Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

System 39 (2011) 347e358

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Using language ideology and positioning to broaden the SLA learner

beliefs landscape: The case of an ESL learner from China
Peter I. De Costa*
Monterey Institute of International Studies, 460 Pierce Street, Monterey, CA 93940, USA
Received 15 January 2011; accepted 25 May 2011

Abstract

Departing from the view that learner beliefs are mental traits and in keeping with the discursive turn in SLA (Kalaja, 1995,
2003; Young, 2009), I argue that SLA learner beliefs research can be advanced through the use of two constructs e language
ideology and positioning e that originate from linguistic anthropology and discursive psychology, respectively. Applying these
two constructs to a year-long ethnographic case study based in a Singapore secondary school, I investigate how the language
ideologies and positioning of a 16-year old immigrant ESL learner from China ultimately impacted her language learning
outcomes. To illustrate this, I draw on audio-taped interview and video-taped interaction data involving her. This study
supports the view that a contextual approach to examining learner beliefs affords a refined understanding of beliefs through an
emic perspective.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learner beliefs; Language ideology; Positioning; Discursive; Emic; Ethnographic; Learning outcomes

1. Introduction

Unlike other individual difference variables, Ellis (2008) notes that learners’ beliefs are different in that they are
neither an ability nor a trait-like propensity for language learning. Acknowledging the complexity of this construct,
this paper explores the three approaches e normative, metacognitive, and contextual e mapped out by Barcelos
(2003), with a view to extend the third approach by analyzing the beliefs of an English as a Second Language
(ESL) immigrant learner from China. To do this, I turn to two constructs e language ideology and positioning. I first
review the literature on learner beliefs. Next, I describe the two constructs before applying them to examine the
trajectory of my focal ESL learner. Following a brief description of my study, I discuss my research findings and
reflect on how they can be used to inform future SLA research on learner beliefs.

* Tel.: þ1 831 920 8378.

E-mail address: pdecosta@miis.edu.

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.07.007
348 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358

2. Literature review

2.1. Normative approach

In this approach, beliefs are primarily viewed as preconceived notions, myths or misconceptions. Barcelos
(2003) adds that learners are judged according to an autonomous learner ideal, while beliefs are seen as
impediments to realizing autonomy. To their credit, normative-driven researchers (Amuzie and Winke, 2009;
Diab, 2006) have started to recognize the situated and dynamic nature of learner beliefs. For example, Amuzie
and Winke (2009) discovered that their study abroad participants experienced changes in their beliefs about
learner autonomy and the role of the teacher. Generally, beliefs within this approach are measured from an etic
perspective through the use of Likert-style questionnaires such as the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory
(Diab, 2006; Horwitz, 1987, 1999; Kern 1995), while other researchers (Amuzie and Wenke, 2009; Cotterall,
1999) have developed their own questionnaires to examine learner beliefs. However, the use of questionnaires
has come under criticism: Kalaja (1995, p. 197) has argued that “questionnaires only measure beliefs in theory
and not on actual occasions of talk or writing”, while Benson and Lor (1999, p. 460) find questionnaires inad-
equate in capturing “the complexity of learners’ thinking about language learning.” Significantly, these criticisms
are in accordance with recent calls for an emic perspective in learner beliefs in SLA research (Barcelos, 2003;
Benson and Lor, 1999).

2.2. Metacognitive approach

Like the normative approach, beliefs in this approach are seen as a mental trait. A key underlying assumption is that
learners think about their language learning process and are able to articulate some of the beliefs. While earlier
research (Wenden, 1986, 1987) focused on types of learner beliefs, later research attempted to classify belief types and
link them to metacognitive knowledge (Benson and Lor, 1999; Wenden, 1999). There have not been as many
metacognitive-based empirical studies (Benson and Lor, 1999; Victori and Lockhart, 1995; Wenden, 1986, 1987) as
compared to the normative approach, but the metacognitive approach is hardly in danger of fading into oblivion. Wang
et al. (2009), for example, revealed that metacognitive beliefs were positively associated with and influenced students’
Chinese as a Foreign Language achievement results. Beliefs within this approach have generally been examined
through the content analysis of learner self-reports in semi-structured interviews. While the use of interview data
represents a promising development in that it allows for a better understanding of learner beliefs, one weakness of this
approach is that it infers beliefs only from intentions and statements, not from actions (Barcelos, 2003).

2.3. Contextual approach

The first two approaches share the notion of beliefs as cognitive entities to be found inside the minds of
language learners (Kalaja, 1995). By contrast, the contextual approach focuses on the dynamic and social aspect
of beliefs. Arguing for a contextual interpretation of beliefs, Benson and Lor (1999, p. 464), for example, view
beliefs as “relational and responsive to context”. Notably, there has also been a shift in beliefs within this
approach towards an adoption of related ideas such as conceptions (Benson and Lor, 1999), representations
(Riley, 1994; Rubenfeld et al., 2006), and folklinguistic theories (Miller and Ginsberg, 1995; Niedzielski and
Preston, 2009). Collectively, these three conceptual developments represent a crucial shift towards acknowl-
edging the relational and social aspect of beliefs as they take into consideration how macro factors influence the
development of beliefs. However, two shortcomings of the research within this approach thus far have been (1)
the lack of focus on the political and interactional aspects of language learning, and (2) the failure to fully explore
how macro- and micro-level dimensions of learner beliefs work interactively to impact language learning over
extended periods of time. These considerations need to be accounted for, given the discursive turn in SLA
(Kalaja, 1995, 2003; Young, 2009). Such a discursive agenda can be advanced by the use of two constructs e
language ideology and positioning e which originate from linguistic anthropology and discursive psychology,
respectively.
 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358 349

3. Theoretical framework

The constructs of language ideology and positioning are briefly outlined and followed by an explanation of how
together they can be used to study learner beliefs.

3.1. Language ideology

Language ideologies, according to Jaffe (2009, pp. 390e391), relate to a wide range of phenomena that include: (1)
ideas about the nature of language itself; (2) the values and meanings attached to particular codes; (3) hierarchies of
linguistic value; and (4) the way that specific linguistic codes are connected to identities and stances. In making this
observation, she appears to underscore how language ideologies encompass form, meaning and use (Larsen-Freeman,
2003). Also significant to note is how language ideologies are (1) expressed through talk about language, and (2)
refracted in patterns of use as learners negotiate meaning (Jaffe, 2009; Seargeant, 2009). Put simply, language
ideologies are “constructed from the sociocultural experience of the speaker” (Kroskrity, 2004, p. 196). Skeptics may
argue that in making the claim that language ideologies are situated beliefs, I am merely pointing out the obvious: after
all, are language ideologies not beliefs about language and situated by their very nature? However, the SLA literature
on learner beliefs thus far has not fully explored how these beliefs, as mediated on an interactional level, are influenced
by macro- and micro-political factors which collude to impact language learning.
Given the discursive nature of language ideologies, a productive way to investigate them is through analyzing
interaction. To date, there have only been a few studies (Anderson, 2009; Bartlett, 2007; De Costa, 2010; Razfar,
2005) that have examined the language ideologies of L2 learners. For example, following his year-long investiga-
tion of repair practices of ESL high school students, Razfar (2005) found that the explicit articulations regarding
language use and the language practices of teachers and students (i.e. classroom practices) reinforced the existence of
a unitary standard for English. This in turn influenced the students’ beliefs about English. In short, language ideologies
are borne out in what learners have to say about a language and in their interactions with others (Woolard, 1998).
Also important to note is that learner language ideologies are malleable (McGroarty, 2010; Ortega, 2010). These
views of ideologies are consistent with those of several SLA scholars (e.g. Amuzie and Winke, 2009; Barcelos,
2000; Kalaja, 1995; Kern, 1995; Sakui and Gaies, 1999) who have argued that learner beliefs change over time.
To date, a range of methodologies has been used to illustrate this change. While Amuzie and Winke (2009) and
Kern (1995), for instance, based their claims on questionnaire findings, Barcelos (2000) and Kalaja (1995) relied on
naturalistic data such as ethnographic observations and written letters to illustrate changes in learner beliefs.
However, perhaps the larger issue that needs to be addressed at this juncture are the differences between beliefs and
ideologies. One way to distinguish between these two concepts is to see the former as an overarching construct
under which ideologies are subsumed.1 By making this distinction, I argue that ideologies offer a window into
exploring how beliefs (1) change over time, (2) are reflected on an interactional level, and (3) are influenced by
macro- and micro-political factors.

3.2. Positioning

Another useful concept in refining our understanding of learner beliefs is positioning. McKay and Wong (1996)
have been instrumental in advancing the use of positioning in SLA research. Following their analysis of student
discursive positionings and how these positionings impacted the students’ language learning outcomes, McKay and
Wong called for an examination of how learners are “both positioned by relations of power and resistant to that
positioning” (p. 579). This call has notably been heeded by several SLA scholars since then (Pavlenko and Blackledge,
2004; Hawkins, 2005; Menard-Warwick, 2007; Miller, 2009). Specifically, these studies draw on Davies and Harré’s
(1990) positioning theory, which takes into account how learners position themselves (“intentional self-positioning”)
and how they in turn position others (“interactive positioning”) in ways that ultimately affect their learning. In an
updated version of positioning theory, Harré and van Langenhove (1999) created more refined categories to examine

1
Given this hyponomic relationship between beliefs (the superordinate) and ideologies (the hyponym), I would like to alert the reader that I will
move fluidly back and forth between these two concepts in the rest of the paper.
350 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358

conversations: (1) self-positioning (adopt a particular stance in the conversation), (2) other positioning (position the
other person in a particular way), (3) first order positioning (accept the positioning of the other person and not
challenge it), and (4) strategic positioning (adopt a particular position to force the other person to reposition herself).
Applying this theory to L2 learning allows us to examine how learners’ discursive positionings shape their beliefs and
subsequently influence their learning outcomes. Hawkins (2005), for example, examined how the positioning of two
kindergarten ESL learners and attendant power relations impacted their learning outcomes over the course of a school
year. Thus, like language ideologies, positioning theory allows SLA researchers to examine how micro and macro
political factors shape learner beliefs over an extended period of time.

3.3. Collaborative constructs: positioning and language ideology

Crucially, the two constructs mapped out earlier are not mutually exclusive. If anything, they work in mutually
reinforcing ways. That the constructs are inextricably linked has been underscored by De Fina (2006) who notes that
subject positions are based on ideologies. To date, only a few researchers (Anderson, 2009; Barkhuizen, 2009;
Bartlett, 2007; Miller, 2009) have used the constructs of positioning and ideology to explore the narratives of
immigrant ESL learners. Miller (2009), for instance, combined both constructs to illustrate how her positioning of the
adult ESL learner, Peng, reinforced his belief that it was his responsibility as a Chinese speaker to learn English.
Importantly, her study revealed that interactions are not simply reflections of macro-level ideologies but the location
where ideologies are created and reinforced. Following Miller (2009), I used the constructs of language ideology and
positioning to examine immigrant learners’ beliefs about English in a Singapore school.

4. Research context

My year-long ethnographic study, which was conducted in 2008, involved five immigrant students (three from
China and one each from Indonesia and Vietnam) who were enrolled in an English-medium Singapore school, Orchid
Girls’ Secondary School (OGSS). As recipients of Singapore government scholarships, these students were expected
to develop a standard variety of English.2

4.1. Research questions

The research questions that guided my study were:

1. What linguistic practices are valued and denigrated in the school, and what are the language ideologies
embedded in these practices?
2. How are these immigrant students positioned by others in the school, and how do they in turn position others?
3. In what ways do these discursive positionings and language ideologies influence their learning outcomes?

4.2. Methodology

My data comprised observations, interviews and artifacts (see Table 1). In reciprocation for their participation, I
conducted supplementary English lessons and organized excursions for the immigrant students, and offered my input on
lesson planning when consulted by the teachers. Overall, these data collection methods allowed me to gain (1) an insider
understanding (Sarangi and Candlin, 2003) of my focal students’ sociolinguistic realities, and (2) an emic perspective
on their beliefs about English, as I was privy to how they used the language when interacting with those around them.

4.3. Data analysis

I used Merriam’s (1998) case study analysis and Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) coding strategies to code and
categorize my data. Merriam’s two stages of analysis comprise within-case analysis and cross-case analysis. For

2
The names of the school and the participants are pseudonyms.
 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358 351

Table 1
Data sources.
Methods Collection period (JanuaryeNovember 2008) Data
Classroom observations Across the year Video-taped interactions (28.5 hours)
Audio-taped interactions (65 hours)
Field notes in English, Social Studies, Biology,
Chemistry, and Civics classes
Excursion observations 5 Across the year Field notes
General school observations Across the year Field notes
Interviews Focal student interviews (5 immigrant students; Audio-taped: average time 30 minutes (12.5 hours)
5 interviews per student; conducted across the year)
Teacher interviews (5 teachers; 2 interviews per teacher; Audio-taped: average time 30 minutes (5 hours)
conducted in the middle and end of the year)
Focus group interviews (with 8 Singaporean students Audio-taped: average time 30 minutes (2 hours)
placed in 2 groups; 2 interviews per group;
conducted in the second half of the year)
Artifacts Ongoing Examples: focal students’ written work, subject
syllabi, and progress reports

within-case analysis, I considered the cases of my focal students individually, focusing specifically on how they were
positioned by others and how they in turn positioned others. This was possible through studying their interactions with
their peers and teachers and analyzing different turns of talk. After considering each student’s case, I analyzed across
cases in order to build a general pattern of explanation. During that process, I examined the differences and similarities
in their discursive positionings and the language ideologies underlying these positionings.
To inductively obtain a holistic picture of my data, I turned to Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) coding system (open,
axial, and selective coding). Beginning with open coding, I started by writing down anything that came to my mind
while I analyzed the data. This helped me ground my analysis thoroughly in the data. It also forced me to bracket any
preconceived assumptions while I looked for ways in which the data related to the discursive positionings and
language ideologies engaged in by my participants. This exercise was necessary given my familiarity with OGSS and
classroom contexts from extensive observations. Next, I used the axial and selective coding processes of breaking
down, examining, and conceptualizing my data. Axial coding allowed me to assess whether the codes needed to be
identified as categories, collapsed into other codes, or further separated into sub-codes. Then, at the selective stage, I
revisited the data that was organized into central categories, checked for data saturation, and searched for discrepant
cases. Subjecting my data to ethnographic microanalysis (Erikson, 1992, 2004; Garcez, 2008) provided me with
empirical evidence of learning and enabled me to see how language ideologies were co-constructed and connected to
wider social processes which valued standard English.3

4.4. Jenny

Due to space constraints, I have chosen to focus on just one of my five focal learners, Jenny, in this paper. Like her
other immigrant counterparts, Jenny arrived in Singapore in November 2007 and attended a month-long English
immersion course organized by OGSS before starting the new school year in January 2008. Aged 16 at the time of my
study, she was enrolled in a Secondary 3 class. Having attended a private school in Chongqing, China where she had
45-minute English lessons each day, Jenny was able to achieve a proficiency level that enabled her to pass the English
diagnostic test and the selection interview which were administered by Singapore education officials. Following

3
Critics may ask why I have selected to take a microethnographic analytic approach instead of Critical Discourse Analysis (e.g. Fairclough,
1995). However, I would argue that such a distinction is superfluous in light of Gee’s (2004) observation that all discourse analysis must be
critical discourse analysis because all language in interaction is inherently political. As Gee notes, issues like status, solidarity, distribution of
social goods, and power are inevitably implicated in interactions.
352 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358

Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles model,4 Jenny had moved from an Expanding Circle country (China) to an Outer Circle
country (Singapore), which placed a premium on an Inner Circle variety of standard English.

5. Findings and discussion

In this section, I describe how Jenny’s language ideologies were inextricably tied to ideologies about English that
circulated in the school, OGSS. To exemplify how her ideologies worked in conjunction with the ways in which she
and her immigrant peers were positioned at OGSS, I focus on Jenny’s experiences over the course of the school year
and illustrate the effects that the ideologies and positionings had on her learning. Given that the linguistic practices in
the school and their attendant language ideologies (Research Question 1) and the discursive positioning of immigrant
students like Jenny (Research Question 2) were inextricably linked, the presentation and discussion of my findings
center on how ideologies and positionings were instantiated in interviews and classroom interactions.

5.1. Circulating ideologies about English at OGSS

McGroarty (2010) posits that language ideologies (1) do not exist in a vacuum, and (2) overlap with other core
beliefs and related agendas. My focal learners were situated in a school which implemented a national English
language syllabus. This syllabus sought to develop students who could “speak, write and make presentations in
internationally acceptable English that is grammatical, fluent and appropriate for purpose, audience, context and
culture” (Ministry of Education, 2001, p. 3). While there is no explicit description of standard English in the syllabus
aims, its presence is manifested in the emphasis on the production of a variety of English that is internationally
acceptable and grammatical. Significantly, the circulating ideologies (Wortham, 2006) about English appeared to have
trickled down to the English teacher, Mrs. Tay, as well. Asked in an interview what she thought constituted “good
English”, she responded:

Excerpt 1
Mrs. Tay: A variety of sentences. Good vocab[ulary].
Peter: Can you explain what you mean by a variety of sentences?
Mrs. Tay: I mean the sentence structure there’s variation.
Peter: And what about good vocab[ulary]?
Mrs. Tay: Should be able to reflect appropriate word use in the context.
(Interview 1/MrsTay/9/4/08)

As noted in Section 3.1, ideologies include ideas about the nature of language itself (Jaffe, 2009). Applying this
definition to Mrs. Tay’s interpretation of “good English” which encompasses having “good vocabulary” and syntactic
variation, Mrs. Tay’s notion of “good English” coincided with the aim of the national English syllabus to cultivate
students who could communicate in “internationally acceptable English” (Ministry of Education, 2001, p. 3). Hence,
as the data suggest, language ideologies about English at OGSS were contextually embedded and shaped by a national
English language syllabus.

5.2. Ideologies instantiated in interviews

As the interview data with Mrs. Tay (Excerpt 1) illustrated, a specific type of English was sanctioned at OGSS. The
variety of English that was valued and believed to be “good” English was standard English. In Section 3.1, I noted that
language ideologies relate to the values and meanings attached to particular codes and genres which are arranged in
hierarchical order of linguistic value (Jaffe, 2009). At OGSS, standard English was seen to have higher value than the
local variety of Singaporean English (widely known as Singlish). That Jenny’s own ideologies about English were
aligned with the official standard English language ideology of the school is demonstrated in the next excerpt, where
she concedes that Singlish has crept into her linguistic repertoire.

4
According to Kachru’s (1985) model, the three circles comprise Inner Circle (e.g. the United States and the United Kingdom), Outer Circle
(e.g. Singapore and Kenya), and Expanding Circle (e.g. China and Korea).
 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358 353

Excerpt 2
Jenny: Ya, but it [my English] is a bit affected by Singlish.
Peter: Is that a bad thing?
Jenny: I think so.
Peter: Why?
Jenny: I need to try to avoid it.
Peter: Why?
Jenny: Because it’s not good English. Like in Singapore people say “she don’t”, they don’t say “she doesn’t”.
Peter: Why is that wrong?
Jenny: Because of the grammar.
(Interview1/Jenny/8/5/08)

Viewing research interviews as a social practice, Talmy (2010, p. 132) maintains that interview data analysis needs
to focus on “how meaning is negotiated, knowledge is co-constructed and [the] interview is locally accomplished.”
Applying Talmy’s social practice orientation to Excerpt 2, we see how Jenny is adamant on conveying her belief that
Singlish has adulterated her English. Also evident is her determination to position herself as a non-Singlish speaker, as
Jenny goes on to elaborate on how “Singapore people” do not use “good English”. In other words, people from
Singapore are positioned by her as poor users of English. There is a strong “them” and “us” divide here as Jenny
distances herself from Singaporeans. However, as she herself concedes, Jenny has regrettably fallen short of her
objective of steering away from Singlish. Hence, by examining how Jenny engages in different acts of positioning, we
gain a richer understanding of her beliefs about English.
That language ideologies are also closely connected to identities and stances (Jaffe, 2009) is illustrated in the
following interview excerpt where Jenny was asked why learning English was important to her.

Excerpt 3
Peter: Why is learning English important to you?
Jenny: International. And in China many big companies need people who can speak English well.
(Interview1/Jenny/8/5/08)

As noted earlier, the national English language syllabus sought to produce students who would be well versed in
internationally acceptable English. In citing her reason to learn English to secure a job in an internationally-oriented
company in China, Jenny articulates an ideology that is consistent with Blommaert’s (2010) observation that dreams
and imagined upward (and outward) trajectories are often predicated on the prestige associated with standard English.
In other words, by mastering English, Jenny hopes to position herself as a cosmopolitan striver, an identity that is in
line with the national educational agenda.

5.3. Ideologies instantiated in classroom interaction

In this next excerpt, I illustrate how Jenny’s ideologies about English shaped the architecture of group talk. Prior to
the exchange below, the group had been discussing mobile phone addiction among teenagers, with Mrs. Tay joining in
the group conversation.

Excerpt 4
1 Mrs.Tay: Why do you think they’ll feel out of place?
2 Jenny: Because they like to compare themselves to other people. They think their own things is better than others.
Just like mobile phones, they will compare the functions or the style, which one is the most fashionable one.
3 Min: I think some students even if they don’t have hand phones, they’re still well liked.
4 Jenny: How do you feel when you don’t have a mobile phone?
5 Min: I feel very lost as I can’t do a lot of things. Like I can’t remember my friends’ numbers and will have to
find for their numbers. It’ll be very difficult for me.
(English/Jenny/2/5/08)
354 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358

When Mrs. Tay asks why students may feel out of place not owning a mobile phone (Turn 1), Jenny is the first to
respond and provides an elaborate reason (Turn 2). By doing so, Jenny positions herself as a participant in literate talk
(Wallace, 2002). Congruent with the nature of literate talk, she experiments with the role of questioner (Turn 4).
Throughout the excerpt, Jenny adopts and styles herself on Mrs. Tay’s consistent use of the term mobile phone and
does not take up the other students’ use of the Singlish term hand phone. Her word choice may be read as a form of
enacting a sense of distinction (Bourdieu, 1984). In short, how Jenny uses English illuminates her ideologies about
English, which are embodied in her social action. In fact, Jenny’s use of English here epitomizes Mrs. Tay’s (Excerpt
1) understanding of what constitutes “good” English: Jenny demonstrates a commendable level of vocabulary that
appropriately fits the context of conversation, and her talk is characterized by variation in sentence structure. For
example, in Turn 2 she demonstrates an ability to craft both simple and complex sentences. Significantly, this course of
action is ideologically motivated as Jenny’s beliefs about standard English appear to have influenced her linguistic
behavior and choice (Silverstein, 1998).
McGroarty (2010, p. 22) maintains that communicative successes and failures experienced in school settings
influence “an individual’s commitment to using and mastering the languages of import in the environment”. In Jenny’s
case, she had the opportunity to move from one communicative success to another, fuelled in part by her ideologies
about English and the ways in which she positioned herself when communicating with her peers. In Excerpt 5, Jenny
positions herself as an active learner. Additionally, her ideologies about using standard English and engaging in
literate talk are ratified and reinforced by peers as they discuss whether human greed was the sole cause of envi-
ronmental problems.

Excerpt 5
1 Yi Ling:
2 Mrs. Tay:
3 Yi Ling:
4 Mrs. Tay:
5 Jenny:
6 Shuian:
7 Jenny:
8 Yi Ling:
9 Jenny:
10 Shuian:
(EL/SocraticQ/J/8/7/08)
Human greed, human greed, other than human greed what else is there?
Environmental problems can also be the spread of diseases, right?
Like malaria?
Yes.
Can we say, can we say that human greed is not the sole cause of environmental problems,
but a method that humans use?
It’s a what?
Just like a method.
A method of getting the way they do it?
It’s a method that humans use. A method of using the fuel, or what. Right here, right here
(points to article). It’s the method that humans use to cause pollution.
Oh, okay.

Here, we find Jenny adopting an academic discourse with her group members: she attempts to make a distinction
that it is not human greed that causes pollution but rather acts by humans that result in pollution (Turn 5). Admittedly,
Jenny initially encounters some difficulty in conveying her point as her choice of the word method creates some
confusion among her peers. However, this confusion is resolved quickly as Jenny is able to successfully draw on the
evidence she found in the reading (Turn 9), thereby demonstrating her ability to participate in literate talk. In other
words, by engaging in strategic positioning (Harré and van Langenhove, 1999) where she adopts a position to coerce
Yi Ling and her other peers to examine how (i.e. the method) humans contribute to pollution, Jenny produces literate
talk. Put differently, her ideologies about English and how she positions herself work collaboratively to enhance her
use and learning of English.

5.4. Effects of ideology and positioning

Having seen how ideology and positioning are enacted through interaction, I next examine their impact on Jenny’s
learning outcomes. Keeping in mind that ideologies are situationally dynamic and relationally constructed, I explored
how Jenny’s beliefs about English and the beliefs of those around her may have influenced her language learning
trajectory. To do this, I asked Mrs. Tay to rate my focal students’ performance in an interview at the end of the school
year.
 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358 355

Excerpt 6
Peter: If you ranked them in terms of performance, who do you think is the strongest, and who do you think is the weakest?
Mrs. Tay: I think Daphne. Right from the beginning she was consistently above the rest. But if we talk about improvement,
I think Jenny.
Peter: Has shown most improvement?
Mrs. Tay: Ya.
(Interview2/MrsTay/10/13/08)

Jenny was positioned as a star performer by Mrs. Tay and singled out as the student who had made the most
progress over the year. In short, Jenny’s collective efforts to improve her English appear to have paid off, thereby
exemplifying the power of language ideologies.
However, Jenny’s success with learning extended beyond her acquisition of English. Rather, she was able to utilize
discursive positioning and the attendant language ideologies to enhance her general learning outcomes within the
English-medium school curriculum. The reinforcing effect of her language learning success is demonstrated in the
next excerpt, where she explains how she dealt with her Social Studies teacher’s ‘English-only’ policy.

Excerpt 7
Jenny: Hmm. Mrs. Loh [the Social Studies teacher] didn’t allow me to speak Chinese to her. I have spoken to Chinese
to her, but she said “I can understand your Chinese but you have to try to speak English because you have to exercise.”
Peter: Do you ask her questions during or after class?
Jenny: After class.
Peter: So what do you do when you’re not sure how to ask a question in English? Does she help?
Jenny: I try to change the vocabulary in English, but the same meaning.
(Int 1/J/5/8/08)

One may argue that Jenny, positioned by Mrs. Loh as someone who needs to be using English, had no choice but to
use English in order to gain clarification from her teacher. However, equally compelling is how she turns disadvantage
to advantage e Jenny translates Chinese into English when seeking clarification. Importantly, Jenny’s ability to use
English successfully e both a product of her ideology and positioning e extended to other subjects which were also in
English. Overall, this had a compounding effect on her learning outcomes e Jenny topped her class at the end of the
year by securing a total of nine distinctions out of 10 subjects. This feat was in all likelihood the result of her ability to
strategically align herself with the dominant standard English ideologies of the school.

6. Conclusions

Based on the data revealed by the present study, I argue for an expanded learner beliefs framework which is
characterized by the constructs of language ideology and positioning.

6.1. Expanded learner beliefs framework

In a recent symposium on theory in TESOL Quarterly, Cumming (2008) called for researchers to engage in
theoretical reconstruction by engaging in comparative and historical analyses of learner participants. Central to these
analyses, I contend, is the investigation of learner beliefs. Unfortunately, the theoretical tools used to investigate
beliefs have been somewhat limited, often failing to take into account (1) the dynamic and discursive nature of beliefs,
(2) the political implications of language learning, and (3) how macro- and micro-political factors work collectively to
influence learning outcomes. To address this gap, I have argued for an expanded learner belief framework e guided by
the constructs of language ideology and positioning e to advance SLA research. Significantly, such a framework
builds on the contextual approach (Barcelos, 2003) to investigating learner beliefs. My application of these constructs
to microanalyses of interview talk and classroom interaction contributed to a refined understanding of Jenny’s beliefs
about English. As this study has demonstrated, Jenny’s beliefs did not exist only in her head. Rather, they were
356 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358

discursively constructed through her negotiation with the various social actors that surrounded her. This in turn
allowed me to investigate how Jenny’s changing beliefs influenced her language learning outcomes.

6.2. Limitations

My decision to focus on only five individuals in my broader study and on just one in this paper might also be seen as
a limitation. Some critics may argue that my ethnographic case study is not generalizable as I only studied participants
within a particular school and life context. However, I would like to point out that where ethnographic work is
concerned, the creation of a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973; Holliday, 2004) of the situation is the goal instead of
generalizability. In this respect, such a perceived limitation may also be viewed as a strength of this study.
A second limitation of this study is the lack of discussion of my focal learners’ L1s and the general absence of L1
data even though they were situated in a multilingual school context. An exploration of L1 data produced by them may
have led to more robust explanations of their language learning processes.

6.3. Future research

Future research in this area should continue to investigate how the constructs of ideology and positioning may be
used to extend work on learner beliefs. An investigation of the effects of learner beliefs is crucial because, lamentably,
SLA researchers have paid “more attention to the processes of acquisition than to the flesh-and-blood individuals who
are doing the learning” (Kramsch, 2009, p. 2). Such a sobering call to take into consideration their embodied realities
is vital given the growing research on affect in SLA (Barcelos, 2011; Dewaele, 2005; Garrett and Young, 2009;
Pavlenko, 2005). In other words, future learner beliefs research should also look at how beliefs and affect influ-
ence learning outcomes.
Next, future research on learner beliefs should take on an ethnographic dimension. Based on questionnaire findings
and TOEFL scores, Tanaka and Ellis (2003) reported that there was no relationship between changes in beliefs after
a three-month period of study abroad and gains in proficiency. In contrast to their 15-week study, my year-long study
revealed that learner beliefs did indeed have an effect on Jenny’s learning outcomes. Rather than using questionnaires
and self-reports to investigate learner beliefs, data for my ethnographic case study included interviews and classroom
interactions. Future work on learner beliefs stands to benefit from longitudinal ethnographic work which uses
a combination of data collection tools. Only then can we move closer towards developing an enriched understanding
of immigrant learner beliefs and how these beliefs ultimately impact their language learning outcomes.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my appreciation to Kathi Bailey for organizing a publishing group forum, which created the
social infrastructure and impetus for this paper. I would also like to thank Leo van Lier for conducting a session on how
to publish in academic journals. I am also deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the guest editors for their
helpful comments. The shortcomings that no doubt remain are all my own.

References

Amuzie, G.L., Winke, P., 2009. Changes in language learning beliefs as a result of study abroad. System 37 (3), 366e379.
Anderson, K., 2009. Applying positioning theory to the analysis of classroom interactions: mediating micro-identities, macro-kinds, and ideol-
ogies of knowing. Linguistics and Education 20, 291e310.
Barcelos, A.M.F., 2000. Understanding Teachers’ and Students’ Language Learning Beliefs in Experience: A Deweyan Approach. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Barcelos, A.M.F., 2003. Researching beliefs about SLA: a critical review. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New
Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 7e33.
Barcelos, A.M.F., 2011. Language learner beliefs, emotions, and identities as overlapping, co-constructing concepts. Paper presented at the
American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, March 2011.
Barkhuizen, G., 2009. An extended positioning analysis of a pre-service teacher’s better life small story. Applied Linguistics 31 (2), 282e300.
Bartlett, L., 2007. Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories. Linguistics and Education 18, 215e231.
Benson, P., Lor, W., 1999. Conceptions of language and language learning. System 27 (4), 459e472.
Blommaert, J., 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358 357

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cotterall, S., 1999. Key variables in language learning: what do learners believe about them? System 27 (4), 473e492.
Cumming, A., 2008. Theory in an applied field. TESOL Quarterly 42 (2), 285e291.
Davies, B., Harré, R., 1990. Positioning: the discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 20, 43e63.
Dewaele, J., 2005. Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: obstacles and possibilities. Modern
Language Journal 89, 367e380.
De Fina, A., 2006. Group identity, narrative and self-representations. In: De Fina, A., Schriffin, D., Bamberg, M. (Eds.), Discourse and Identity.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 351e375.
De Costa, P.I., 2010. Language ideologies and standard English language policy in Singapore: responses of a ‘designer immigrant’ student.
Language Policy 9 (3), 217e239.
Diab, R.L., 2006. University students’ beliefs about learning English and French in Lebanon. System 34 (1), 80e96.
Ellis, R., 2008. In: The Study of Second Language Acquisition, second ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Erikson, F., 1992. Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In: LeCompte, M.D., Millroy, W.L., Preissle, J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative
Research in Education. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 201e225.
Erikson, F., 2004. Talk and Social Theory: Ecologies of Speaking and Listening in Everyday Life. Polity Press, Malden, MA.
Fairclough, N., 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman, London.
Garcez, P.M., 2008. Microethnography in the classroom. In: King, K., Hornberger, N.H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education.
Research Methods in Language and Education, vol. 10. Springer, New York, pp. 257e272.
Garrett, P., Young, R., 2009. Theorizing affect in foreign language learning: an analysis of one learner’s responses to a communicative-based
Portuguese course. Modern Language Journal 93, 209e226.
Gee, J., 2004. Discourse analysis: what makes it critical? In: Rogers, R. (Ed.), An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education.
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 19e49.
Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books, New York.
Hawkins, M., 2005. Becoming a student: identity work and academic literacies in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly 39 (1), 59e85.
Harré, R., van Langenhove, L., 1999. Positioning Theory. Blackwell, Oxford.
Holliday, A., 2004. Issues in validity in progressive paradigms of qualitative research. TESOL Quarterly 38 (4), 731e734.
Horwitz, E., 1987. The learner as manager: managing learning or managing to learn? In: Wenden, A., Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in
Language Learning. Prentice Hall, London, pp. 110e129.
Horwitz, E., 1999. Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: a review of BALLI studies.
System 27 (4), 557e576.
Jaffe, A., 2009. The production and reproduction of language ideologies in practice. In: Coupland, N., Jaworski, A. (Eds.), The New Sociolin-
guistics Reader. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 390e404.
Kachru, B.B., 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In: Quirk, R., Widdowson, H.W.
(Eds.), English in the World Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 11e30.
Kalaja, P., 1995. Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA reconsidered. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (2),
191e204.
Kalaja, P., 2003. Research on students’ beliefs about SLA within a discursive approach. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA:
New Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 87e108.
Kern, R.G., 1995. Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals 28, 71e91.
Kramsch, C., 2009. The Multilingual Subject. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kroskrity, P., 2004. Language ideologies. In: Duranti, A. (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 496e517.
Larsen-Freeman, D., 2003. Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Heinle, Boston.
McGroarty, M.E., 2010. Language and ideologies. In: Hornberger, N., McKay, S. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Education. Multilingual
Matters, Buffalo, NY, pp. 3e39.
McKay, S.L., Wong, C.S., 1996. Multiple discourses, multiple identities: investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese
adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review 66 (3), 577e608.
Menard-Warwick, J., 2007. “Because she made beds. Every Day.”: social positioning, classroom discourse, and language learning. Applied
Linguistics 29 (2), 267e289.
Merriam, S.B., 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in
Education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Miller, E.R., 2009. Orienting to “being ordinary”: the (re)construction of hegemonic ideologies in interactions among adult immigrant learners of
English. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 6 (4), 315e344.
Miller, L., Ginsberg, R.B., 1995. Folklinguistic theories on language learning. In: Freed, B.F. (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study
Abroad Context. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 293e316.
Ministry of Education, 2001. English Language Syllabus 2001 for Primary and Secondary School. Curriculum Planning and Development
Division. Ministry of Education, Singapore.
Niedzielski, N., Preston, D.R., 2009. Folk linguistics. In: Coupland, N., Jaworski, A. (Eds.), The New Sociolinguistics Reader. Palgrave Mac-
millan, London, pp. 356e374.
Ortega, L., 2010. The bilingual turn in SLA. Plenary address presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, March
2010.
Pavlenko, A., 2005. Emotions and Multilingualism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., 2004. Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Multilingual Matters, Buffalo, NY.
358 P.I. De Costa / System 39 (2011) 347e358

Razfar, A., 2005. Language ideologies in practice: repair in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education 16, 404e424.
Riley, P., 1994. Aspects of learner discourse: why listening to learners is so important. In: Esch, E. (Ed.), Self-access and The Adult Language
Learner. Centre for Information on Language Teaching, London, pp. 7e18.
Rubenfeld, S., Clément, R., Lussier, D., Lebrun, M., Auger, R., 2006. Second language learning and cultural representations: beyond competence
and identity. Language Learning 56 (4), 609e631.
Sakui, K., Gaies, S.J., 1999. Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language learning. System 27 (4), 473e492.
Sarangi, S., Candlin, C., 2003. Trading between reflexivity and relevance: new challenges for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 24 (3),
271e285.
Seargeant, P., 2009. The Idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the Evolution of a Global Language. Multilingual Matters, Buffalo, NY.
Silverstein, M., 1998. Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In: Brennis, D., Macaulay, R.H.S.
(Eds.), The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 284e306.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Talmy, S., 2010. Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: from research instrument to social practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
30, 128e148.
Tanaka, K., Ellis, R., 2003. Study-abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about language learning. JALT Journal 25 (1), 63e83.
Victori, M., Lockhart, W., 1995. Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning. System 23 (2), 223e234.
Wallace, C., 2002. Local literacies and global literacy. In: Block, D., Cameron, D. (Eds.), Globalization and Language Teaching. Routledge,
London, pp. 101e114.
Wang, J., Spencer, K., Xing, M., 2009. Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. System 37 (1), 46e56.
Wenden, A.L., 1986. What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied
Linguistics 7 (2), 186e205.
Wenden, A.L., 1987. How to be a successful language learner: insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In: Wenden, A., Rubin, J. (Eds.),
Learner Strategies in language Learning. Prentice Hall, London, pp. 103e117.
Wenden, A.L., 1999. An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning beyond the basic. System 24 (4), 435e441.
Woolard, K., 1998. Introduction: language ideology as a field of inquiry. In: Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K., Kroskrity, P. (Eds.), Language
Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3e47.
Wortham, S., 2006. Learning Identity: The Joint Emergence of Social Identification and Academic Learning. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Young, R.F., 2009. Discursive Practice in Language Learning and Teaching. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.