Rethinking Discourses of Diversity: a Critical Discourse Study of Language

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

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

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.

Deo Gratias

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

(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

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

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,

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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,

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,

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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.

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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.

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

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).

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

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 sociopolitical and ideological aspects of diversity discourses in relation to power. Power

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 The use of the Lexical choice categories that English?”) Text deictic 'that' (e.g. good) & its Syntactic referring to L1 illocutionary structure Hesitance for self- force The use of the correction Rhetoric

definitive article, Lexical Choice Passive voice 'the' in the 'the Metaphor (e.g. ‘hear’) sentence language' referring Change in code to English No-human agent (from L1 to the institution/ English), The emphatic occupying the participant particles and subject position structure, topic, hedges, e.g. really, of the sentences. etc.) just, very often, as Lexical choice, much as possible e.g. 'screen' Continued

Table 1 Continued

ESL class Competence and activity L1 use as skill-based ESL Discourse Immersion communicative Practice Deficit model Code-switching approach in L2 strategies

pedagogy Pronunciation

English Only drill/accent

presupposition reduction

Institutional gatekeeping Monolingualis Linguistic Social Practice m Restrictive L2 diversity English Only

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 &

Fossey, 2007, p. 92). Member-checking had been done continuously throughout this research process.

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

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

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:

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

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

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.

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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:

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,

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

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

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

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

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.

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,

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

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

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

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 ethnolinguistic 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 outgroup 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 outgroup 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 discourse 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 makeup 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 mine: before the class I stroke a conversation with a Korean student topics, starting studying with the talking psychology, 1st of American year, now in the opening philosophy second semester; JK discussion/ students' 1st: question about when presentations they would get the feedback 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 presenter: talking about 1st year student) pragmatic philosophy of along with other teacher's education, starting with assignment from the role/programmatic posing a question disciplinary courses) (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) mine: the 1st student 1st: American teacher, uses the comparison facilitator, coordinator, between American/ realistic teacher; their own culture what do they mean by a pragmatic s3: pragmatic teacher teacher? 272

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/ makeup 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 (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 (T: to the 1st presenter; he and the weather prior to the can be relaxed during the forecast of the nex class adjusting the projector rest of the semester) week) 2nd presenter: the relationship between 2nd student teacher/students in high presenter school/ college 277

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