ Asian countries
why the relationship
between students/ T is
different from that in high
school
S6(econ Student): age
difference, as grown-ups,
college students should
take a responsibility/
duties
T guides the students
the quality of teaching in
high school
the research ability is key
to teachers' /professors'
quality in college
T's t: probably they are
comments working on their tenure

278
 another thing; the role of
TAs
my question; why do we
have TAs?
what is the role of TAs
in this notion of
instructors,
you are playing a faculty
role; what are the
implications for your
role as a TA, instructors,
and teaching
presenter; (responding to
the teacher' question)
(low level; TA; high level;
professor
transitional stage
you should be
approachable,
role of instructors in
T relation to Ss
be careful not to
generalize
there is a variability
T let's see
next Tuesday
the relationship between
religion and school
shift the schedule, article/ video linked
(Thursday) online
Tuesday, first dictation
quiz on Tuesday
I will read them and you
have to write them down
standard contractions
word stress today
quiz on Carmen, I
should restrict the time
you should be done on
the spot
review on
stress rules Let's quickly review
two syllable nouns
(record) first (written on
the sideboard)

279
 verbs records (root)
finish (root)
harden (root)
we talked about 'ate'
words
motivated (on the front
board
stress rules (keeping
explaining)
trying to monitor
yourself
mine: teacher started
(passing out the with stress rules,
effects of handout: titled stress on usually he did this
French the suffix (effect of activity at the end of
influence) French influence) the class
why French so is
influential on English? students are silent
(pausing)
cultural reasons
conventioneer students trying out
neologism; newly
coined word
motherese: teachnical
term in linguistics/
language acquistion,
caretakers adjusting
their language for
what does 'neo' mean? s: new kids/ children
mine: T emphasizes
there is 'tension' when
he means the
differences or
deviation from the
stress rules
he does not say
'exception' but used
B-movie the word ' tension'
s: horror movies ( B-
movie buff movie)

280
 mine: teacher revealed
his language
background by saying
' I have to say
boutique (in French
pronunciation), I am a
(I am a French major) French major)
group
discussion
class
observation/ value of TA
classroom observation
guiding questions; what
was valuable in your
class observations
(grouping by same or note: teacher correct
similar departments, one student's
discussing what they pronunciation ,
observed in the classroom) 'progamming'
mine: (to get the
students' reflection
paper on their class
observations)
not to my knowledge
mine: S6 (this student
talked about
Exercises
for skill
development distributing a handout to
and practice the students
thought groups
mine : the material,
'how to teach';
implying the USA
educational
teacher reading a philosophy or teaching
passage, asking students skills/ approaches,
to put punctuation apart from the exercise
markers, pausing of thought groups
mine: the text also
includes some sort of
ideology of teaching,
or cultural ideology of
teaching or how to
teach
mine: interesting,
teacher repeatedly
281
 read this text for the
purpose of letting
students get the sense
of thought groups, but
the text seems
unconsciously or
implicitly to be
internalized into these
ITAs about what
teaching should look
like
note: memory card is
full and the rest of the
class was not recorded
(please refer to the
audio recorder for the
rest five minutes
teacher is going around students practiced in pair
the students, correcting the thought groups with
the students' practices the passage in the handout
mine; the importance
of rhythm in English
using the thought
groups, stress, the
feature of the English
teacher, rhythm language

282