A Cross Cultural Study of English Language Learners in Monolingual and Bilingual Israeli State Schools

Doing and Undoing Power: A Cross Cultural Study of English Language Learners in Monolingual and Bilingual Israeli State Schools

Thesis submitted for the degree of “Doctor of Philosophy”

By Julia Schlam Salman

Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

December, 2011

This work was carried out under the supervision of Professor Elite Olshtain & Dr. Zvi Bekerman

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisers Dr. Zvi Bekerman and Professor

Elite Olshtein for their support throughout this entire process. Their unfaltering belief in this research project together with their willingness to engage at all hours in intellectual and practical dialogue, has undoubtedly contributed to the quality of this study. Thank you to the members of my dissertation committee, Professor Bernard Spolsky, Professor Elana Shohamy and Dr. Nava

Nevo for your insights and input along the way. I would also like to thank Professor Gabriel

Horenczyk, Dr. Valerie Jakar and Dr. Aliza Yahav for providing additional and different perspectives— ones that challenged me to consider other methods and directions. I thank the

Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University for providing ample monetary support that ultimately enabled me to finish writing my dissertation. I am also indebted the Melton Centre for Jewish Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for their generous financial support and for exemplifying the true spirit of collegiality. Their multidisciplinary approach to educational research enabled me to find unexpected collaborators across a wide range of fields and disciplines.

I am grateful to the schools, teachers and students who agreed to take part in this study.

Thank you especially to Avigdor Mantel, Rana Qaddoura and Judie Segal for allowing me to be a part of your classrooms. To the many students who participated in this study and shared your ideas and beliefs with me, I thank you. I am grateful to Rajaa Natour, Diana Shehade and

Netanel Silverman for their help with Arabic translation. I would also like to thank the Chief

Scientific Authority at the Ministry of Education for giving me permission to go into the schools and conduct research. More specifically, I would like to thank my English inspector and

colleague Pat Talshir for her steadfast commitment to me and to English teachers throughout the country.

On a personal level, I would like to thank my parents who instilled in me intellectual curiosity along with the pursuit of excellence. My father—may his memory be for a blessing— embodied scholarship and I am certain would have been proud of this accomplishment. Mom— thank you for your endless optimism, for supporting me every step of the way and for modeling what it means to be a lifelong learner in the truest sense of the word. Over the course of this doctorate, I have been blessed to have brought two children into the world. They continuously help me to stay mindful of the pinnacles along the way even as I strive towards future ambitions.

Last, but certainly not least, thank you to my partner Nisim for your unconditional support, for the hours of occupying our children, for the meals cooked and the many dishes washed and most of all, for sharing this life with me in all its challenges and wonders.

Gracias a la vida que me ha dado tanto.

—Mercedes Sosa

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Research Objectives ...... 1 A Word about Employed Nomenclature ...... 4 CHAPTER I: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 6 Social Constructionism ...... 6 Social Constructionism & Language ...... 7 Social Constructionism, Language & Identity ...... 8 Models of Language Learning ...... 12 English as a Global Language ...... 17 Outcomes of Language & Language Learning ...... 21 Factors Affecting Language Learning Outcomes ...... 22 Perceived Language Status ...... 23 Linguistic Capital ...... 24 Language Conflict ...... 25 Motivation ...... 27 Monolingualism, Bilingualism & Trilingualism ...... 29 Language Learning and Identity Construction Processes ...... 31 Identity Construction Processes and Foreign Language Learning ...... 33 Identity Construction Processes and English as an International Language ...... 34 Pedagogical Implications—Language Learning and Identity ...... 36 Contextual Factors: Sociopolitics, Language & Education ...... 37 The National Context: History & Socio-Politics ...... 38 Languages in Israeli Society ...... 42 The Educational System in Israel ...... 47 English Language Learning in Israel ...... 48 Authorial Voice ...... 50 Summary & Conclusion: Review of Literature ...... 51 CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY ...... 53 Rationale for Employed Methodology ...... 53 The Schools ...... 54 Model I: Monolingual-Majority School (Hebrew-English) ...... 55 Model II: Monolingual-Minority School (Arabic-English) ...... 55

Model III: Bilingual Minority-Majority School (Arabic-Hebrew-English) ...... 55 Study Participants ...... 56 Data Collection Instruments ...... 57 Data Collection Process ...... 59 Research Preparation ...... 59 Preliminary Classroom Observations ...... 60 In-depth, Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews ...... 61 Focus Group Sessions ...... 63 Data Analysis ...... 64 Limitations of Employed Methodology ...... 68 CHAPTER III: FINDINGS & ANALYSIS ...... 73 Introduction to the Findings & Analysis ...... 73 Background to the Linguistic Context of the Study ...... 73 Statement of Intent for the Findings & Analysis ...... 77 SECTION (1): Monolingual Majority Students ...... 81 Introduction to the Monolingual Majority School ...... 81 Hebrew ...... 81 Hebrew Usage ...... 81 Hebrew Status ...... 84 Perceptions and Attitudes towards Hebrew ...... 86 Summary of Findings related to Hebrew: Monolingual Majority Students ...... 89 Arabic ...... 90 Arabic Usage ...... 90 Arabic Status ...... 93 Perceptions and Attitudes toward Arabic ...... 96 Summary of Findings related to Arabic: Monolingual Majority Students ...... 100 English ...... 101 English Usage ...... 101 English Usage in the International Arena ...... 101 English Usage in the Local Arena ...... 103 English Usage in the Cyber Arena ...... 106 Summary of Findings: English Usage ...... 108 English Status ...... 108

Summary of Findings: English Status ...... 111 Perceptions and Attitudes towards English ...... 112 Language Learning ...... 112 Language & Identity ...... 115 Conflict Resolution and Peace Education Initiatives ...... 119 Summary of Findings: Perceptions and Attitudes towards English ...... 122 Summary of Findings Related to the Monolingual Majority School ...... 123 SECTION (2): Monolingual Minority Students ...... 126 Introduction to the Monolingual Minority School ...... 126 Hebrew ...... 126 Hebrew Usage ...... 126 Hebrew Status ...... 129 Perceptions and Attitudes towards Hebrew ...... 132 Summary of Findings related to Hebrew: Monolingual Minority Students ...... 134 Arabic ...... 135 Arabic Usage ...... 135 Arabic Status ...... 139 Perceptions and Attitudes towards Arabic ...... 142 Summary of Findings related to Arabic: Monolingual Minority Students ...... 145 English ...... 146 English Usage ...... 146 English Usage in the International Arena ...... 146 English Usage in the Local Arena ...... 147 English Usage in the Cyber Arena ...... 152 Summary of Findings: English Usage ...... 154 English Status ...... 154 Summary of Findings: English Status ...... 157 Perceptions and Attitudes towards English ...... 157 Language Learning ...... 157 Language & Identity ...... 161 Conflict Resolution and Peace Education Initiatives ...... 164 Summary of Findings: Perceptions and Attitudes towards English ...... 167 Summary of Findings Related to the Monolingual Minority School ...... 168

SECTION (3): Bilingual Minority Majority Students...... 171 Introduction to the Bilingual Minority Majority School ...... 171 Hebrew ...... 172 Hebrew Usage ...... 172 Hebrew Status ...... 174 Perceptions and Attitudes towards Hebrew ...... 177 Summary of Findings related to Hebrew: Bilingual Minority Majority Students ...... 182 Arabic ...... 184 Arabic Usage ...... 184 Arabic Status ...... 188 Perceptions and Attitudes towards Arabic ...... 191 Summary of Findings related to Arabic: Bilingual Minority Majority Students...... 195 English ...... 197 English Usage ...... 197 English Usage in the International Arena ...... 197 English Usage in the Local Arena ...... 199 English Usage in the Cyber Arena ...... 205 Summary of Findings: English Usage ...... 207 English Status ...... 208 Summary of Findings: English Status ...... 211 Perceptions and Attitudes towards English ...... 211 Language Learning ...... 211 Language & Identity ...... 215 Conflict Resolution and Peace Education Initiatives ...... 219 Summary of Findings: Perceptions and Attitudes towards English ...... 222 Summary of Findings Related to the Bilingual Minority Majority School ...... 224 CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION ...... 227 Language Usage ...... 228 Language Status ...... 235 Perceptions and Attitudes towards Language...... 238 Summary & Conclusions ...... 250 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS & FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 255 REFERENCES ...... 268

APPENDICES ...... 280 Appendix (I): Interview Questionnaire ...... 280 Appendix (II): Semi-Structured Interview Questions ...... 282 Appendix (III): Focus Group Activities ...... 283

INTRODUCTION

Research Objectives

Foreign language and second language research concerning students’ experiences of language learning has revealed multiple and varied findings (Dörnyei, 2003; Heller, 1999). In particular, critical language studies (Fairclough, 2001) that maintain “ideologically sensitive orientations” (Canagarajah, 1993, p.605) have exposed various unspoken and unnoticed repercussions and expressions of power that surface in classroom settings and among teachers and learners (Delpit, 1995; Wu & Bilash, 2003). In the broadest sense, this study is an investigation into the relationship between language learning and power.

More specifically, this study constitutes a cross cultural, qualitative, investigation of ninth grade English language learners in three, state run, non-religious schools in Jerusalem; one is defined as a monolingual majority school (Hebrew-English), the second is defined as a monolingual minority school (Arabic-English), and the third is defined as a bilingual minority- majority school (Arabic-Hebrew-English). Using preliminary classroom observations, in depth, semi- structured interviews and focus group sessions, this study compares and contrasts learners' experiences— paying special attention to how learners perceive and understand the impact of

English learning on themselves and others. In addition, given that the sociolinguistic context of this study is characterized by the continuous interplay between Hebrew, Arabic and English, this study has evolved into an analysis, not only of English among Arabic and Hebrew speaking students, but also a consideration of the functions and consequences of local languages vis-à-vis

English. Ultimately, participants awarded meaning and relevancy to all three languages; their interplay is explored at length.

This study builds on the assumption that languages are not solely agents for transferring information and for communicating with others. Languages play a key role in how we construct understandings of ourselves, our social surroundings, our pasts and our possibilities for the future

(Norton & Toohey, p.1). In the case of this study, this involves an examination of the power structures that get named, produced and reproduced (Bourdieu, 1977) when English is acquired and when local languages are acquired in juxtaposition to English. Languages transfer and construct meaning only when they are put to use by specific speech communities. This study offers an in depth analysis of three diverse communities of English language learners with the aim of gaining a better understanding of some of the consequences of English and English language learning.

English has acquired the status as a global or international language (Brutt-Griffler, 2002;

Crystal, 2003) in a variety of settings throughout the world. This process of globalization has led to notions such as English as a Global Language (Crystal, 2003), English as an International

Language (EIL) (Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Mckay, 2002), and World Englishes (Jenkins, 2003;

Jenkins, 2006; Kachru, Kachru & Nelson, 2009). These nomenclatures are sometimes used interchangeably and have produced an area of research concerned with the re-examination of

English language learning and its multiple effects. One of the central claims of this epistemological stance is that English no longer belongs to a particular nation or culture. Rather, the unprecedented diffusion and use of English by speakers of other languages for local and global communication means that English marks a variety of social groups.

Alongside this “universal appropriation” emerges an array of uncharted consequences that have socioeconomic, political, cultural and linguistic implications. While some scholars argue that the process of language appropriation by learners has facilitated an empowerment and

2 reappropriation unique to English, others maintain that English is “a ‘killer language’ and a

‘tyrannosaurus rex’ (Phan Le Ha, 2005, p.204). Certainly, in many places in the world English remains tied to the legacy of colonialism or current political alliances, and it would be premature to define English as entirely neutral or denationalized. Rather, English as a global language can be viewed as a two-sided predicament characterized by increased professional opportunities and social mobility on the one hand and colonialism, identity loss and westernized assimilation on the other hand (Amara, 2003; Lee & Norton, 2009; Phan Le Ha, 2005). Additionally, in the framework of this study, English plays a particularly complex role because it is not a language directly associated with the enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and yet it is sometimes perceived as hegemonic and culturally/ethnically deviant (Amara, 2003, pp.220-3).

This point of dissonance between linguistic emancipation and linguistic hegemony served as the starting point of this research project which investigated Hebrew-speaking English language learners, Arabic-speaking English language learners and bilingual (Arabic-Hebrew) speaking English language learners. This study contains five chapters. The first chapter presents a review of literature relevant to the study at hand. The second chapter describes the methodology used in this research—namely preliminary observations, in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews and focus group sessions. The third chapter presents an in-depth analysis of the findings of this study. Each school is presented and analyzed independently. In the fourth chapter, entitled Discussion, I then present a comparative analysis of some of the points presented in the Findings & Analysis section and elaborate on their implications. In the fifth and final chapter of the dissertation, I provide a conclusion and address the overarching implications and limitations of this study.

This study is an examination of languages in practice in a society characterized by sustained, intractable conflict where the conflict is expressed, in part, through the languages of

Arabic and Hebrew. Although not a language directly associated with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the acquisition and use of English produces a unique fabric of ideologies, power relations and cultural politics. These consequences are tied to the doing and undoing of power and ultimately have an effect on language usage, language status and perceptions and attitudes towards both local languages and English.

What I have “determined” or “uncovered” remains complex and ever-changing.

Descriptive social research in general and human beings in particular do not quantify well; nor do adolescents, when studied in their naturally occurring social worlds, easily meld into neat presuppositions or patterns. Nevertheless, the critical investigation of languages in practice can help enrich our understanding of unfolding discursive consequences. Ideally, we are able to uncover and deconstruct constructs of oppression that are produced and reproduced. What rises to the surface is a clearer, more just reality.

A Word about Employed Nomenclature

Throughout this dissertation, I have made an effort to maintain consistency concerning employed nomenclature with respect to the groups represented in this study. However, there remains a need for clarification. With respect to the schools researched, I use the terms monolingual majority school, monolingual minority school and bilingual minority majority school. The first refers to students attending the Jewish Israeli school; the second refers to students attending the Palestinian Israeli school; and the third refers to students attending the

4 integrated bilingual Jewish-Arab school 1. With respect to the study participants, I generally refer to them as monolingual majority students, monolingual minority students and bilingual minority majority students. In addition, when distinguishing between bilingual minority majority students, I refer to them as bilingual majority students (Jewish, L1 Hebrew speakers) and bilingual minority students (Muslim or Christian, L1 Arabic speakers).

When emphasizing binary, ethnic or linguistic differences, I refer to participants as L1

Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers. Participants who identified themselves as L1 Hebrew speakers are also sometimes referred to as Jewish Israelis and participants who identified themselves as L1 Arabic speakers are sometimes referred to as Palestinian Israelis. All study participants were Israeli citizens and while some may not identify as Israeli, this nomenclature is used to distinguish them from their Palestinian non-Israeli counterparts who are referred to in this study as Palestinian.

My aim in defining categories is to provide consistent language that represents the groups involved in this study but also sufficiently encompasses the heterogeneity present among participants. These categorizations are not all-inclusive, but my contention is that they drop a broad enough net to be able to capture the majority of the voices represented in this study.

Where ethnic, linguistic or religious categorizations were prominent, they are duly noted.

1 The school defines itself as a center for Jewish-Arab education.

CHAPTER I: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Social Constructionism

The epistemological considerations that guide this study are rooted in an area of theory and research called social constructionism. According to such a framework, types of knowledge are constructed through discursive practices and sustained by ongoing social processes.

Moreover, the way in which we understand information is historically and culturally specific.

(Burr, 2003). Burr further elaborates (2003), “our ways of understanding the world do not come from objective reality but from other people, both past and present” (p.7). Conceptual frameworks do not hold essential qualities but are constituted and reconstituted through interaction. These frameworks cannot be separated from the contexts in which they are constituted. As such, knowledge, or constructed meanings— such as concepts, ideas and representations— are limited to a particular context, society and time (Hall, 2001, p.75).

Knowledge, as articulated through discursive practices, is intimately related to power.

The interplay between discursive practices (language/language use) and symbolic power stands at the center of this investigation of L1 Arabic speaking and L1 Hebrew speaking English language learners. Sociolinguistic conventions, both within one language and across languages in multilingual settings “have a dual relation to power: on the one hand they incorporate differences of power, on the other hand they arise out of— and give rise to— particular relations of power” (Fairclough, 2001, p.2). These expressions of power inform the workings of the classroom, constructed learner identities and the broader sociopolitical contexts in which students function. Students become both carriers of and dissenters against the power constructs generated within a particular context.

Social Constructionism & Language

A principle tenant of social constructionist theory rests on the notion that there is a link between language and construction. Language plays a fundamental role in how we articulate our surroundings. We cannot talk about meaning without language—but language does inherently carry meaning. Rather language— as historical/cultural precedents combined with social interactions articulated through discursive practice— becomes “a system of categories for dividing up our experience and giving it meaning” (Burr, 2003, p.62). This move away from viewing language as an abstract grammatical/syntactic system and towards a linguistic understanding of social theory is a relatively new conceptual shift and has been referred to by some theorists and practitioners as both a social turn in the study of languages and a linguistic turn in the study of social phenomena (see for example Fairclough, 2001).

In the past, linguistic theory commonly supported the view that language and words were descriptions of reality. Languages described experiences, ideas and objects, which, in and of themselves, possessed fundamental essences. Furthermore, the art of learning a language was understood as an innate biological function that all normally-developing children acquire overtime. Over the last few decades, this nativist position has been challenged by an interactionist view of language acquisition which focuses on input from the surrounding context and internal language processing. From this perspective, “learning takes place as a result of a complex interaction between the linguistic environment and the learner’s internal mechanisms”

(Ellis, 1997, p.44). This social turn in the understanding of language and language learning meshes well with social constructionist theory and results in the following conclusions regarding language as articulated by Fairclough (2001): “Firstly, that language is a part of society, and not somehow external to it. Secondly, that language is a social process. And thirdly, that language is

7 a socially conditioned process, conditioned that is by other (non-linguistic) parts of society”

(p.22).

In light of the above statements made by Fairclough, we can conclude that the closest of relationships exists between knowledge, language use and the practices that come about as a result of that use. This junction between linguistic and nonlinguistic systems of representation constitutes what Foucault referred to as discourse. According to Hall (2001), “discourse is about the production of knowledge through language. But. . .since all social practices entail meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do— our conduct— all practices have a discursive aspect” (p.72). This shift towards an emphasis on discourse constitutes a move away from a foundationalist approach to language and into the realm of constructionist theory. As Burr

(2003) further elaborates, “once we begin to talk about or otherwise signify or represent the material world then we have entered the realm of discourse; and at that moment we have engaged in social construction” (p.91). This study is both an investigation of language learners and an attempt to better understand their discursive practices along with the meanings and identifications they construct through these practices

Social Constructionism, Language & Identity

Studies considering language and language learning frequently concern themselves with issues of identity construction. In part this is because of the inextricable relationship between language and identity and the crucial role language(s) play in the construction of identifications

(Fishman, 1999; Olshtain & Nissim-Amitai, 2004). Before addressing the complex interchange between language and identity, I will look at the conceptions of identity embraced and rejected within the framework of this study.

Social constructionist theory supports and informs our understanding of identity/identity construction. As such, identity was never perceived as a “something” or “an explanatory

‘resource’ that we, as analysts haul with us to a scene where people are interacting” (Antaki &

Widdicombe, 1998, p.2). Rather, identities are viewed as discursively constructed; continually negotiated; and changing, evolving and, at times, hybridized as a result of interactions, discourse, community practice and social context (Fairclough, 2003; Romaine, 2010; Wenger, 1998).

Among social science theorists, the premise that language plays a key role in identity formation is widely accepted (see for example Fishman, 1999; Gumperz & Gumperz, 1982).

The relationship between language and identity however, is complex and the role of language in marking identity is not straightforward. Given the theoretical and methodological approaches underlining this study, I have adopted a non-essentialist, multidimensional, dynamic approach to understanding the interface between language and identity. Therefore, while it is important to acknowledge foundational sociopsychological paradigms for understanding and researching language and identity, in particular the work of Tajfel (1973), Giles and Byrne (1982) and Giles and Johnson (1987), these approaches fall outside the realm of social constructionist theory and will not be addressed. Pavlenok and Blackledge (2004) provide a succinct overview of these paradigms as well as a critique in light of more recent poststructuralist research in language acquisition and language and identity.

Current theoretical approaches to the study of identity negotiation processes in multicultural and multilingual contexts tend to emphasize “ways in which various language varieties function in local contexts and ways in which local hegemonic structures may oppress or legitimize particular ethnic groups or identities” (Pavlenok & Blackledge, 2004, p.7). These broader sociocultural and socialpolitical considerations function alongside context specific

9 factors. In a study investigating identity negotiation among Tibetan English language learners,

MacPherson (2005) describes this interface as: “a) complex, contradictory, and multifaceted; b) dynamic across time and space; c) co-constructed; d) in the context of larger social processes that can be coercive or collaborative; e) linked with classroom practice” (p.588).

The interface between language and identity can result in multiple identifications.

According to Paltridge (2006) “a person may have a number of identities, each of which is more important at different points in time. . . The ways in which people display their identities includes the way they use language and the way they interact with people” (p.38). Crystal

(2003) further elaborates: “language is a major means (some would say the chief means) of showing where we belong and of distinguishing one social group from another” (p.22).

Individuals may use a language or set of discursive practices in order to accentuate or play down particular identifications and to demonstrate attachment or detachment with a specific group.

Moreover, speakers may choose one language over another or make adjustments within their language in order to accommodate their interlocutor and display identity alliance (Giles & Ogay,

2007).

Humans grow up using one or more languages and this usage constitutes a core component in marking and actively constructing identity. Usage does not occur in a vacuum but is influenced by micro and macro sociolinguistic factors such as ethnolinguistic identifications, language attitudes, language functions and broader language policies (for further discussion see

Fishman, 1999). For bilinguals/multilinguals, these factors, as well as others, affect speakers’ decision to make use of one language over another. Even within the same language, speakers sometimes make use of an alternative accent, dialect or vernacular to indicate identity location

(Romaine, 2010). These speech acts are ultimately also acts of identity, means of positioning oneself in relation to a particular linguistic community and wider social context.

Norton & McKinney (2011) elaborate further, “. . . every time learners speak, they are negotiating and renegotiating a sense of self in relation to the larger social world, and reorganizing that relationship in multiple dimensions of their lives” (p.73). From this view, language acquisition and accompanying bilingualism/multilingualism, contributes to identity construction because learners must continually re-identify and re-organize themselves in relation to the target language community and wider sociopolitical circumstances.

On many occasions, when individuals acquire another or additional language, they may choose or be forced to adopt certain accompanying identifications. These adopted or ascribed identities at times stand in direct opposition to previously salient identifications. Learners must continually negotiate these (sometimes) competing identifications in order to find coherence and resolution in relation to the identities they adopt or reject (Canagarajah, 2004, p.117). To be certain, these negotiation processes are linked to both pragmatic/utilitarian considerations as well as emotional/personal considerations. People tend to have profound beliefs and emotions concerning their language(s) and identities. As such, linguistic decisions contain underlying emotional dimensions linked to historical legacy as well as current issues of status and power

(Norton & McKinney, 2011).

This study is primarily concerned with the link between language and identity construction processes specifically in language education settings (see pp.31-37). Nevertheless, it is important to make note of additional disciplinary perspectives that, to varying degrees, inform this study’s understandings of the interchange between language and identity. These include but are not limited to cultural anthropology, social psychology, sociology and

11 sociolinguistics. While a full overview of each of these disciplinary approaches is beyond the scope of this literature review, Fishman’s original Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity

(1999) as well as the second edition co-edited with Garcia (Fishman & Garcia, 2010) provide a comprehensive overview for anchoring perspectives of language and identity within each of these particular disciplines. This study has implicitly relied on components from these broad disciplinary approaches while at the same time bearing in mind the socially constructed nature of disciplinary boundaries and seeking to stress shared and overlapping repertoires.

Models of Language Learning

The expanse of literature concerning models of language education is vast and includes both global and local perspectives. For the sake of relevancy and brevity, I will not present an in- depth overview of all language education models but will address only those forms which are pertinent to this study. In addition, I focus primarily on types of bilingual education rooted in

North America, both in the United States and Canada. During the second part of the twentieth century, both countries have developed a wide range of programs representing various linguistic policies and aims (Ovando & McLaren, 2000).

Broadly speaking, bilingual educational models can be divided into two expansive categories entitled additive bilingual education and subtractive bilingual education . In the former, students attend school using their L1 and a second language is added to their repertoire of knowledge. The aim is to produce students who are bilingual and who possess a certain level of bicultural/multicultural awareness. Additive bilingual programs typically view the acquisition of a second language as advantageous and contributing to students’ cognitive, social and psychological development (Garcia, 1997, pp.408-409). In subtractive bilingual programs, the

12 second language is added at the expense of the first language. Initially, students are instructed in their L1 and in a second language. Over time, instruction in the L1 ceases and students are ultimately instructed solely in the second language. In subtractive bilingualism, the second language eventually replaces the L1 resulting in students who are proficient in only one language

(Lambert, 1980).

A second distinction which bears relevance to this overview pertains to strong and weak bilingual education models. In the former, the goal is bilingualism and biliteracy. In the latter, the goal is monolingualism or limited bilingualism (Baker, 2006). This study is concerned solely with types of bilingual education that fall under the umbrella of additive bilingual education .

However, we address both weak and strong bilingual education programs.

Generally speaking, English language learning in the Israeli context, although based on an additive bilingual approach, constitutes an example of a weak form of bilingual education according to Baker and Jones’ taxonomies for bilingual education programs outlined in the

Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (1998, p.470). Baker (2006) refers to these types of programs as mainstream with foreign language learning. In the Israeli context,

Hebrew or Arabic is the mainstream language and English is added as a foreign language (for further discussion see Deutsch, 2007). While English is added to students’ linguistic repertoire, the end result is generally not bilingualism but marginal proficiency. Of course, this is not always the case and in certain classrooms, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) models are successful in promoting acquisition and fluency. Therefore, it is imperative that we acknowledge the limitations of classifications even as we employ them to better understand the multifaceted nature of bilingual education models (Baker, 2006, p.215).

A second model that bears relevancy to this study is two-way, dual language programs.

One of the schools involved in this study—the integrated bilingual minority majority school— effectively has two types of bilingual education programs functioning concurrently. The first is an EFL model such as was described in the previous paragraph. The second is a two-way, dual language program aimed at promoting bilingualism in Hebrew and in Arabic. Here, I will briefly address the characteristics of two-way, dual language programs. In the methodology chapter, I provide a more detailed account of the program implemented in the bilingual minority majority school.

In general, two-way dual language programs consist of a mix between minority language students and majority language students. Both the minority and the majority languages are used as languages of instruction, and the goal is bilingualism and bicultural awareness. According to

Lindhom-Leary (2001), programs aim to achieve high levels of proficiency in both the first and second language. They also emphasize reading and writing in both languages along with high levels of academic achievement in all arenas. In addition to academic successes, dual language programs aim “to produce children who, in terms of inter-group relations, are likely to be more tolerant, sensitive, and equalized in status” (Baker, 2006, p.231). These goals of prejudice reduction and increased tolerance are presumably facilitated through regular, normalized interactions between the different ethno-linguistic groups.

The benefits of dual language programs for both minority and majority language populations have been well documented (see for example Genesee, 2004). However, the presence of unequal power structures and their expression through majority and minority languages plays a role in the success or failure of dual language programs. According to Fitts

(2006), “no program can be a panacea and any bilingual program that attempts to address

14 linguistic issues without also addressing issues of status and power will not fully succeed in its mission” (p.340). Adherence to certain guiding practices can help foster balanced bilingualism and encourage mutual respect. Moreover, in areas of intractable conflict, such as the context of this study, the connection between language and power is particularly palpable and may require new and more critical paradigms.

Extensive research has not been conducted on the implementation of dual language immersion programs in areas of intractable conflict. While Tankersley (2001) reports on research conducted in Macedonia and in Hebrew Amara (2005), Bekerman (2005) and

Feuerverger (2001) have conducted research in Israel, further investigation into the role of bilingual and trilingual education programs in areas of sustained conflict is a worthwhile endeavor. Furthermore, initiatives such as the bilingual minority majority school involved in this study seem to rely on other theoretical models in addition to bilingual education models and have therefore been researched from a variety of additional vantage points most notably the paradigm of intergroup encounter models.

I do not wish to delve extensively into intergroup encounter models except in so far as they have bearing on language and language usage. Intergroup encounters represent an educational model within the coexistence sector and can be defined as facilitated, face-to-face encounters between members of two or more social groups who have a history of conflict or potential conflict (Nagda & Derr, 2004). The encounters are designed to overcome distrust and hostility and contribute to coexistence and reconciliation efforts. They fall into two broad models entitled short-term intergroup encounters and long-term intergroup encounters. The former generally consists of a series of planned encounters carried out over the course of a few months to a year. Meetings can range from one-time encounters to weekly or monthly

15 encounters (Maoz, 2000). Long-term intergroup encounters constitute ongoing encounters carried out over years. Encounters are frequent, even daily, and intergroup interaction becomes a way of life. The bilingual minority majority school that took part in this study is one of the few examples of long-term intergroup encounters in Israel.

Intergroup encounter models have been informed by several social-psychological frameworks— the main one being contact theory. This model was put forward by Gordon

Allport as a way of reducing prejudice and intergroup conflict. Frequently referred to as “the contact hypothesis” (Allport, 1954), the theory states that intergroup contact with individual members of an out-group can lead to a more positive attitude towards the out-group as well as prejudice reduction. Specific conditions must be met in order for intergroup contact to be effective. These include regular and frequent contact, a balanced ratio of in-group to out-group participants and equal status among participants within the contact (symmetry) (Dixon, Durrheim

& Tredoux, 2005; Nasser & Abu-Nimer, 2007).

Contact theory has undergone various reformulations –in particular as a result of more recent empirical findings from studies conducted by for example Dixon, Durrheim and Tredoux

(2005), Forbes (2004), Pettigrew (1998) and Pettigrew and Tropp (2000). Of particular interest for this study, are intergroup perspectives emphasizing the role of language in sustaining and dissipating conflict.

According to Shulman and Clement (2008), “from an alternative intergroup perspective, it has been proposed that the acquisition and usage of a second language has positive implications in the mitigation of cross cultural conflict and the promotion of intergroup harmony” (p.110). In their research, conducted among Canadian Francophones, Shulman and

Clement (2008) showed that acquisition of a second language along with second language

16 confidence contributed to the emergence of positive attitudes towards members of the second language group including the reduction of prejudice. Rubenfeld et al (2007), further suggest that second language learning and L2 confidence increase individuals’ tendency to intervene as a

“cultural intermediary” in situations of cross-cultural conflict. These studies suggest that in intergroup encounters involving groups not sharing the same first language, language acquisition and linguistic competency may play a key role in alleviating conflict.

The bilingual minority majority school has clearly been influenced by theoretical and practical approaches informing intergroup contact both in Israel and in other areas of the world.

In addition, the stance articulated by some monolingual participants in this study that both

Arabic and Hebrew should be used symmetrically in intergroup encounters between Jewish

Israelis and Palestinian Israelis could also be understood as an extension of intergroup contact theory. Nevertheless, it is important to clarify that intergroup contact theory is not a model of language learning. Additionally, the role of language usage in affecting or perpetuating conflict has largely been absent from contact hypothesis discourse. Throughout this study, I emphasize and examine the role of language in intractable conflict, arguing that as a symbolic representation of power and prestige, language needs to be recognized as part of sustained conflict.

English as a Global Language

English as a Global Language is one of several taxonomies used to describe the linguistic spread of English throughout much of the world (Crystal, 2003). Additional nomenclatures include English as an International Language (EIL) (Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Strevens, 1992),

English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) (Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2005) and World Englishes

(Kachru, Kachru & Nelson, 2009). While theoretical and epistemological differences can be found between each of these classifications, they are sometimes used interchangeably and have produced an area of research concerned with the re-examination of English in local, global and virtual contexts (for further discussion see Jenkins, 2006). According to Kachru (1992), World

Englishes “opens refreshing new avenues for cross-cultural theoretical and applied research.

What is needed is a shift of two types: a paradigm shift in research and teaching, and an understanding of the sociolinguistic reality of the uses and users of English (p.362). Indeed, many of the sociolinguistic consequences of international English remain unchartered, in part because of the rapid rate at which the language is spreading and because of the increasingly large numbers of people using English as a language of wider communication across national and cultural boundaries (McKay, 2002).

Kachru’s Circles of English is particularly helpful in conceptualizing the diverse and expansive uses of English across the globe. He identifies three circles of English which include

(a) the Inner Circle; (b) the Outer Circle ; and (c) the Expanding Circle . The Inner Circle includes countries where English is the main language of the country such as the United States or

Canada. The Outer Circle includes countries where English functions as a second language both because of extensive periods of colonization and because of the presence of multiple indigenous or local languages. Examples include India and Singapore. The Expanding Circle includes countries where English functions primarily as a foreign language. While the language generally does not have an official status, it is often employed as a language of wider communication between speakers of other languages. Examples include China and Russia (Kachru, 1992).

Kachru’s classification of World Englishes is depicted via three concentric circles:

Kachru’s (1992) Circles of English Inner Circle (e.g. USA, UK)

Outer Circle (e.g. India, Singapore) Expanding Circle (e.g. China, Russia)

English usage in the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle has burgeoned to the point where speakers in these circles far outnumber speakers in the Inner Circle . According to Crystal

(2003), “we now have a situation where there are more people speaking [English] as a second language, and many more speaking it as a foreign language. If we combine these two latter groups, the ratio of native to non-native is around 1:3 (p.69). Multiple questions arise with respect to form and usage when we consider the fact that speakers of English represent multiple cultural and ethnic groups. Such diversity results in language variation on a variety of levels.

On the one hand, we witness variations within purely linguistic domains such as vocabulary, grammar, syntax and structure. On the other hand, we also see dramatic sociolinguistic changes with respect to the identity markers, symbolic power and communicative purpose. In particular, it is some of these sociolinguistic consequences that served as the impetus for this investigation of English language learners.

The global spread of English has brought about multiple linguistic and sociolinguistic consequences. Widespread English language usage in a variety of forums (social, political, economic, media oriented, etc.), settings and countries as well as technological advancements, including the advent of the internet, have contributed to the unique positioning and characteristics of English in the international arena. The need to investigate and reconceptualize the effects of English in light of this process of internationalization becomes paramount.

According to Brutt-Griffler and Davies (2006) “English itself must be conceptualized not as a monolithic linguistic entity with one ‘standard form, but as a highly complex linguistic construct with spoken and written forms, and a wide range of dialectal variation that can be conveyed through shifts at all levels of linguistic organization (p.5).

Generally speaking, the rich and complex framework of English as an International

Language has framed this investigation of L1 Hebrew, L1 Arabic and bilingual (Arabic-Hebrew)

English language learners. In the Israeli context, Hebrew and Arabic emerge as symbolic representations of a long and deep seated conflict between two ethnic groups—Jews and

Palestinians. 2 English— as a language that is not directly connected to the enduring Palestinian-

Israeli conflict and yet still associated with certain cultural values and norms— produces a unique fabric of ideologies, power relations and cultural politics. These constructions raise questions regarding the mediating role of English in areas of intractable conflict in general and in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular.

Extensive research has not been conducted specifically on the role of English in areas of intractable conflict where English is not one of the languages directly connected to the conflict.

There are critical language studies (Fairclough, 2001) that deal particularly with the politics and

2 As is discussed in the introduction, this study deals solely with individuals holding Israeli citizenship. For clarity purposes, I use the categorizations of Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis to refer to the two predominant ethnic groups involved in this study.

20 repercussions of English language education (see for example Hall & Eggington, 2000; Kubota,

2004). There are also researchers in the local context who have conducted studies that examine the role of language in the Palestinian Israeli conflict (see for example Feuerverger, 2007; in

Hebrew Zak, 2006). However, the stance towards English has generally been one that emphasizes its mutual allure for both Palestinian Israelis and Jewish Israelis or prematurely awards it the status of a lingua franca. There is a need for a more critical approach, one that bears in mind the perspective of English as a Global Language while simultaneously acknowledging that the role of English in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex, multifaceted and tied to historical and contemporary legacies.

Outcomes of Language & Language Learning

Theories abound concerning the consequences of language learning including what factors contribute to successful language acquisition. Theoretical approaches borrow from numerous disciplines including linguistics, neuroscience, psychology and sociology to name a few. The complexity of language acquisition and subsequent psychological/social consequences leave little room for absolutes with respect to process or outcome. Language learning is a multifaceted process that shapes and is shaped by various disciplines (for a more in depth discussion see Cook, 2008; Lightbown & Spada, 1999).

Certainly, language learning constitutes an intricate interplay between individuals and their surrounding contexts. While worthy of acknowledgement, this study is not an investigation of acquisition processes per se. Rather, it is concerned primarily with the individual and social outcomes accompanying language learning—and more specifically English language learning— including but not limited to an examination of the negotiation and transformation processes that

21 occur during the learning and subsequent use of English. In as much as these consequences inform and are informed by the languages of local consequence, namely Hebrew and Arabic, this study also addresses these linguistic overlaps.

The study of languages and language learning has increasingly taken a “social turn.”

(Canagarajah, 2004, p.116). Influenced by Vygotskian social development theory (for further discussion see Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1986) alongside social constructionist perspectives, this study has adopted theoretical frameworks emphasizing the idea that the outcomes of language learning arise out of interaction and dialogical construction.

Factors Affecting Language Learning Outcomes

The consequences of language learning are complex and multifaceted. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify specific factors that affect and shape language learning outcomes. In particular, I will discuss five aspects that bore relevancy for this study: perceived language status; linguistic capital, language conflict, motivation and bilingualism/trilingualism. These delineations are by no means the sole factors influencing language learning outcomes. Rather, they are factors that emerged as salient in the framework of this study and are therefore worthy of further theoretical considerations. Nevertheless, the scope of their influence is not meant to be quantified or limited to one arena. In other words, there is conceptual and theoretical overlap between, for example, perceived status and linguistic capital. One element may inform or be informed by another, and the boundaries between each delineation are permeable. As will be subsequently addressed, previous theoretical and applied research dealing with these issues suggests that although their influence is not straightforward, these components factor into language learning processes and outcomes.

Perceived Language Status

Language status is not fixed but impacted by a variety of factors including historical precedence, conceptions of linguistic power and language predominance in social interaction.

Languages are not inherently low status or high status but are constructed as such by way of a variety of historical, socioeconomic, political and ethnic influences. Baker (2006) builds on such factors by distinguishing between three types of language status: economic status, social status and symbolic status. Economic status refers to the financial mobility associated with a particular language. Social status refers to the prestige and power associated with a particular language and symbolic status refers to the cultural and ethnic identifications associated with a particular language (for further discussion see Baker, 2006, pp.55-56). To varying degrees, each of these status types informs language learning outcomes.

In the Israeli context, for the most part English is ascribed high economic and social status (Shohamy, 2007). Hebrew, as the majority language in Israel and the language usually associated with local economic, social and higher educational opportunities, is also afforded a high status. Arabic, although geographically dominant across the region, within Israel proper is largely ascribed symbolic status and relegated to the margins (Amara & Al-Rahman, 2002;

Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). These differences in perceived language status tend to weaken the position of Arabic in Israel and negatively affect Arabic language learning (Uhlmann, 2011).

It is imperative to clarify that the factors affecting Arabic language learning are multidimensional, and it would be an erroneous oversimplification to suggest that perceived status is the only factor influencing Arabic language learning. However, among other factors, perceived language status may be significant in fostering or hindering Arabic language acquisition.

Linguistic Capital

The second construct I wish to address, linguistic capital, is closely tied to language status and both informs and is informed by conceptions of power ascribed to a particular language. Linguistic capital can be defined as the symbolic value awarded to a particular language and is an extension of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital. First articulated by Bourdieu in the 1960’s, cultural capital refers to the role of nonmonetary assets such as class or cultural background in socioeconomic mobility and the reproduction of patterns of domination and subordination (for a more in-depth discussion see Bourdieu & Passeron,

1990).

Linguistic capital can be understood as an extension of cultural capital. Suresh (2009), using the example of Tamil from the Indian context, suggests that linguistic capital “can be defined as one’s fluency, expertise and comfort with a language which is used by groups that possess economic, social, cultural and political power and status in the local and global society”

(English-Tamil Blog). In the micro context of this study, linguistic capital is heavily tied to

Hebrew in the local arena and English in the global arena. People who possess the linguistic capital of Hebrew have access to higher education, better jobs and greater economic stability. To a certain extent, this is also true for individuals who know English. These gains inform and have an effect on people’s perceptions of Hebrew, Arabic and English. They influence perceived language status and subsequent acquisition and usage.

The conceptualization of cultural capital in general and linguistic capital in particular is not limited to perception and in this sense, differs from perceived language status. Linguistic capital emerges out of broader social constructions that privilege certain perquisites thereby producing and reproducing advantage for some and disadvantage for others. The advantage of

Hebrew in this region is a relatively new phenomenon and is profoundly connected to regional politics and the somewhat arbitrary economic, commercial and political relations that have developed between Israel and its surrounding Arabic speaking neighbors. I might add that globalization and the subsequent advantage of English in the region is also context and time- period dependent. If and when relations change between countries in the region, so too will the parameters accompanying linguistic capital. In the meantime, it is fair to surmise that within the borders of Israel, the reproduction of power is intimately connected to knowledge and use of

Hebrew.

Language Conflict

The third notion I wish to address, namely linguistic conflict, is also connected to conceptions of power and language status. According to Nelde (1997), most current language conflicts are rooted in differing social status and preferential treatment of the dominant language in a variety of arenas (p.290). Language conflict is directly related to the broader paradigm of conflict theory. Most commonly attributed to the activist and theorist Karl Marx (1818-1883) this perspective emphasizes how the perpetuation of social, political and economic inequalities contributes to ongoing conflict between different social groups. Language conflict can be understood as a symbolic representation of societal conflicts which Marx, as well as other conflict theorist argue arises out of the inequitable distribution of power and resources (Deutsch,

2006).

Nelde argues that most contact between different ethnic groups, to varying degrees, contributes to tensions— if not all-out conflict. He clarifies that language itself is not the instigator of conflict, but rather that underlying structural issues related to politics, economics and education fuel conflict. Language conflict arises when a dominant language group “controls

25 the crucial authority in the areas of administration, politics and the economy, and gives preference in employment to those applicants who have command of the dominant language. The disadvantaged language group is then left with the choice of renouncing its social ambitions, assimilating, or resisting (Nelde, 1997, p.290).

Language conflict is relevant to this study in so far as it constitutes an additional aspect of the broader ethnopolitical conflict between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians— including

Palestinian Israelis. Language, of course, is not the perpetrator of conflict, but the question arises as to what role language usage plays in affecting the course of conflict. Moreover, as is evident in the broader Israeli context, most L1 Arabic speakers in Israel must choose between ethnolinguistic renunciation, assimilation or resistance. Each of these responses as the disadvantaged language group has repercussions that may further contribute to discord. L1

Arabic speakers may opt to use English as a linguistic arbiter, thereby circumventing components of conflict exacerbated by the use of Hebrew or the use of Arabic. Nevertheless,

English usage does not always function as a panacea to conflict and in fact, in certain situations, may further instigate it.

The presence of linguistic conflict in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not be overinflated. Language conflict ultimately symbolizes other, deep-rooted social, economic and political problems—all of which indirectly and directly inform language acquisition, status and usage. However, by explicitly framing the notion of language conflict, we further clarify aspects of sociolinguistic consequence that get constructed when ethnic groups in conflict come into contact.

Motivation

The next factor that emerged as paramount in the framework of this study can be defined as motivation. According to Ellis (1997), “motivation involves the attitudes and affective states that influence the degree of effort that learners make to learn an L2” (p.75). Research in language learning has shown that there is a direct correlation between motivation and success in second and foreign language learning. Dörnyei (1994) argues that it is one of the main determinants of achievement and success, and Liebkind (1999) suggests that “the motivation to learn a second language is far more decisive of the end result than any aptitude for learning languages (p.148). Nonetheless, the nature and the extent of the role motivation plays in second and foreign language learning is not clear-cut. Various theoretical paradigms have been designed to assess and evaluate motivation in second and foreign language learning. Much of this theory is rooted in social psychological approaches spearheaded by Robert Gardner and Wallace

Lambert over three decades ago (for further discussion see Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). While

Gardner and his associates’ approaches are fundamental to motivation research and therefore worthy of acknowledgement, they bear relevancy for this study only in as much as they frame the complex, dynamic phenomenon of motivation that—to varying degrees—affected the language learning outcomes explored in this study.

Another foundational paradigm that relates to motivation is the construct of willingness to communicate (WTC). This refers to the idea that certain language learners will be more inclined than others to communicate in the language they are learning. Learners who seek out and engage in communication with others are generally perceived as motivated language learners. They may also ultimately be more successful language learners because they gravitate towards interaction and build towards communicative competency (Yashima, 2002). While the

WTC model remains an important concept in some second language and foreign language research, for the purposes of the study at hand, this measurement is limited because it does not sufficiently take into account dynamic, co-constructed, situational and cultural variables that play a role in motivation and motivation to communicate. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge this foundational construct and its counterpart (communication apprehension) as both have been shown to play a role in motivation and language learning outcomes (Hashimoto,

2002).

Yet another facet of motivation and language learning that is highlighted in this study is the distinction between various kinds of motivation. Numerous researchers have identified different types of motivations (see for example Dornyei & Skehan, 2003; Ellis, 1997). For the purposes of this study, I focus on what Gardner and Lambert (1972) refer to as instrumental motivation and what, in the simplest of terms, can be defined as ideological motivation . The former refers to practical and professional ambitions that can be achieved primarily through the acquisition of a particular language (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). The later refers to cultural enrichment garnered from the acquisition of a language alongside a sense of personal obligation or duty tied to the ethnic or cultural group affiliated with the language.

In the framework of this study, such a distinction bears relevancy for L1 Arabic speakers’ acquisition of Hebrew, L1 Hebrew speakers’ acquisition of Arabic and for both language groups’ acquisition of English. While different types of motivation are not mutually exclusive of each other, generally speaking learners who feel an economic, social or functional need to learn a language—i.e. instrumental motivation—are likely to learn the language to at least a satisfactory level. Those individuals motivated by enrichment, niceties and ideological obligations may ultimately capitulate if and when the acquisition process becomes difficult. Moreover, they do

28 not have the threat that by failing to acquire a language they might well be opting out of future opportunities, social mobility and economic prosperity.

A final distinction with respect to types of motivation is Norton’s relatively recent conception entitled investment. Building on Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital, Norton argues that isolated measurements such as instrumental motivation or other affective variables do not sufficiently capture the complex relationship between language learners and the social contexts in which they are situated. Norton argues that motivation must be understood in relation to issues of power, identity and language learning (Norton Peirce, 1995). Thus for example, a student may be highly motivated to learn a language. However, classroom constructs and relationships of power may be racist, sexist or bias thereby minimizing a learner’s desire to invest in a language. The notion of investment seeks to bring together psychological, sociological and sociolinguistic considerations rather than assume that students can be placed in either/or categories such as motivated or unmotivated, active or passive. Norton’s notion of investment complements other types of motivation theory and attempts to capture the complex, ever-changing relationship between learners and their social communities of practice (for further discussion see Norton, 2000; Norton & McKinney, 2011).

Monolingualism, Bilingualism & Trilingualism

The final factor I wish to address with respect to language learning outcomes pertains to monolingualism, bilingualism and trilingualism. More generally, this section examines some of the consequences that emerge when additional languages are added to individuals’ existing linguistic repertoire. Studies conducted on the effects of bilingualism on third-language learning have shown that high levels of bilingualism are positively related to high levels of achievement

29 in the third language (see for example Griessler, 2001 who reports on a study conducted in

Austria and Cenoz, 2005 who reports on a study conducted in the Basque Country). These studies are mostly quantitative in nature and build on theories that correlate language achievement with metalinguistic awareness (see for example Cummins, 1976). In simple terms, the more languages a person knows, the easier it is to learn additional languages.

While the linguistic and social benefits connected to learning an additional language have been well documented, more contextually holistic perspectives acknowledge that there are certain costs to multilingualism. As Olshtain and Nissim-Amitai (2004) point out in their study of the Circassian community in Israel, in situations of multilingualism, language proficiency levels often vary depending on the task at hand. They further elaborate, “one language might be used only within the family and the close environment, another may be used especially at work and a third for educational and professional purposes” (p.3). These arenas of proficiency become problematic when multilinguals are not sufficiently schooled in the dominant language and are therefore denied access to avenues of social, economic and educational mobility (Olshtain &

Nissim-Amitai, 2004).

In the Israeli context, the outcomes connected to language learning and subsequent proficiency are particularly telling. Generally speaking, Hebrew is used as the local language and English is used as the language of wider communication. Speakers of other languages, for example Arabic or Russian, must sometimes make difficult linguistic choices with respect to

Hebrew and English, at times resigning themselves to certain levels of language attrition or subtractive trilingualism. These accommodations are not solely based on individual choice but have implications for ethnic identifications, broader social identity markers and ultimately perceived social status.

In the context of this study, issues related to bilingualism and trilingualism are ever pertinent. The most notable pertain to language acquisition differences between L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers. When emphasizing solely socioeconomic considerations and the current social context, L1 Arabic speakers must achieve trilingualism whereas their Hebrew speaking peers can suffice with bilingualism (Hebrew-English). As was previously mentioned, the achievement of trilingualism is not inherently more difficult than bilingualism nor is this language acquisition imbalance inherently biased against L1 Arabic speakers. However, the proper conditions need to be set up to foster acquisition and learning. Moreover, if L1 Arabic speakers are to achieve the same levels of proficiency in English as L1 Hebrew speakers, allowances need to made with respect to funds and teaching hours. As Olshtain and Nissim-

Amitai (2004) articulate so succinctly: “lack of mastery is likely to block opportunities” (p.21), and it is here that systemic inequality begins.

Language Learning and Identity Construction Processes

As was previously mentioned, there is a multifaceted, complex relationship between language and identity. I can further specify parameters of this correlation when I discuss identity construction processes that occur during circumstances of formal and informal language learning. The construction of new, other or additional identity markers constitutes an outcome of language learning. The scope of these identity negotiation processes are intricately tied to social, dialogical encounters transpiring inside and outside the classroom setting. Languages are not learned in a void but are an extension of “socially constructed relations among individuals, institutions and communities through which symbolic and material resources in a society are produced, distributed and validated” (Norton, 2000, p.7). Learners then acquire not only

31 language but markers of power and identity. These acquisition processes are subject to constant negotiation and renegotiation depending on the setting and context.

One of the central goals of this study was to explore the relationship between identity and language learning and to investigate notions of power, identity and investment in the language being learned, namely English. At the same time, what is happening in English cannot be isolated from the languages of local consequence—namely Hebrew and Arabic. Rather, there is constant overlap with each language informing facets of power and identity construction. What is shared is the notion that, irrespective of the language, classrooms are sites where identities are produced and changed and linked to language and language learning (Pennycook, 2000, p.99).

Language learning also constitutes a negotiation process between the individual language learner and the wider social world. What language identifications do learners hope to achieve?

Which identifications do they resist? To what degree do learners take on the cultural norms and practices associated with the language they are learning? To what degree do learners abandon their indigenous linguistic practices in order to assimilate into an alternative vernacular community/society? These identity construction questions, as well as many others, are often dealt with by language learners either implicitly or explicitly.

In addition, such questions inform, to varying degrees, the extent to which learners successfully acquire the language being learned. According to Canagarajah (2004) “what motivates the learning of a language is the construction of the identities we desire and the communities we want to join in order to engage in communication and social life. How we resolve these conflicts is at the heart of becoming a successful language learner” (p.117). The in depth analysis of language learners’ perceptions of the language being learned ideally sheds light on the identity negotiation processes students undergo as language learners.

Identity Construction Processes and Foreign Language Learning

One distinction that has sometimes been highlighted with respect to identity construction processes in language learning is the difference between second language acquisition and foreign language acquisition. The questions discussed in the previous section are frequently asked in second language acquisition contexts and are less prominent in foreign language acquisition contexts. In this study, most of the participants are L1 Hebrew and L1 Arabic speakers and they are learning English as a foreign language. As Ellinger (2000) points out in her study of Russian and Hebrew English language learners in Israel, there are meaningful differences between second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign language learning (FLL). In particular, Ellinger argues that the acquisition of a foreign language “does not foresee changes in the learner’s identity” (p.297).

Other scholars (MacPherson, 2005; McKay, 2002) focusing on English foreign language acquisition argue against Ellinger’s blanket statement. While the construction of salient identifications in foreign language learning is not uniform and varies from context to context, this study has assumed—in good social constructionist fashion—that identities are not fixed but constantly being reconstructed and negotiated as we increase our participation in particular communities of practice (be they workplaces, schools or foreign language classrooms)

(Paltridge, 2006; Wenger, 1998). As such, foreign language classrooms and EFL learning contexts are not perceived as void of the identity negotiation processes that second language learners undergo. Questions concerning learner identity negotiation processes have been deemed applicable and relevant. In addition, given the outstanding status of English in Israel as a language of wider communication and a link to the outside world, I have argued that English language acquisition does influence learners’ perceptions of self and others as well as the

33 identifications they construct and deem salient. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that the subjects of this study are defined as part of Kachru’s expanding circle which includes unique and outstanding characteristics linked particularly to the features of an international language.

Identity Construction Processes and English as an International Language

English as an International Language (EIL) is a relatively new, evolving framework for outlining the special status awarded to English in numerous countries all over the world (McKay,

2002). As was previously mentioned, multiple classifications (EIL, ELF, World Englishes,

WEs) have been articulated in order to encapsulate the unique and evolving features of global

English(es). According to McKay (2003) an international language— in this case English— demonstrates discrete characteristics that deviate, sometimes significantly, from the language in which it originated. These variations include grammatical, syntactic and semantic differences from say British English or American English. Moreover, the communicative goals of EIL speakers differ from those learners seeking to assimilate into a native-English speaking context.

Likewise, the identity negotiation processes language learners undergo differ. In particular, several outstanding points arise with respect to EIL and identity construction processes.

Firstly, speakers of English as an international language often use the language to communicate between speakers of other languages (for example a Japanese speaker and a

German speaker). According to McKay (2002), English “is used as the medium of communication in numerous international organizations, various modes of entertainment, trade and diplomacy. Hence, English serves as the medium for countless discourse communities”

(p.97). It follows that English is the medium for communication, but local identifications remain

34 salient and intact. In part, this is related to a second point, namely the denationalization or transnationalization (Dissanayake, 2009) of English.

The rate at which English is being learned and used in outer circle countries and expanding circle countries is an unprecedented linguistic phenomenon (Crystal, 2003). An

English speaker is no longer an identification limited to countries where English is spoken as a first language and speakers do not have to adopt the cultural or ethnic identifications tied to inner circle counties. In fact, some scholars argue that the way EIL is adapted and appropriated by its learners facilitates an empowerment and emancipation unique to English (Crystal, 2003;

Lysandrou & Lysandrou, 2003). On the other hand, it is imperative that we recognize the legacy of colonialism and hegemony and acknowledge that in many contexts, English has not yet and may never be emancipated from the tribulations of outsider domination including the delegitimization of local identities.

In part, I opted to look specifically at L1 Hebrew and L1 Arabic English language learners because of the need for a more critical stance when considering the role of English in identity negotiation processes in the Israeli-Palestinian context. In the local context, English is often coined the neutral, middle, lingua franca when mediation is required between Hebrew and

Arabic (see for example Maoz & Ellis, 2001). Such a simplistic stance denies the historical legacy of English in the region as well as present political relations—most notably that of the relationship between the United States and Israel. English in the Israeli context is not unequivocally neutral, and sociolinguistic implications need to be acknowledged when considering the identity negotiation processes accompanying English language learning.

English also plays a complex role in the context of this study because it is not a direct marker of Israeli or Palestinian identity. English, therefore, complicates and obscures identity

35 presuppositions as well as the social categorizations prescribed to Hebrew speakers and Arabic speakers. For the most part, the national ethnic context presupposes two, seemingly mutually exclusive identity categorizations, Jew and Arab. The languages of Hebrew and Arabic further solidify this dichotomy. As with many politically salient identity categories, these identifications are often prematurely deemed relevant, without giving voice to the “great variety of social identities and social relations which are relevant and important in one or another educational context” (Berard, 2005, pp.67-68). English language learning and acquisition may be conducive to the construction of identities beyond the politically salient categories of Arab and Jew. The qualities accompanying EIL potentially function as an emancipatory force when constructing identities thereby revealing “whichever identities are relevant, in all their awesome variety, multiplicity, and complexity” (Berard, 2005, p.74).

Pedagogical Implications—Language Learning and Identity

Situating identity and identity construction processes at the forefront of language learning necessitates a reconceptualization of pedagogical practices. More specifically, when we differentiate between EFL and EIL and emphasize the distinct features of global English, we become aware of the need to integrate new and different approaches into English language learning. Nevertheless, before addressing some of these reconstitutions, I wish to qualify the either/or EFL-EIL dichotomy I have constructed. The conceptualization of EFL need not be in opposition to EIL; neither are the entities mutually exclusive of each other. Rather, in classrooms where critical pedagogies are being employed, the framework may well reflect overlap between these two didactic approaches. As a conceptual entity depicting a particular linguistic state, i.e. in situations where English indeed functions as a foreign language, EFL

36 remains an appropriate classification. Nevertheless, these contexts may also contain linguistic encounters and usage bearing resemblance to EIL and therefore an integrative pedagogical approach may be in order. In previous sections, I elaborated on the EFL model of language learning. Here I will elaborate on some of the pedagogical practices associated with EIL.

An important premise in teaching EIL is the acknowledgement of the cultural identities that accompany learners. It follows that one of the primary functions of English is to enable learners to share their ideas and cultures and to communicate across cultural contexts. EIL classrooms recognize diversity and view it as an asset and a resource. Teachers, students and curricular materials can all be sources for enrichment and arbitration between the local and the global. EIL models also bear in mind learners’ specific purposes for learning English rather than assuming that they aspire to learn about or appropriate the cultures of Inner Circle countries.

Ultimately, teaching methods based on EIL perspectives provide a platform for the recognition of local voice while simultaneously equipping learners with the linguistic capital necessary for global communication, cross cultural intelligibility and access to the vast amount of information presently available in English (for a more in depth discussion see Baumgardner, 2009; McKay,

2002; Norton & McKinney, 2011).

Contextual Factors: Sociopolitics, Language & Education

There are many contextual factors that bear relevance to this study. These include historical factors, sociopolitical factors, linguistic factors and educational factors. Here I address some of the context specific background information in order to localize this research project and anchor it in a broader sociohistorical/political framework. According to Billig (2001),

“individuals, when they speak, do not create their own language, but they use terms which are

37 culturally, historically and ideologically available. Each act of utterance, although in itself novel, carries an ideological history” (p.217). This section thus aims to provide an overview of specific contextual considerations in order to ensure that the discourse and subsequent analysis are sufficiently anchored in broader influences and trends.

The National Context: History & Socio-Politics

The expanse of literature concerning Israel’s history and current sociopolitical affairs is extensive and impossible to summarize in full. Events have been chronicled, analyzed and evaluated from a variety of disciplines and research approaches. For the purpose of this literature review, I will not delve extensively into the specifics surrounding Israel’s history and the widely surveyed Israeli-Palestinian conflict except to provide an overview of relevant facts in which to frame this study.

Israel is a nation like any other nation-state, and Israel is a nation unlike any other nation- state. Many observers view Israel as a western democracy where, just as in any other nation- state, the majority determines the identity and character of the state. At the same time, as the declared homeland of the Jewish people, to varying degrees the State privileges Jews over other ethnic/religious minorities residing within its borders (Smooha, 2001, pp.48-49)

In particular, there is protracted conflict between the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority in Israel who make up approximately 20% of the Israeli population (Shohamy, 2007).

The roots of the Palestinian Israeli conflict run deep. While there is some disagreement between historians, with reasonable approximation both Zionist and Palestinian nationalist movements can be traced back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Morris, 1987). Moreover, some scholars argue that each people’s quest for sovereignty is intertwined and informed by the

38 other, intimately linking these two nationalist movements (Kimmerling & Migdal, 2003) and setting the stage for a long and intractable conflict.

Tensions between Jewish and Palestinian nationalist aspirations gained momentum during the British Mandate in Palestine (1920-1948) with Britain’s contradictory, “dual commitment to fostering Jewish self-determination and to safeguarding Arab rights” (Morris,

1987, p.4). The pivotal events of 1948— most notably the establishment of a sovereign Jewish nation state and the ensuing war with a number of neighboring Arab countries, changed the course of history in the Middle East.

Referred to as the war of Independence by Israeli Jews and the Nakba (the Catastrophe) by Palestinians, this military confrontation ultimately resulted in the notion of the Palestinian refugee. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and later their descendants remain dispersed over the region, usually without citizenship, representation or democratic rights. Palestinian collective identity, among other things, has been marked by this exile and trauma stemming from the events of 1948. This period demarcates the beginning of escalated strife between Jewish and

Palestinian nationalist movements, the reverberations of which continue until today.

Along the way, additional and specific events have contributed to each cohort’s conception of self determination, undoubtedly further fueling the flames of discord. In particular, the 1967 six-day-war dramatically changed the demographic and geographic reality in the region. Israel gained control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (from Jordan) and the

Gaza Strip (from Egypt). In conquering these lands, Israel also gained control over hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in these areas (for further information see Oren, 2002; Segev,

2007). Although ostensibly under Israeli regime, either partially or fully, for the most part these

Palestinians were not granted the same civil and inalienable rights as their 1948 brethren.

The Palestinians of 1948 were absorbed into Israel and became citizens of the State. To varying degrees, they became bilingual, bicultural and a part of the fabric of Israeli society. At the same time, they were on occasion both overtly and covertly denied full equality of rights and opportunities. To this day, they remain ethnically and linguistically marginalized (Smooha,

2005), and continue to endure institutionalized discrimination.

Kimmerling and Migdal (2003) argue that in particular the Palestinian Israelis of 1948 have had to straddle different spheres and loyalties. While they were met with ambiguity, ambivalence and distrust from the majority Jewish population, they were also estranged from their exiled Palestinian counterparts with respect to religious and cultural differences. After the

1967 war, which reunited Palestinians living on opposite sides of the armistice lines, to a degree there was a reawakening of Palestinian nationalism and Palestinian citizens of Israel were able to identify themselves as part of the larger Palestinian community. Even then however, as

Kimmerling and Migdal elaborate, “their contradictory experience as both Palestinians and

Israeli citizens separated them emotionally, socially and politically from other Palestinians” (for further discussion see pp.178-180).

Even today, distinctions are often made between the Palestinians of 1948 and the

Palestinians of 1967. In more general terms, I offer the distinction of Palestinians living in the

State of Israel and Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Today, the latter live under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority. The former refers to those Palestinians living as citizens within the established borders of the State of Israel. This study refers only to the former and, as such, from here on out, will make use of the term Palestinian Israelis. Many identify themselves as Palestinian and support Palestinian national aspirations. However, in conjunction

40 with such identifications there remains the complicated fact that they are minority Israeli citizens living in a majority Jewish-Zionist State.

In many ways, the geopolitical events of 1967 further invigorated nationalist aspirations for both Jews and Palestinians. These “imagined communities” (Anderson, 1991) seemed to be pitted against each other in a zero sum game. Subsequent wars and uprisings have continued over the past fifty years both between Israelis and Palestinians and between Israel and its neighboring countries. Additionally, numerous diplomatic attempts have been initiated in an attempt to broker negotiations and advance peace processes. The specifics of these various accords are beyond the scope of this review but it suffices to say that the effects of nation state building remain ever paramount. Israel remains a society in conflict with few clear resolutions on the horizon.

While this review has focused primarily on the indigenous Palestinian-Arab minority, it is imperative to acknowledge that Israel has also absorbed approximately three million Jews from all over the world since 1948 (Cohen-Castro, 2010). For the most part, the State has discouraged multiethnic, multicultural or multi-religious expression in an effort to keep Israel

“increasingly Jewish in demography, language, culture, institutions, identity and symbols”

(Smooha, 2001, p.50). This ideology, combined with systematic segregation between Palestinian

Israelis and Jewish Israelis, serves as the basis for a deep and divisive Arab-Jewish binary. This constructed binary, I will subsequently argue, informs multiple aspects of Israeli society including the country’s languages and educational system.

Languages in Israeli Society

Israeli society can be defined as a multilingual country despite widespread efforts to operate as a monolingual society (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). In addition to a sizeable Arabic speaking population, Israel also has other language populations —most notably Russian speakers. Given that this study deals primarily with L1 Hebrew and L1 Arabic English language learners and deals with findings related to Hebrew, Arabic and English, I will not provide background information with respect to the other languages present in the local context but will solely address the languages of Hebrew, Arabic and English.

Hebrew

Hebrew in Israeli society is continually undergoing changes in the face of globalization processes (Nevo & Olshtain, 2007). Until the end of the nineteenth century, Hebrew was primarily a language used for liturgy and prayer. According to Shimon and Peerless (2007), “for centuries, Hebrew functioned only as a heritage language, serving as the key to sacred texts and religious practice” (p.82). The modernization and widespread use of Hebrew as a national language gradually developed out of Hebrew language revival initiatives spearheaded by the lexicographer Eliezer Ben-Yehuda in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. This revitalization of Hebrew is a unique case of a language no longer spoken being fully revived to serve the functions and needs of a modern country (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999).

Initially, the linguistic revival of Hebrew was heavily concerned with Hebrew language purity. This Hebrew language hegemony associated with Israel’s early pioneers (Nevo &

Olshtain, 2007) ultimately gave way to linguistic and terminological innovation connected both to Hebrew and to additional languages. Hebrew speakers borrowed and incorporated various

42 linguistic traditions reflecting ongoing adaptation and change as well as the influence of outside cultures and practices (Zuckermann, 2003). Such adaptation has facilitated the positioning of

Hebrew as a complete language. In other words, today Hebrew serves it speakers “like any other first-language in its homeland— in academia, the written press, literature, poetry, the Internet, the cinema, and the street” (Nevo & Olshtain, 2007 p.9).

Nevo and Olshtain (2007) further argue that Hebrew appears in Israeli society primarily in three ways: as a first language, as a second language and as a heritage language (for an in depth discussion see pp.9-10). As a first language, Hebrew is one of the official languages of the

State. Most local sector activities (governmental, legal, media, educational, etc.) are carried out in Hebrew and it is the primary language of instruction in institutions of higher education. As a second language, mainly for immigrants and minority groups living in Israel, Hebrew also maintains instrumental functions. Proficiency in Hebrew is imperative for access to a great number of professional networks and it is the language most frequently tied to prosperity and success in the local arena (Shohamy, 2007).

The third way Hebrew appears in Israeli society and more broadly among Jews worldwide is as a heritage language. According to Shimon and Peerless (2007), “a heritage language is defined as a language other than the first language that has a particular family and cultural relevance to the learners” (p.82). As a heritage language, to varying degrees, Hebrew symbolizes national, cultural, ethnic and religious markers. Its function extends beyond merely a means for communication between speakers.

Hebrew in Israeli society then, carries multiple value. In Bourdieu’s terms (1991), both as a first and a second language, Hebrew has been constructed as the only legitimate means for the production and reproduction of power. The language permeates day-to-day life in Israel and

43 is a relevant and powerful linguistic tool for its speakers. In addition, as a language tied to the

Jewish people, Hebrew also functions as an identity marker and a symbolic representation of

Judaism and Jewish peoplehood.

Arabic

Arabic in the Israeli context, in contrast to Hebrew, is a minority language that has been systematically marginalized and undermined (Abu-Saad, 2006; Jabareen, n.d.,). Although it remains an official language of the State, this status is primarily symbolic whereas in practice the language is habitually absent from the national public sphere (Amara & Al-Rahman Mar’i,

2002). Moreover, the use of Arabic is stigmatized to the degree that some Hebrew speakers immediately conjure up suspicion and distrust when encountering Arabic usage. This is so despite the fact that Arabic is found and utilized to varying degrees throughout the State of Israel and remains historically relevant for certain Jewish populations as well as Palestinian populations (for further discussion see in Hebrew Chetrit, 2004).

The sociolinguistic characteristics of Arabic as well as broader internal language policies with respect to variation and adaptation also appear to play a part in the role and placement of

Arabic in Israel. In particular, this refers to the diglossic nature of Arabic. Diglossia can be defined as two (or more) varieties of the same language that coexist throughout a speech community. According to Schiffman (1998) these varieties “are usually ranked in a kind of hierarchy from highly valued (H) to less valued (L)” (p.205). In the case of Arabic, literary

Arabic is awarded a high value (H) whereas vernacular Arabic—with its multiple colloquial varieties—is awarded a low value (L). Speakers must master both formal literary Arabic as well as informal colloquial varieties.

According to Saiegh-Haddad, Levin, Hende and Ziv (2011), native Arabic speaking children are born into a dual linguistic context, otherwise known as diglossia. Children grow up speaking their particular spoken Arabic vernacular which is used in their home environs as well as a variety of colloquial domains. In school, they are formally and extensively exposed to another linguistic code, Modern Standard Arabic (p.299). To a great extent, the challenges stemming from diglossic linguistic contexts are largely ignored both with respect to policy and with respect to teacher education programs (Amara & Al-Rahman Mar’i, 2002). Moreover, when the acquisition of a non diglossic language such as Hebrew or English is required to compete in the local and global markets, stratifications are created and heritage language attrition further exacerbated (Shohamy, 2007). More generally, as Schiffman (1998) notes, when a minority language is in a diglossic relationship with the majority language or a more powerful, global language, the majority language usually prevails unless concerted efforts at a variety of levels are implemented to prevent attrition.

The stance of the Arab World with respect to diglossia and Modern Standard Arabic is also relevant to this study. For the most part, linguistic change and adaptation have been discouraged with respect to literary Arabic. In part, this is because Modern Standard Arabic is derived from Classical or Quranic Arabic and is viewed by many of its users as the language of g-d. This classification as a holy language does not encourage or accommodate language change. On the contrary, the preservation of literary Arabic is directly linked to the preservation of Arab culture, identity, religious tradition and moral-religious codes (Jabareen, n.d., p.31).

This sociolinguistic inflexibility has brought about some rather dire consequences.

Arabic is sometimes perceived by learners as static, impermeable and seemingly incompatible with a rapidly globalizing world that borrows and adapts from multiple linguistic and media

45 based resources. In the Israeli context, this rigidity with respect to Modern Standard Arabic quite possibly contributes to the further marginalization of Arabic and L1 Arabic speakers resort to Hebrew or English in a variety of domains (Jabareen, n.d.).

This research project is not an investigation of the impact of Arabic diglossia on English language learning, though this is undoubtedly a query worthy of further investigation. It suffices to say that Arabic diglossia impacts L1 Arabic speakers’ acquisition and subsequent use of

English and vice versa; the introduction of English as a compulsory subject uniquely, and perhaps detrimentally, impacts Arabic language achievements. Ultimately, as is discussed and demonstrated through this study, language learning processes and outcomes occurring in diglossic linguistic contexts—such as those accompanying L1 Arabic speakers— differ from non-diglossic language situations—such as those accompanying L1 Hebrew speakers. The implications of such differences should be acknowledged and taken into consideration when researching language learners in the Israeli context.

English

In contrast to Hebrew and Arabic, English is not an official language in Israel.

Nevertheless, it is generally referred to as a first foreign language and can be categorized as a

“quasi-official language.” Amara & Al-Rahman Mar’i (2002, p.9). The presence and use of

English in the region was solidified during British conquest and subsequent rule of Palestine from 1917-1948 (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). Remnants of British colonialism including the continued widespread use of English support its standing as a first foreign language.

Nevertheless, to overplay colonialist efforts and underplay more contemporary globalization processes would be a mistake. In fact, the legacy of English in Israel is both historical and

46 contemporary—to the degree that the role, impact and status of the language is both ambiguous and continuously unfolding in light of current trends and practices.

In general, English in Israel has been afforded a special status. It is a language associated with technology and the media and generally seen as a link to the outside world. It is a compulsory subject in schools, and proficiency is mandatory for entrance into institutions of higher education (Amara & Al-Rahman Mar’I, 2002; Ellinger, 2000). While Israel is officially located in Kachru’s “expanding circle” (1992), according to Ellinger (2000) English in Israel “is afforded a special status— i.e. somewhere in between a second and foreign language” (p.294).

Today, the demand for English continues to grow, and it is perceived as the principle tool for conducting business, research, education and travel (Nevo & Olshtain, 2007; Shohamy, 2007;

Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). While the acquisition and use of English undoubtedly makes accessible a variety of tools connected to power and social mobility, a major impetus of this study was to critically examine the hegemonic role of English. What is happening in English has, in the past, been oversimplified and, at present, is neither static nor impartial. This investigation of English language learners involves a critical examination of the role of English in the region—deconstructing popular truisms equating English with neutrality and trying to uncover the more complex, multifaceted picture.

The Educational System in Israel

Israel’s educational system reflects the sociopolitical reality in which it operates and can be divided into four sub-systems: official state schools, official state-religious schools, unofficial but recognized schools and unofficial and unrecognized schools. All four systems receive State

47 funds. However, the unofficial and unrecognized schools receive minimal supervision from the

Ministry of Education (Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, 2005; Shiffer, 1998, p.3-4).

In addition to being separated along secular-religious lines, de facto—albeit not legally— schools in Israel are also segregated along ethnic/linguistic lines. There are two State-funded systems for non-Jewish pupils, one designated for the Arab and Bedouin sectors and one designated for the Druze sectors (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). Both sectors frequently fall under the categorization of the Arab educational system.

For the most part, Israel’s educational system reinforces ethnic and religious clefts perpetuating segregation, separation and the divisions that characterize Israeli society as a whole

(Amara & Al-Rahman Mar’i, 2002). The monolingual schools involved in this study were official, recognized state schools with the monolingual majority school being defined as an official state school and the monolingual minority school also being defined as a recognized state school but under the auspices of the Arab educational system. The integrated, bilingual school is also categorized as an official state school although as is elaborated below, it is exceptional in several ways.

English Language Learning in Israel

English is a compulsory subject for students in Israel. They study English as a Foreign

Language (EFL), and their course of study follows the Israeli Ministry of Education’s New

Curriculum written and implemented in the mid 1990’s. This new curriculum requires that EFL be taught using topic-based units that are suitable for a variety of religious, cultural and ethnic backgrounds as well as for the varying interests of Israeli pupils (Ministry of Education, 2001).

The new curriculum was designed based on four domains or areas of language ability and

48 knowledge. These include: social interaction, access to information, presentation, and appreciation of literature, culture, and language (for an in depth description of the domains see

Ministry of Education, 2001, pp.12-14).

Generally speaking, these four domains of learning encapsulate the Ministry of

Education’s approach to English language learning and teaching. This constitutes a move away from the traditional skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening although these skill sets are included in the domains. Instead, these areas of language ability and knowledge emphasize communicative and technological skills as well as the ability to access and understand English from a variety of sources. According to the Ministry of Education, these domains recognize that

“English is no longer the sole possession of one or two nations, but is shared by a great number of first and second language speakers throughout the world” (p.13).

In short, the principles and objectives governing the English curriculum for all grades have adopted global and multifaceted pedagogical perspectives that seem to be in line with the characteristics associated with English as an International language. In other words, English is no longer bound to inner circle countries. It is treated and expected to be taught as a language for communication between peoples, regardless of where they live or what their native language may be. Finally, English is viewed as a vehicle for fostering multicultural sensitivity and language awareness—the medium is English but the content is broad and affords significant liberties with respect to genres and themes. The extent to which current curricular practices actualize these stated objectives is an important question that will be peripherally addressed in relation to the classrooms involved in this study.

Authorial Voice

The final point I wish to address with respect to contextual factors impacting and anchoring this study relates to Walcott’s notion of authorial voice (2001). He argues that a necessary element in any comprehensive qualitative research is to identify the voice, perspective and presuppositions of the researcher. These components influence the qualitative work and the researcher’s subjective assessment (Walcott, 2001, pp.20-21).

I came to this study as a native English speaker who is highly functional in Hebrew and minimally functional in Arabic. I am Jewish and immigrated to Israel in 2002. I identify as both an insider and an outsider in Israeli society, shifting between identities depending on the context.

Within the contexts of the schools, I presented myself as an English speaker and did not identify overtly with any specific religious/ethnic background. However, when asked directly by students whether I was Jewish or not, I answered honestly and frankly.

Professionally, I am an EFL teacher who works for the Ministry of Education. I taught at the minority-majority school utilized in this study for five years and was highly involved in the school’s English curricular and pedagogical developments. As a teacher, I interacted with students and staff from the school on an almost daily basis. In the other two schools involved in this study, I remained primarily a researcher although my roles shifted the more I visited the schools and became, albeit peripherally, a participant in their communities of practice (Wenger,

1998).

While my access and familiarity with the research settings was clearly unbalanced in favor of the bilingual school, I made extensive efforts to earn the trust of all participants and to create interview and focus group settings that encouraged honest, non-judgmental, non- coercive

50 discourse. In the section entitled Findings & Analysis, I present and analyze these discursive encounters.

Summary & Conclusion: Review of Literature

This chapter has sought to frame the overarching theoretical paradigms informing this study. Given the multidisciplinary nature of this research endeavor, the review has considered several fields and disciplines. I began with a discussion of social constructionist theory; the epistemological perspective that frames our understanding of the central concepts addressed in this study, in particular language and identity. I then addressed models of language learning and provided a brief overview of the bilingual education models pertinent to this study. More specifically, I discussed foreign language education models, generally described as weak bilingual models. I also discussed two-way dual language programs both in general terms and with reference to the local context of Arabic-Hebrew bilingual initiatives. My theoretical review then addressed the relatively new and expanding field of English as a Global language, one of the central theoretical frameworks supporting this investigation.

The next theoretical paradigm I considered relates to the outcomes of language and language learning. In particular, I addressed some of the factors affecting language learning outcomes including perceived language status, linguistic capital, language conflict, motivation and bilingualism/trilingualism. I then delve extensively into language learning and identity construction processes—a complex and multifaceted outcome of language learning. In the final section, I provide a summary of socio-political, linguistic and educational factors that have bearing on this study. I also briefly address Walcott’s notion of authorial voice and elaborate on personal factors that potentially were introduced into the research context.

This theoretical overview brings into focus many concepts but also leaves others unaddressed. I have methodically and carefully woven overlapping approaches in an attempt to present a comprehensive review that justifies the vast and extensive traditions connected to the effects of language and language learning. In the subsequent section, I present the methodology and research specific information and description.

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY

The research methods that inform this study are rooted in qualitative and ethnographic traditions and involved the use of three data collection instruments: preliminary classroom observations, semi-structured interviews and focus group sessions. I also distributed an interview questionnaire in order to gather basic demographic and linguistic information about the participants (see appendix I).

Rationale for Employed Methodology

I opted to utilize the above mentioned data collection tools in part because of my intention to conduct what Fairclough (2001) defines as a critical language study (CLS). This approach involves the critical analysis of discourse samples with themes and coding subsequently being drawn inductively from the data. Fairclough (2001) further elaborates,

“critical is used in the special sense of aiming to show-up connections which may be hidden from people— such as the connections between language, power and ideology” (p.5). These connections and themes of saliency cannot be determined or imposed upon the study in advance.

Rather, they must be constructed and co-constructed as the empirical work proceeds (Punch,

1998).

A CLS approach to language study analyzes social interactions in a way which “sets out to show up their generally hidden determinants in the system of social relationships, as well as hidden effects they may have upon that system” (Fairclough, 2001, p.5). In qualitative studies based on interviews and focus groups this includes acknowledging and maintaining an awareness of the subject positions constructed between the interviewer and the interviewee or the moderator

53 and the focus group participants. These relationships are not equal but are colored by constructs such as that of interviewer/interviewee. The interviewer holds the information, instigates the conversation and asks the questions. The interviewee complies and answers.

One of the advantages of semi-structured, qualitative interviews and focus groups was the freedom and flexibility they afforded. They allowed for a process of exploration and discovery that involved understanding phenomena in depth and in context. To a certain degree, these methods also allowed the interviewees to maneuver the conversation and to articulate the themes they deemed relevant in relationship to the proposed topic. Ultimately, this study aimed to articulate the complexity of learners' thinking about language. The themes, categories, and connections were derived inductively from the classroom observations, the conducted interviews and the focus groups sessions.

* * *

In the subsequent sections of this methodology chapter, I will elaborate on the schools involved in this study, the population under study, the data collection instruments, the data collection process, the data analysis and finally, limitations of the employed methodologies.

The Schools

This inquiry involved ninth grade English language learners studying in three Israeli official state schools. All three schools are located in Jerusalem and function partially or fully under the auspices of the Israeli Ministry of Education. In the following table, I provide background information about the schools where the research was conducted.

Table (1) Description of Participating Schools Model I: Monolingual-Majority School (Hebrew-English)

The monolingual-majority school was founded in 1980 and is located in a moderately affluent neighborhood of Jerusalem. It is a co-educational secondary school serving over 1100 students from the 7th-12th grades. The student population represents a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and includes Jewish, Israeli immigrants from all over the world. For the most part, the school uses standard, non-religious state curriculum with Hebrew serving as the language of instruction.

Model II: Monolingual-Minority School (Arabic-English)

The monolingual-minority school is located in a moderately affluent Palestinian-Israeli neighborhood which sits on the border between East and West Jerusalem. It is a co-educational secondary school serving over 1500 students from the 7th-12th grades. The student population represents a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and includes Muslim and Christian students, many of whom are Israeli citizens. Until 1967, the neighborhood where the school is located was divided between Jordanian and Israeli rule. In 1967, the entire area was annexed by Israel but the school remained divided. Until today, half of the school falls under the auspices of the Israeli Ministry of Education and half under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority. In an attempt to minimize variability, I observed only English classes that are under the auspices of the Israeli Ministry of Education and that use standard, non-religious state curriculum.

Model III: Bilingual Minority-Majority School (Arabic-Hebrew-English)

The bilingual minority majority school is located on the border between one of Jerusalem’s poorest Jewish neighborhoods and one of the city’s more affluent Palestinian neighborhoods. It is a co-educational primary and secondary school that serves over 400 students from the 1st-12th grade. The student population represents mainly middle to upper socioeconomic status and includes Jewish, Muslim and Christian students. There are also a small number of Bedouin, Armenian, non-Jewish Russian and non-Arab Christian students. Although it is an official state school recognized by the Israeli Ministry of Education, the school also receives funding from a non-profit organization entitled The Center for Jewish-Arab Education in Israel . This initiative envisions an alternative to the segregated, Israeli educational system and advocates coexistence, equality and integration between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. To date, the organization has established four schools throughout the State of Israel. For the most part, the schools, including the school in Jerusalem, use standard, non-religious state curriculum with both Arabic and Hebrew serving as the languages of instruction (Bekerman, 2005).

Study Participants

The students who participated in this inquiry were all ninth grade English as a Foreign

Language (EFL) students. More specifically, according to the levels of progression defined by the Israeli Ministry of Education— that is the linguistic knowledge and skills pupils are expected to have achieved— they were at the intermediate level stage III (for a detailed explanation of

English levels of progression see Ministry of Education, 2001, p.14). Despite this classification, students demonstrated a range of proficiency levels in English. This was particularly true for students from the monolingual minority school (Arabic-English) where the English class was put together according to age and not according to language ability. In the monolingual majority school, the English class was defined as level aleph (the highest level before native English speaker). Therefore, there was more homogeneity among participants’ demonstrated language abilities. Similarly, students from the bilingual minority majority school were also defined as level aleph although in addition, two native English speakers were integrated into the class.

I chose to focus on students in the ninth grade because they are expected to have obtained a moderate level of proficiency in English as indicated by the standards set by the Israeli

Ministry of Education. However, they are not yet overloaded with curricular materials related to the Bagrut (Israel’s matriculation exams). The following table delineates demographic and linguistic information concerning participants from all three schools:

Table (2) Study Participants School Class # of Students Age Gender Student Student Size who Participated Range Identified Identified L1 in the Study M F Religion Monolingual 35 25 14-15 13 12 Jewish = 25 Hebrew = 23 Majority School Spanish = 1 (Hebrew-English) German = 1 Monolingual 42 21 14-15 9 12 Christian = 3 Arabic = 21 Minority School Muslim= 18 (Arabic-English) Minority Majority 18 14 14-15 5 9 Jewish = 4 Hebrew = 3 School Christian = 4 Arabic = 8 (Arabic-Hebrew- English) Muslim = 6 English = 2 Russian = 1

Data Collection Instruments

This study involved the use of three qualitative research techniques: weekly preliminary classroom observations, in-depth semi structured interviews, and focus group activities.

Table (2) outlines the distribution of data collection procedures in each school setting and

Table (3) outlines the distribution of data collection procedures among the study participants. In the limitations section of the methodology chapter (pp.68-72), I elaborate on some of the implications and constraints that stem from the study participants and the distribution of data collection instruments.

Table (3) Distribution of Data Collection Instruments among Participating Schools School Preliminary Interviews Focus Groups Classroom In depth, semi- 3-5 focus group Observations structured sessions for Weekly interviews with at each 9th grade observations in least 10 students EFL class each 9th grade from each school EFL class Monolingual Majority School Weekly from 10 4 (Hebrew-English) September- Monolingual Minority School December, 2008 12 3 (Arabic-English) Bilingual Minority Majority School 13 5 (Arabic-Hebrew-English) Total 35 12

Table (4) Distribution of Data Collection Instruments among Study Participants* School Class # of Students who # of Students who # of Students who Size Participated in the Participated in an Participated in a Focus Study Interview Group

Monolingual 35 25 10 24 Majority School (40%) (96%) (Hebrew-English) Monolingual 42 21 12 18 Minority School (57%) (85%) (Arabic-English) Minority Majority 18 14 13 14 School (92%) (100%) (Arabic-Hebrew- English)

*There is some overlap between students who participated in interviews and students who participated in focus groups. In addition, some of the focus group activities were carried out more than once with different groups of participants.

Data Collection Process

The data collection process can be divided into four parts, research preparation, preliminary classroom observations, in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews and focus group sessions. Here I elaborate on each component of the data collection process and justify their use in the context of this study.

Research Preparation

There were several components of this study that were put into place prior to start of the research. First and foremost, I had to identify potential schools and teachers. In an attempt to minimize variables between the schools, from the outset I approached schools in Jerusalem that were state run, co-educational and non-religious. These stipulations significantly limited the available possibilities. Fortunately, in each school I approached, the principal and ninth grade

English teacher agreed to allow me to conduct research. Parents also gave their permission for their children to participate in the study. Finally, all of the research was carried out with the approval of the Chief Scientific Authority of the Ministry of Education.

At this stage in the study, I also explicitly decided to conduct the research in English.

This study set out to better understand the role of English for L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers and to explore some of the discursive practices and consequences that transpire through the acquisition and use of English. In order to accomplish these objectives, English emerged as the logical means for communication. Rather than have participants talk about English in another language, I opted to have them employ English as the means for communication.

English also had the advantage of being a foreign language and, for the most part, a language not connected to local, personal identifications. While studies concerning the

59 emotional aspects of language acquisition and usage have largely focused on how these factors relate to language learning motivation (Dewaele, 2011), more recent research has been geared towards better understanding the complex sociopsychological and emotional processes that accompany language. In particular, critical language studies have shown that the use of a language other than one’s L1, may offer emotional distance thereby facilitating communication

(Pavlenko, 2006, p.135).

English, as a language not directly linked to the Palestinian-Israeli (Arabic-Hebrew) intractable conflict, potentially offers participants an intermediary language, one that is neither the language of the occupied nor the language of the occupier. Speakers are able to distance themselves from what Pavlenko refers to as the “emotionality of L1” (2006). Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge other or additional emotional, political and social components that may also accompany foreign language use in general and English language usage in particular

(Benesch, 2012; Pennycook, 2000). These will be discussed in the methodology limitations.

Preliminary Classroom Observations

In the initial stages of this study, as is often customary in qualitative, ethnographic research (Patton, 2002), I conducted weekly observations in the English classes where I planned to carry out the research. Preliminary classroom observations served as a means to familiarize myself with the contexts I was researching— what Oppenheim (1992) refers to as “exploratory pilot work.” According to Mackey and Gass (2005), “observations are a useful means for gathering in-depth information about such phenomena as the types of language, activities, interactions, instruction, and events that occur in second and foreign language classrooms”

(p.186). Kvale (1996) further elaborates on the importance of these preliminary observations:

[F]amiliarity with the content of an investigation is not obtained only through literature

and theoretical studies. Just hanging out in the environment where the interviews are to

be conducted will give an introduction to the local language, the daily routines, and the

power structures, and so provide a sense of what the interviewees will be talking about

(p.96).

To a degree, I became a familiar face to the students, teachers and personnel. I immersed myself in the research settings becoming acquainted with the interactions, relationships and events that transpired in these classroom contexts (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.174).

These preliminary observations were critical to the success of my research project. I earned the trust of the principals, teachers and students involved in this study, and when I began to carryout interviews and focus groups I had a better understanding of each school’s unique cultural context. These observations also enabled me to be better informed when devising and carrying out the interviews and focus groups.

In-depth, Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

The second procedure that I used was semi-structured, in-depth interviews based on qualitative ethnographic principles (Fontana & Frey 1994; 2000). Many of the questions underlining this study were multifaceted and were not always directly observable. As such, interviews emerged as a worthwhile method for data gathering (Mackey & Gass, 2005). By interviewing students, I investigated their individual perceptions of and relationships towards

English. This included an investigation of learner identity construction both as articulated by the students and as was co-constructed in the classroom context.

Each interview was based on semi-structured interview questions that focused on (a) students’ attitudes and opinions towards English, (b) students’ identifications and categorizations associated with English, (c) students’ perceptions of the role of English given the local context of intractable conflict; (d) students’ perceptions of English language learning and accompanying identity construction processes (see appendix II). While the line of questioning was structured, students’ responses often prompted additional questions or conversation. I encouraged participants to speak freely and with self direction.

Student participation in an interview or a focus group was voluntary. Before each procedure, I would address the class and ask for volunteers. Students readily volunteered. Based on my preliminary observations as well as feedback from the teachers, I intentionally tried to choose students who demonstrated a range of proficiency levels in English as well as different mannerism and behaviors. Nevertheless, students who did not volunteer were not coerced into participating.

The interviews were conducted in an empty classroom or the library, and participants were interviewed one at a time. Some of the interviewees were outgoing and gregarious. They responded in depth to questions, engaged in discussion and openly shared their thoughts and opinions. Others students were quiet and reserved. They tended to be brief in their responses and did not elaborate extensively on the answers they provided. These factors contributed to the length and profundity of the interviews which ranged from twenty minutes to thirty-five minutes.

Whenever it was possible, I interviewed the students in English. Nevertheless, as was previously mentioned, students demonstrated a range of levels in English. I dealt with these variations by making use of the students’ L1 whenever necessary. Students were also given the option to conduct the interview in Hebrew or in Arabic and, at times, they switched back and

62 forth between languages. For interviews conducted with students from the monolingual minority school, an Arabic translator accompanied me and when needed, translated from Arabic to

English and from English to Arabic. In following the caveats outlined by Mackey and Gass

(2005), when interviewees indicated that they preferred it, they used their L1. When a language other than English was used, I noted this in the transcription.

Focus Group Sessions

The final methodological procedure that I used in this study was focus groups.

According to Gibbs (1997) “focus group research involves organized discussion with a selected group of individuals to gain information about their views and experiences of a topic.” Though initially used primarily in the marketing and commercial sectors, focus groups have become a widely accepted qualitative method in social science research (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas &

Robson, 2001). In the field of second language research, Mackey and Gass (2005) further elaborate that focus group sessions “usually involve several participants in a group discussion targeted on specific topics, often using a stimulus for discussion” (p.173).

A combination of topic guides, discussion questions, questions that required participants to write and respond to a trigger and group activities constituted the content of the focus groups

(Krueger, 1998). For each conducted focus group session, I designed a stimulus to facilitate discussion among the participants. The first activity involved a reading and follow-up questions about English in India and English as an International language. The second activity also involved a reading and follow-up questions about a peace camp in the United States that hosts campers from all over the world but conducts all of their activities in English. The final activity consisted of a series of questions and pictures that aimed to foster discussion about students’

63 attitudes, perceptions and presuppositions about English speakers (see appendix III). Each focus group ran approximately 40 minutes. As with the interviews, the focus groups were conducted in English. From time to time, participants translated among themselves, and for the focus groups conducted in the monolingual minority school, an Arabic translator accompanied me and, at times, provided translation.

The preliminary exploratory work I conducted revealed that in the day- to-day English language lessons, the content focused primarily on language — be that grammar, syntax, reading comprehension or some other component of language learning. While these components were informative in understanding the classroom climate, for the most part they did not shed light on students’ attitudes towards or experiences of English. Moreover, they did not overtly contribute to an understanding of the identity negotiation processes students may undergo as language learners. Consequently, focus group sessions emerged as a reasonable method for gathering information concerning students’ perspectives and shared understandings of English in their particular setting. These focused group discussions generated pertinent and fruitful discussions and discourse. This data was juxtaposed with the individual perspectives garnered from the semi-structured interviews.

Data Analysis

Data review and analysis was ongoing and done in conjunction with as well as following data collection. The preliminary observations conducted for this study were documented through the use of field notes. They were used primarily as a means to familiarize myself with the research setting and to facilitate interactions with the students. I introduced recording equipment

64 into the classroom setting only after I felt that I had established a certain level of amiability and trust.

Approximately four months into the study, I began conducting interviews and focus group sessions. All interviews were recorded using a voice recorder and were subsequently partially or fully transcribed. All focus group activities were videotaped and recorded using a voice recorder and were partially or fully transcribed. Discourse stated in English was transcribed word for word and I did not change students’ errors or variations from Standard

English. Discourse stated in Hebrew or in Arabic was translated, and I indicated in parenthesis the original language ( i.e. from Hebrew ). Discourse stated in Arabic was initially transcribed into Arabic along with the accompanying translation. A fluent Arabic speaker was employed to back-check both the on-sight translator’s translation and to translate again the original discourse.

For the most part, the on-sight translator’s translation and the second translator were in agreement with respect to the translation. When used to support a finding in the Findings &

Analysis section, Arabic discourse was presented in English, and in parenthesis I indicated that the statement was originally said in Arabic.

The interviews and focus groups were coded using a system that enabled the discourse to be easily tracked and situated in the particular interview or focus group session. Each participating school was awarded a letter value as follows:

Table (5) Letter Codes for Participating Schools School Letter Value

Monolingual Majority School (Hebrew-English) Z

Monolingual Minority School (Arabic-English) B

Bilingual Minority Majority School (Arabic-Hebrew-English) D

Each student interviewed was awarded a numerical value corresponding to his/her placement in the interview schedule. Thus, for example, the first student interviewed was S1. Each numerical value also included the letter code for the corresponding school in order to distinguish between the schools. The chart below presents the system of coding for the semi-structured interviews:

Table (6) Coding Examples for Semi-Structured Interviews Student School Employed Code Explanation

S1 Z S1Z Interview #1 conducted at the Monolingual Majority School

S7 B S7B Interview #7 conducted at the Monolingual Minority School

S9 D S9D Interview #9 conducted at the Bilingual Minority Majority School

Each conducted focus group session was also awarded a numerical value that corresponded to its placement in the focus group schedule. Each focus group included the student code, the letter code for the corresponding school and the focus group number. The chart below presents the system of coding for the focus group activities:

Table (7) Coding Examples for Focus Group Sessions Student School Focus Group Employed Code Explanation

S1 z f1 S1zf1 Focus group #1 conducted at the Monolingual Majority School. Student #1 is speaking.

S3 b f2 S3bf2 Focus group #2 conducted at the Monolingual Majority School. Student #3 is speaking.

S4 d f3 S4df3 Focus group #3 conducted at the Bilingual Minority Majority School. Student #4 is speaking.

Additional codes requiring explanation include the following:

Table (8) Additional Codes Code Explanation Ss Students speaking together

I Myself, the interviewer

T translator

Throughout the data collection documentation and analysis, I looked for themes and patterns within the collected discourse. This process of “Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze” falls within the methodological tradition known as discourse analysis (Demo, 2001). Insofar as this study’s findings were evidenced through an analysis of recorded and transcribed talk, the study can be seen as discourse analysis (Tracy, 2001, p.731). However, given that a portion of the findings were based on preliminary observations and conducted focus group activities, this study also falls within the realm of ethnography. In fact, I have attempted to incorporate several research traditions producing what Tracy refers to as a “hybrid discourse analytic/ethnographic

67 study.” (2001, p.731). According to Fairclough (2003) “It often makes sense to use discourse analysis in conjunction with other forms of analysis, for instance ethnography” (p.2).

My analysis of the collected data produced three overarching topics which will be addressed at length in the Findings & Analysis section. These include (1) language usage; (2) language status; and (3) perceptions and attitudes towards language. Each of these themes will be addressed with respect to the languages of local consequence—namely Hebrew and Arabic and the language of global consequence—namely English and will be elaborated on in the

Findings & Analysis section.

Limitations of Employed Methodology

Despite the scope of methodologies employed for this study and my use of methodological triangulation (preliminary observations, interviews and focus group sessions), there are a number of limitations that need to be acknowledged with respect to both the study participants and the employed methodologies.

Regarding the study population, the discourse collected represents a specific subset of

Israeli society which may or may not be applicable to rest of the country. Qualitative research in general aims to describe the experiences of particular communities or sub-communities rather than to quantify their experiences or to generalize them to other populations (for further discussion see Creswell, 2009). Nevertheless, within the data collected, it is important to emphasize that all study participants reside in Jerusalem and this uniquely colors, to varying degrees, their perspectives and experiences. This may be particularly true for the L1 Arabic speakers who have been part of distinct, outstanding historical/contextual processes not experienced by Palestinian Israelis residing in other parts of the country.

With respect to the participants from the bilingual minority majority school, it is necessary to acknowledge that their representation is less than those from the monolingual schools. This is especially true for the number of L1 Hebrew speakers and Jewish participants.

This stems from the fact that class size in the minority majority school was overall smaller than the other schools and the fact that Jewish students tend to leave the school in the sixth or seventh grade and therefore their representation in the higher grades is proportionally less. While these factors do not affect the reliability of the collected data, they do affect the accessibility, breadth and diversity of available discourse.

The third limitation I wish to address with respect to study population, relates to the class size itself. In the monolingual schools, class size included thirty-five or more students whereas in the bilingual minority majority school, the class size was only eighteen students. This difference in class size undoubtedly had an effect on classroom dynamics and students’ experiences, attitudes and perspectives as learners. While this study has emphasized linguistic and ethnic variations, class size and its influence on the constructed classroom milieu is another factor which warrants acknowledgement when analyzing the data and drawing conclusions.

The final limitation I wish to address with respect to the study population relates to the participants’ demonstrated proficiency in English. Despite the fact that students were all in the ninth grade, as in any foreign language classroom (Millrood, 2002), there was a certain level of linguistic heterogeneity among study participants. As I outlined in the data collection process, I took measures to ensure that all participants understood and were understood. Nevertheless, differences in proficiency levels introduced a variable that potentially affects produced discourse and thereby, the data collected. By providing translation and/or the option for the use of L1, I endeavored to minimize the ramifications of this variable.

Regarding the limitations of the employed methodologies, in particular there are four outstanding factors I wish to address. The first pertains to the process of interviewing adolescents. All of the participants in this study were between the ages of 14 and 15 and were in the ninth grade. Many of them were highly articulate and demonstrated advanced analytical skills. Nevertheless, as Mackey and Gass (2005) point out, children cannot be treated exactly like adult research subjects. The process of obtaining information from adolescences requires establishing a certain additional level of trust and rapport (Anders & Morrison, 2001).

Moreover, questions needed to be simple, concise and free from abstractions, and interviewees needed to be given sufficient time to process and answer questions. At times, I interjected too quickly, misunderstood the participant’s point or presented a closed question when I intended to present an open-ended question. On the other hand, on quite a few occasions, participants spoke freely and without the inhibitions or filters generally used by adults.

The second limitation pertains to the physical conditions that accompanied the interviews and focus groups. I did not have a set location for carrying out the research. Rather, I would arrive at the school and look for an empty classroom or a quiet space in the library where I could set up the video camera and my voice recording equipment. On several occasions, there was excessive background noise, and this affected the quality and clarity of the recordings.

Moreover, at times students were distracted by people passing by or momentary interruptions.

While these elements are to be expected in any naturalistic inquiry, they sometimes resulted in my postponing an interview or moving the individual or group to another location. Clearly, such conditions were distracting and had an effect on the flow of the interview or focus group session.

The third limitation relates to my levels of language proficiency and use of translation for interviews and focus groups involving L1 Arabic speakers. While I made concerted efforts to

70 improve my spoken Arabic, I had to rely on a translator to fully understand students’ responses in Arabic. Moreover, a translator was used when questions needed to be asked in Arabic. At times, the translator took liberties to rephrase a question or answer or to inject additional comments. This additional voice and perspective played a role in the conversation dynamic and the manner in which the interviews and focus groups unfolded. To a degree, I dealt with this limitation by subsequently employing a different Arabic speaker to back translate and re- translate excerpts of discourse. As was previously mentioned, few discrepancies emerged between the on-sight translator’s translation and the second translator’s translation.

The final methodological limitation I wish to address relates to my decision to conduct the interviews and focus groups in English. In particular, this limitation relates to subjective, emotional dimensions that may accompany the use of a foreign or non-dominant language. As stated earlier, recent research has shown that when speakers engage in a second or foreign language, they may be better able to communicate because they maintain a certain level of distance from the language. On the other hand, other research dealing with the emotional and psychological dimensions of foreign language learning suggests that speakers may experience anxiety when using a second or foreign language. Nervousness, disharmony, frustration and a gamut of emotions may adversely affect language acquisition and production at all levels.

Dewaele (2011) argues that foreign language anxiety can be linked to any activity, but is typically highest for speaking (p.27). While levels of anxiety depend on multiple factors including the co-constructed interaction between interlocutors, this factor needs to be acknowledged as playing a role in the produced discourse.

I took measures to foster an amiable, nonthreatening atmosphere by becoming a familiar face to the students and making readily available their L1. Nevertheless, for some participants,

71 the use English may have negatively impacted their language production and ability to express themselves fully. Even if the language did not result in communication barriers, it introduced a complex parameter carrying multiple implications, some of which may have been lost or altered because of the use of English.

Given the focus and aims of this study, I still support the decision to conduct the research in English. However, if and when additional research is conducted, it would be worthwhile reconsidering the advantages and disadvantages of English versus local language use.

CHAPTER III: FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

Introduction to the Findings & Analysis

Before addressing the findings of this study, I have opted to provide a brief description of the linguistic climate in Israel. This contextualizes the findings and familiarizes the reader with the ways in which Hebrew, Arabic and English (languages of consequence) function in the social framework of this study. First I will describe Hebrew and Arabic (the languages of the local arena) and then I will describe English (the focus of this study and the language of the international arena). Following this descriptive account, I present a statement of intent for the findings chapter in order to provide the reader with a key for navigating the findings and analysis section of this study.

Background to the Linguistic Context of the Study

Hebrew

Different aspects of Hebrew surfaced within the framework of this study and will be discussed in the subsequent findings sections. While this research set out to examine English among Arabic and Hebrew speaking students, findings related to Hebrew ultimately emerged as pertinent. Hebrew is one of the official languages of the State of Israel and is a central pillar in the wider sociolinguistic landscape of this study. As such, a full examination of the linguistic climate in Israel cannot artificially isolate English, disconnecting it from local languages.

Instead, English and its accompanying effects needed to be examined in conjunction with and in

73 relation to Israel’s ever complex, multilingual reality—one that, among other things, involves the revival and subsequent widespread use of Hebrew in Israel.

As was discussed in the review of literature, Hebrew has come to dominate most local sector matters including those related to government, public administration, state policies, education and the legal system. Hebrew is also the language of study for all institutions of higher education within Israel proper, and proficiency in Hebrew is a prerequisite for many professional networks (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). Hebrew is frequently used as the language of communication between Israelis of all religions and ethnicities and between Israelis and

Palestinians. In the local context, it frequently functions as a language of wider communication

(LWC) (Shohamy, 2007).

Among all of the participants in this study, Hebrew was their L1, L2 or L3. Some

Palestinian Israelis were more proficient in English than in Hebrew and reported that Hebrew was their third language. Students identified Hebrew as a relevant linguistic tool and different aspects of the language emerged as salient. In the end, regardless of L1 or ethnicity, student discourse revealed a fundamental and multifaceted connection to Hebrew, a link that informs, to varying degrees, participants’ historical conceptions, present aspirations and future possibilities.

Arabic

Different aspects of Arabic also surfaced within the framework of this study and will be discussed in the subsequent findings sections. While findings related to Arabic emerged as relevant, I should emphasize from the outset that there is substantially less discourse related to

Arabic as compared to discourse related to English and Hebrew. When relevant, I discuss this absence of data. The lack of reference to Arabic emulates current linguistic practices in the

74 broader Israeli context. While both Hebrew and Arabic are official languages of the State of

Israel, it is erroneous to suggest that the broader context of this study reflects a 50/50 balanced bilingual reality. In fact, in most cases Hebrew is the language of communication for local interactions, and English is the language used for international and technological communication. The prestige and power associated with Hebrew and English inform—to varying degrees—students’ articulations concerning Arabic. When discussing findings related to

Arabic, I examine this kind of linguistic “tug of war” articulated by participants and characterized by a vacillation between their cultural/emotional/ideological commitments and their sought after, often very practical, ambitions.

As was discussed in the review of literature, the sociolinguistic characteristics of Arabic also appear to play a role in students’ use, attitudes and perceptions toward the language. In particular, this refers to the diglossic nature of Arabic and the fact that students must master both formal literary Arabic as well as informal colloquial varieties. Arabic is found and utilized to varying degrees throughout the State of Israel. Despite legislative efforts by some conservative political parties to do away with the language, it remains one of the country’s official languages and approximately 1.4 million speakers use the language as their L1 (Shehadeh, 2008). Arabic is used as the language of instruction for Palestinian Israeli students studying in the Arab educational system. In addition, Arabic is studied in some secondary Jewish public schools, and students can choose it as one of the subjects studied for their matriculation exams. For the most part, however, curricular policies, instruction and pedagogical practices are unsatisfactory and have reduced Arabic language learning to either a tool to advance in the army or a dead foreign language (Uhlmann, 2011).

While the role and usage of Arabic differed significantly for Hebrew speakers and Arabic speakers, both cohorts made reference to Arabic, and discourse supports the language’s saliency.

Regardless of L1 or ethnicity, many participants articulated some linkage to Arabic, and this affiliation informed their beliefs, practices and, in some cases, their identity negotiation processes. Students indicated that Arabic was a part of Israel’s landscape whether linguistically, geopolitically or ethnically. This shared linguistic acknowledgement represented a divergence from the rhetoric of separateness and transfer rapidly gaining momentum in Israel’s current political climate. In the end, students deal with and use Arabic. It was not a “foreign” entity but a local linguistic force that they referenced and awarded relevancy

English

Findings related to English underline many aspects of this study and students articulated numerous social circumstances in which English is employed. A recent article published in the

New York Times , Across cultures, English is the word , made note of a linguistic revolution occurring in our midst on a scale never before fathomed. According to the article, “English dominates the world as no language ever has, and some linguists are now saying it may never be dethroned” (Mydans, 2007). Student discourse concerning English suggests that its effects have unprecedented linguistic as well as economic and cultural implications. This study is first and foremost an examination of these implications. In all three settings of this study, students gave a resounding “yes” when confronted with English. Discourse shows that students must deal with the language in a variety of contexts and situations and that they value English knowledge and use.

As was mentioned in the review of literature, English has both historical and contemporary precedent in Israel. Today, English is embedded in Israel as the first foreign language, and it is the language that links Israel to the global arena. Students are required to study English from the fourth grade until graduation and it is a compulsory subject for high school matriculation exams.

Ultimately, English is a language tied to historical legacy, global consequence and future possibilities and these parameters had an impact on study participants’ perceptions and constructions. English is not merely a linguistic tool but part of a system of languages in practice whose ideas, codes and consequences are explored throughout this study.

Statement of Intent for the Findings & Analysis

The Findings & Analysis chapter of this study entails an in depth analysis of languages in practice. It is divided into three sections and each section addresses one of the schools researched. The first section deals with findings pertaining to the monolingual majority school

(Hebrew-English). The second section deals with findings pertaining to the monolingual minority school (Arabic-English) and the third section deals with findings pertaining to the bilingual minority majority school (Arabic-Hebrew-English). Within each section, I adhere to the same order of first discussing findings related to Hebrew and Arabic (the languages of local consequence) and then discussing findings related to English (the original focus of this study and the language of international consequence). My examination and discussion of Hebrew and

Arabic consider the languages in relation to and vis-à-vis English.

In each section pertaining to the above mentioned languages (Hebrew, Arabic and

English), I also adhere to the same order of subsections wherein I analyze three aspects of each

77 of the languages that emerged as salient within the context of this study: (1) language usage , (2) language status and (3) perceptions and attitudes towards the language . Language usage refers to students’ articulations of when and where they use a language and what symbols they associated with language usage. Language status refers to the position or standing of the language vis-à-vis the other two languages. Status also relates to students’ articulations of the power and rank conferred by knowledge of the language. Perceptions and attitudes towards the language refers to students’ articulated thoughts and opinions about the language being discussed (Hebrew, Arabic or English).

The following table provides an illustrative representation of the structure of the Findings

& Analysis section of this study:

Hebrew Usage

Hebrew Hebrew Status

Perceptions & Attitudes towards Hebrew

Arabic Usage

SCHOOL RESEARCHED Arabic Arabic Status

Perceptions & Attitudes towards Arabic

English Usage

English English Status

Perceptions & Attitudes towards English

I have chosen the above mentioned areas of focus deliberately and carefully. Within the framework of this study, I set out to investigate the experiences of English language learners in three, State run, non-religious schools in Jerusalem. My subsequent decision to focus on the languages of local consequence and the language of global consequence was not predetermined but emerged organically out of my analysis of the collected data. It is worthwhile mentioning that findings related to languages are not the totality of this study. The collected discourse is rich with innuendoes, hunches, and potential implications worthy of further analysis if and when additional studies are pursued and further research conducted.

Focus inevitably draws certain points in while leaving other points out. The sociopolitical context of this study is characterized by the continuous interplay between Hebrew,

Arabic and English. Consequently, I reached the conclusion that none of the three languages could be considered in isolation. Therefore, this study has evolved into an analysis of not only

English among Arabic and Hebrew speaking students but also of the functions/consequences of local languages vis-à-vis English. Participants awarded meaning and relevancy to all three languages, and this trilingual interplay is explored at length.

SECTION (1): Monolingual Majority Students

Introduction to the Monolingual Majority School

The following section deals with findings related to the monolingual majority school

(Hebrew speakers). More specifically, I will first discuss findings related to the languages of local consequence— (1) Hebrew and (2) Arabic, and then discuss findings related to the language of global consequence— (3) English. For each language, I follow the structure outlined on p.79. Monolingual majority participants function primarily in Hebrew dominate contexts. However, findings related to Arabic and English also emerged as salient. The interplay between Hebrew, Arabic and English for monolingual majority students sheds light on a wide range of sociolinguistic concerns that will be explored throughout this section.

Hebrew

Hebrew Usage

Monolingual majority students use Hebrew on a daily basis. They identified it as the primary language for routine activities such as going to the mall, calling a friend on the phone or communicating with people in the local arena. Throughout the interviews and focus groups, students spoke about the role of Hebrew in their day to day lives. One student articulated this in the following way:

S8Z: Hebrew it’s my language. This is the language I talk to my parents, my family, with my friends. . . I: So when you say Hebrew is my language, what does that mean to you? S8Z: It means that the moment I was born, I heard Hebrew so I get used to it. I learned how to talk, even if it’s not exactly right, I talk in slang. Everybody has his own language.

Discourse shows that monolingual majority students use Hebrew on a day-to-day basis. In addition to being their means for daily communication, students identified Hebrew as “their own language.” They said that every individual has and should make use of his or her own language and for people living in Israel, that language is Hebrew. Students were so committed to Hebrew usage in the local arena that they said that if a person knows Hebrew but refuses to use the language, he or she would not be friend-worthy. During the third focus group, one student articulated this in the following way:

I: Okay. I want you to imagine that you have just met a student named Alan and he just moved to Israel from the United States. Even though Alan speaks Hebrew pretty well, he insists on speaking English with you. How do you feel? How does that make you feel? S3 zf3: Go and find a friend I: So you wouldn’t be friends with him? S3 zf3: No. If he know Hebrew, why he don’t speak? I: Okay

For monolingual majority students, Hebrew usage translated to a personal identification and commitment to the language “my language.” It also translated to a communal or national identification and commitment to the language “the language of Israel.” During one of the conducted focus groups, a student elaborated on this idea: “ S3zf1: The thing that unifies a country is its language . . .every country needs to have its own language.” Later in the discussion, a second student particularized this idea: S2zf1“We live in Israel and Hebrew is the language of Israel.” Hebrew knowledge and use emerged as a means by which to articulate national allegiances. According to the students, every nation has and should use its own language and for people living in Israel, that language is Hebrew.

Students correlating Hebrew usage with national identifications became more apparent later on in the discussion concerning Alan. Students decide that Alan’s refusal to speak Hebrew

82 was not only a barrier to friendship but also a sign of insolence and disrespect to the nation. One participant explained this in the following way:

S4 zf3: Maybe he is disrespecting the Hebrew language I: Can you say more about what you mean? Disrespecting the Hebrew language? S4 zf3: Just because he say, he don’t want to speak Hebrew, just English. If we were over there (in the US), we will speak English. . . When we go to America and England we speak English so he should respect us—we respect them when we speak English there so they should respect us when they come here.

In the local arena, students held tightly to national articulations including their expression through the use of Modern Hebrew. Despite the fact that discourse indicates that students’ perceive of English as an invaluable language and a highly desirable commodity, in the local arena Hebrew ultimately prevails. A Hebrew speaker failing to use Hebrew or giving precedence to English would be committing an act of disrespect against the State.

In as much as Hebrew usage was paramount in the local arena for monolingual majority students, not using Hebrew outside of Israel was also deemed necessary and an inevitable outcome of endemic anti-Semitism. During the conducted interviews, students were asked to think of a situation where it might be better to speak English instead of their first language. Most of the students from the monolingual majority school mentioned that Hebrew should not be used abroad because of potential dangers it might pose. One student articulated this in the following way:

I: Can you think of a situation in Israel where it would be better to use English instead of Hebrew? S4Z: In Israel, I think no. But in other countries, yeah because people in other countries hate Jewish so if they know like someone who in USA that said that he is Jewish, they kill him because of it so we don’t know where or when there are people that can kill you because you are speaking in Hebrew. I: Because you are Jewish? S4Z: Yeah. I: So English is safer? It’s a safer language? S4Z: Yeah.

Students were adamant that “ S1Z: Almost everywhere there is antishemeot (anti-Semitism)” and that it is better not to speak Hebrew abroad. They associated Hebrew usage with the nation, the land of Israel, Jewish history and the Jewish bible. As will be discussed in subsequent sections, these markers had profound symbolic relevancy in the local context but in order “to survive” and remain “safe”, students abandoned them—along with Hebrew usage—in contexts outside of

Israel.

Hebrew Status

The status of Hebrew for monolingual majority students was indicative of a highly successful, idealized speech community embodying what Bourdieu (1991) refers to as “the illusion of linguistic communism” (p.43). This perceived uniformity, was repeatedly articulated by participants who said variations of the following: “S1zf3: Hebrew is for Jewish and for who is living in Israel.” Alongside these manifestations of nationalistic rhetoric, there were instances of complexity primarily in relation to the status of English but also in relation to the status of

Arabic.

Student discourse shows that psychologically and culturally Hebrew had the highest standing for monolingual majority students. Students indicated that they identify with Hebrew and felt that they could not simply “forget Hebrew.” Pragmatically speaking, they also identified

Hebrew as the most important language for success and achievement in the local arena.

However, in the international picture, English was ultimately awarded the highest standing. One student articulated this in the following way:

I: What language is more important, Hebrew or English?

S8Z: For every person it’s different. For me it’s Hebrew cause it’s my language. . . But ah, for a man who lives in the United States, and born in the United States, more important English. And a man who live and born in Spain, more important Spanish. It’s all different. But if we, everybody, if we look on the world and say what’s important, so I think English because more people know it.

The global nature of English and its perceived usefulness in the international arena meant that though students were not willing to relinquish Hebrew, its superiority was frequently questioned, if not rivaled, by English. One student stated this in the following way: “S2zf3: Everywhere in the world you need to know English more than Hebrew because they don’t know Hebrew.”

Generally speaking, students qualified themselves by saying that Hebrew needed to be the main language in Israel, and English was the second or international language. Below are two examples articulating this point:

S10Z: “I think that Hebrew must be the first language in Israel. English is very important but it’s the second language” * * *

S2zf3 “I think that everybody needs to know their own language. If you live in Germany, so speak German. In Israel, you speak Hebrew and the second language is English because it’s the international language of everybody”

Discourse clearly shows that students from the monolingual majority school ultimately view

Hebrew as the most important language in Israel. Students’ perceptions of the status of Arabic will be discussed at length in the subsequent section. Here I will simply acknowledge students’ reference to Arabic vis-à-vis Hebrew and English. This acknowledgement was primarily utilitarian ( S6Z: I need Arabic because I want to be in a special unit in the army ) and was never suggested as an alternative to Hebrew or English. That said, most participants said that both

Hebrew and Arabic were the languages of Israel, unlike English which was either the language of America or an international entity disconnected from any one specific culture or peoples.

Perceptions and Attitudes towards Hebrew

In the subsequent section, I address monolingual majority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards Hebrew. For the most part, monolingual majority students function in a

Hebrew dominant context where nearly all their interactions transpire in Hebrew. As was mentioned previously, all but two of the participants speak Hebrew as their first language.

Students indicated that they perceive of Hebrew as important because it is the language they were born with or the language that they use most often. L1 and primary usage warranted significance and meaning. Below are two examples from different interviews articulating this point:

S7Z: I live in a country where we speak Hebrew and that’s it. Also, I was born with this language, so it’s important.

* * *

S9Z: . . . This is something that I born with, the Hebrew and this is something that you can’t take from me. It’s like a condition so it’s important.

On multiple occasions, students made a connection between primary language and language importance. They identified Hebrew as their main language and repeatedly referred to it as “ our language. ” This ownership ultimately tied Hebrew to ideological and cultural symbols such as the Jewish people, the nation and the Jewish bible. During one of the focus groups, students articulated this in the following way:

I: How do you feel about the following statement: English should replace Hebrew as the official language at your school. Sszf3: No, no, no. S1 zf3: Because we live in Israel, not in the United States.

S5 zf3: Hebrew is the language of the bible. S1 zf3: It’s our nation S5 zf3: So we have to keep it. I: We have to keep it. Why do we have to keep it in your opinion? S5 zf3: Cause it’s the Jewish history. I: Okay. So it’s important that it’s not only in the bible, in the Tanach, but also in the State? S5 zf3: Yes. S1 zf3: It’s one of the things that make us special.

Student discourse was highly reminiscent of nation/state rhetoric where Hebrew becomes a signifier of ideological symbols associated with the Jewish State. Students articulated an affiliation with these signifiers and perceived of Hebrew as a part of themselves. “ S1Z: Hebrew it’s who I am and Israel is my country. ” This identification ultimately meant that Hebrew was the language that qualified participants’ constructed identity—an identity tied to specific cultural tradition, ethnic alliances and national allegiances. The following excerpt illustrates this idea:

I: Okay. What language is more important, your mother tongue or English? S10Z: I think the Hebrew because I’m connected to this language. This is the language of my country, this is the language of the bible and I feel connected to this language and proud that I know this language. I: Okay. So it’s a part of who you are, Hebrew? S10Z: Yes.

Students were forthcoming in articulating a connection between Hebrew (their local language) and their identity (who they see themselves to be both as individuals and part of the wider society). English therefore, was not a viable alternative in part because students did not identify it as representing them. That said, while students were undoubtedly products of successful nation-state rhetoric, they also articulated rifts in their devotion to the point where they were prepared to “shed” Hebrew, replace it with English, and, in the end, leave Israel. One student described this as a means for survival:

S3Z: I don’t care not to talk Hebrew, it’s not a big deal. I: Ok. Interesting. Umm, you don’t feel like Hebrew is a part of you?

S3Z: No, it’s mine but ahh, I want to survive in the world so I need to know how to talk to them (foreigners) and I want to leave in this country. I: You want to live in this country? S3Z: No-- to leave I: Leave, ahh, okay.

In order “to survive” and remain “safe”, students were willing to compromise their national identities, to abandon the language that they indicated was their own, and to take a chance at

“survival” in the international arena— one predominated by English in all its form and varieties.

In addition to questioning the sustainability of Hebrew for themselves, some students also acknowledged that the language might not be perceived by Palestinian Israelis as their own. On the one hand, they advocated the “in Israel you speak Hebrew” mantra but on the other hand, they acknowledged that for Palestinians, Hebrew might not be ideal. Below are two examples articulating this point:

I: So when an Arab and a Jew speak Hebrew something else is going? S1Z: Yeah, cause I think that then the Arab thinks that this is his country, his place and now he also wants me to fit in and I don’t want to fit in and like it’s not his language but he knows it is somebody else’s language. . . I don’t know how I: No, you are doing a great job. S1Z: In English, both of these guys are outsiders like they don’t belong but if they will speak Hebrew, the Arab might feel that it’s not ok.

* * *

S3Z: I was in an activity to talk with an Arab girl. . . I: And what language did you speak? S3Z: Hebrew. I: Hebrew, ok. Do you think it would’ve made a difference if you spoke English? . . . S3Z: I think she would feel more good because when she talks my language, maybe she feels hurt. I: Ok, she feels hurt? S3Z: Yes, because why does she need to talk my language and I don’t her language. And when we both write and talk English we are putting our language beside us-- we both mvatrot (give up) about our language and talk English. Maybe she feels more good but I don’t care.

Monolingual majority students perceived of Hebrew as “their language” and not the language of

Palestinian Israelis. In what seemed to be an attempt at sympathizing with “the other”, monolingual majority students suggested that English might be a better alternative to Hebrew for

Palestinian Israelis. However, as will be discussed in subsequent sections, Palestinian Israeli students did not always prefer to speak English over Hebrew. Their perceptions of Hebrew were varied and while some articulated that Hebrew was not their language, this did not necessarily mean that English was the ideal or neutral alternative.

Summary of Findings related to Hebrew: Monolingual Majority Students

This section has dealt with Hebrew and monolingual majority students. The addressed findings have shown that monolingual majority students primarily use Hebrew for their daily activities. They also use the language to articulate nation/state allegiances and to construct ethno- national identifications. They opt not to use Hebrew outside of Israel because of fears of anti-

Semitism and racism against the Jews. However, within the local context, students awarded the greatest power and clout to Hebrew. Students perceive of Hebrew as their language and the language tied to their history, religion and nation. Along with these alliances, they articulated some ambivalence regarding the function of Hebrew for non-Jewish Israelis. They were not willing to renounce Hebrew, but in some circumstances (traveling abroad or conversing with a

Palestinian Israelis) they indicated that English might be a better alternative. As will be discussed in the following section, while most participants said that both Hebrew and Arabic were languages tied to Israel, Arabic was never mentioned as a viable alternative to Hebrew or

English, and the default language after Hebrew was almost always English.

Arabic

Arabic Usage

Monolingual majority students, for the most part, function in Hebrew-speaking contexts.

As was mentioned in the previous section, their primary language of communication is Hebrew, and they use it for most day to day interactions. Their encounters with Arabic and Arabic speakers are minimal. For those participants who know or study Arabic, they said that they do not have a lot of opportunities to use the language and that encounters with Arabic speakers generally transpire in Hebrew. Along with this absence of use, participants acknowledged that

Arabic is present and used on various level in many different places in Israel. While they, themselves, do not have a lot of opportunities to utilize the language, they indicated that the language is present and a part of both the historical and ethnic backdrop of the country. During the fourth conducted focus group, one of the students articulated this in the following way:

S3zf4: In Israel people speak or Hebrew or Arabic because there are a lot of—you know like a grandmother who came from Morocco who speaks half Arabic half French. So there is on some level Arabic use in all different places. I personally know a lot of older people that do speak Arabic. And with all the Arabs that live here we need to try to begin some sort of coexistence.

Students seemed to be in agreement that Arabic is present and used in Israel. They even went so far as to link knowledge and use of Arabic to coexistence, respect and “ shalom .” However, this acknowledgement was immediately qualified by discourse stating that Arabic is not like English.

This declaration of difference seemed to be twofold and connected to (a) the pervasiveness of

English usage and (b) the lack of Arabic usage.

The former, English usage, relates to the ways in which students encounter and use

English. As will be discussed in subsequent sections, students articulated having ample opportunities to use English. They encounter the language in local, international and

90 technological arenas. In contrast, students said they encounter Arabic solely in its literary form.

They virtually never use or come across the language. One student articulated this in the following way:

I: Ok. Do you think English is easier than Arabic to learn? S5Z: No. I don’t think –Arabic is very like Hebrew in some ways— but English— I mean I don’t watch TV in Arabic and I don’t use it, you know. But I do use English sometimes

A second student, who grew up in an Iraqi-Jewish household where Arabic was spoken, was even more dismissive of Arabic. He said that there was not anybody left in his family to speak

Arabic with and that he disliked learning the language in school. English, on the other hand, was a subject that he enjoyed studying, and he uses the language in a variety of settings. When asked what language he would use if he were to have an Arabic speaking friend, he gave the following response:

I: If you were to have an Arab friend or maybe you have Arab friends, what language would you speak to them in? S6Z: Ah, if he knows Hebrew, Hebrew. Not something else . . . I: Ok. And if he didn’t know Hebrew, would you prefer to speak Arabic or English? S6Z: English—I don’t know very much Arabic. Also it’s not a language— I: It’s not what? S6Z: It’s not a useful language in my opinion, like English.

In their day-to-day lives, students did not articulate a need to use Arabic. This lack of use was compounded by the fact that they perceive of Arabic as esoteric and difficult. Moreover, they perceive of most Arabic speakers as knowing and using Hebrew and therefore students had little motivation to invest in acquisition and use of the language. One student described this in the following way:

S8Z: I learn Arabic for three years, I can’t speak with an Arabic person. But he can speak with me Hebrew perfectly. . . If a man wants—in school, most of the people, we are choosing Arabic because it’s more closer to Hebrew and it’s maybe in the background but it’s not really learning how to speak. You can’t come to a man in the street and speak Arabic and start talking to him because you learn three years Arabic. I’m barely starting to learn how to talk in a sentence. So I come and then I forget a word but they learn Hebrew very well.

In general, students did not articulate resentment or prejudice against Arabic. They were simply very straightforward about the fact that their acquisition of Arabic was limited and Palestinian

Israelis’ acquisition of Hebrew was outstanding. Therefore the obvious language for communication was Hebrew.

The one area in which students indicated that they use or would use Arabic in the future was the army. Several of the students interviewed said that they chose to study Arabic because they believed that it would help them in the future when completing their military service. They said that they wanted to go into special units in the army and that Arabic was a critical tool for succeeding in such a venture. One student articulated this as follows:

(Translated from Hebrew) I: Here you are learning Arabic because you have to? S6Z: It’s mandatory, that’s the only reason. I: Why didn’t you choose French? Because you can choose, right? S6Z: I chose Arabic because I want to be in a special unit in the Army. I: Ah ok. S6Z: And it will help, like the basics, I’m not going to continue with it until the bagrut, but I’ll have a base. You need it in any case.

Many students hypothesized that their primary use for Arabic would be the army. Alongside this articulation was a subtle contradiction wherein students stated that Arabic was useful solely for the army, but then they also acknowledged that Arabic was present in Israel, a part of the society and a language they might potentially need to use in a broader way. The following excerpt demonstrates this incongruity:

I: Why did you decide to learn Arabic? S4Z: We had two choices, or Arabic or French. French, on the one hand, if you decide to study it, is good because it gives you another language. But French doesn’t really help in life but Arabic, there are many places where people know Arabic and you can speak with them in another language. So it’s a language that you can speak. I: So it’s more useful? S4Z: Yeah and also, in general, there are people, like myself, that want to go to “modain” (intelligence). So for modain, it helps. If you want to hear things or understand things.

Most students from the monolingual majority school made some reference to Arabic usage, acknowledging—along with Hebrew— its presence in Israeli society. While their use of the language was not widespread and they tended to link use of Arabic with the military, students also articulated an acknowledgment of the language that was somewhat outstanding given their

“mainstream” background. One hypothesis concerning this awareness relates to the fact that participants live in Jerusalem. On the one hand, Jerusalem is a highly segregated, contentious city. On the other hand, Jewish neighborhoods and Palestinian neighborhoods are in close proximity of each other and day to day activities—such as going to grocery store or the local healthcare center— are sometimes ethnically and socioeconomically integrated. Unlike in other parts of the country, routine contact with “ the other ” can be commonplace and the populations and their accompanying languages meet. Arabic, albeit minimally, is part of students’ linguistic repertoire.

Arabic Status

Discourse concerning the status of Arabic for monolingual majority students reflected ambiguity. On the one hand, discourse shows that students regarded Arabic as a necessary and relevant part of Israel’s linguistic landscape. On the other hand, students awarded the highest status to Hebrew in the local arena and to English in the international arena and Arabic

93 frequently fell to the wayside. Student discourse was highly reminiscent of language contact situations where one language is dominant and tied to prestige and power and the second language is subordinate and tied to ethnic/cultural loyalties (Hans Nelde, 1998). Thus participants indicated feeling emotionally and politically obligated to Arabic, but these “should” declarations did not result in them knowing or using the language or awarding it power or prestige. One student, who did not speak Arabic nor was she studying the language, articulated this as follows:

S9Z: In our country, this is a Jewish country and we need to learn our language. I: Which is Hebrew? S9Z: Yes. But they [the Arabs] need to know Arabic and us too, we have to learn that too. I: Arabic? You need to know Arabic? S9Z: Yes. I: How come? S9Z: For learning. Because that’s not nice that they know Hebrew and we don’t. I: Know Arabic? S9Z: Yes. I: Okay. So, in your opinion, it’s important that you speak Arabic not English to Arabs? S9Z: Yes.

In many ways, students romanticized the status of Arabic, giving it equal rank to English and correlating knowledge of the language with the way they perceived relationships could or should be between Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinians. During one of the conducted focus groups, students articulated this in the following way:

S4zf4: I think the Israeli need to learn Arabic like English because all the neighbors of Israel are Arab. I: Okay. So it would help us if we knew the language? S5zf4: (from Hebrew) (sarcastically) Ah so you’re going to go to Jordan and tell them something and come back? S4zf4: They don’t know English well, maybe in Jordan yes but it’s better to speak to them in Arabic. S3zf4: It’s good to know. In Israel there are a lot of Arabs I: So Arabic is an important language?

Sszf4: Yes, yes I: And it’s more important than English? Sszf4: No, no, no I: On the same level or— S4zf4: Just in Israel it’s a little more important than English.

Students’ exotification of Arabic seemed to stem from both a personal/emotional attachment to the language because of their own cultural roots and a sense that Arabs alongside Jews had legitimate claims to the country. Students were not fully in agreement as to the status of Arabic and the subsequent need make use of the language, but some were adamant that both Arabic and

Hebrew had clout. During the same focus group, the conversation proceeded as follows:

S5 zf4: You came to them S2 zf4: It’s not true S4 zf4: It is true S2 zf4: According to the Tanach and according to what you believe, the Jewish religion, this is our place, this is not their place. If they want to come, so come. S5 zf4: It’s your place but they were here first. S2 zf4: What do you mean they were here first, what are we in kindergarten? S4 zf4: The fact is that they were the majority here and then the Israelis, the Jews came. Ss zf4: (The students start arguing and talking over each other) S2 zf4: Look at how we are getting into politics in an English lesson. . . S1 zf4: In Israel, we need to speak in Hebrew. S5 zf4: People need to speak Hebrew and they also need to speak Arabic, like half and half.

Despite declarations attesting to the importance of Arabic in the region, in the end students generally gave preference to the languages that they perceived as best enabling them to compete in the current social structure. As the conversation during the above focus group continued, students ultimately concluded that English had a higher status than Arabic.

S2zf4: But the bottom line is that if you travel abroad and stuff like that you don’t really have a use for Arabic. You use English more. S3zf4: Yeah, English is an international language

As in most situations involving contact between various ethno-linguistic groups, the language(s) associated with social mobility and clout ultimately override niceties. Even students who were adamant about the rank and significance of Arabic, at times articulated contradictory discourse implying linguistic subordination. In addition, not all of the study participants attributed relevancy to Arabic. Some were unabashedly oblivious to Arabic stating that Hebrew was the first language in Israel and that English was the second language. In terms of rank, power or influence, they completely disregarded Arabic.

The status of Arabic for monolingual majority students, therefore, can be described as exemplifying a full spectrum of opinions ranging from exotified notions that place the language on a pedestal to total linguistic disregard. Nevertheless, most students did refer to and acknowledge Arabic and, unlike English, viewed the language as an indigenous part of the local cultural context.

Perceptions and Attitudes toward Arabic

As was discussed in the previous section regarding the status of Arabic, student discourse reflected a range of perceptions and opinions concerning the language. Some students indicated that they perceive of Arabic as an important linguistic tool that will serve them in the future. This need was twofold and related to (a) geopolitical surroundings and (b) military aspirations.

Regarding the former, students mentioned that every country surrounding Israel was Arabic speaking and that both within and around Israel, Arabic was prevalent. During one of the conducted interviews, a student articulated this as follows:

S1Z: I know a lot of people think that it’s really, really important to learn Arabic so-- because of all our countries, all the countries that are here I: that neighbor us S1Z: yea-

During a second interview, another student also mentioned the geopolitical context and articulated this idea in the following way:

S5Z: Well one of the reasons that I learn Arabic is, I mean we have a lot of Arabs in this country. We are surrounded by Arabic countries. It can help me, yeah, speaking Arabic.

Students maintained a pragmatic attitude towards Arabic earmarking it as a useful linguistic tool in their present geographical surroundings. As was mentioned in the section on Arabic usage, students also spoke about the importance of knowing Arabic for the army. They perceived of

Arabic as a critical tool for actualizing their future military aspirations. The same student elaborated further:

S5Z: I mean I think Arabic is gonna help me in the future, in the army. And it’s interesting to me, you know.

Student discourse shows that participants regarded Arabic as an important linguistic tool both because of regional relations and for military aspirations.

Students also spoke about how they perceive of Arabic as similar to Hebrew. These similarities related to (a) the linguistic structure of the languages and (b) the role the languages play in the region. Students mentioned that Arabic and Hebrew were part of the same language family and that they were both Semitic languages. Students also said that the languages were

S8Z “close to each other.” One student articulated this as follows:

I: Do you learn other languages? S5Z: Ah, yes. Arabic I think you say. I: Do you like learning English more than learning Arabic? S5Z: Ah, it’s very different. You know Arabic is very like Hebrew and. . . I just never compared between the two.

Students demonstrated metacognitive awareness concerning the language structures of Arabic and Hebrew. As will be discussed in other sections, this awareness was more pronounced among

L1 Arabic speakers, but students from the monolingual majority school also articulated some recognition and understanding.

Students also spoke about perceived similarities in terms of the role the languages play in the region. Whereas English was regarded as an outside language, Arabic and Hebrew were perceived of as local entities. Below are two examples exhibiting this point:

S8Z: We live in Israel and the first—we have two languages, the first languages Arabic and Hebrew.

* * *

S2zf4: . . . in Israel you don’t learn that much English, within Israel—also the Arabs don’t know English that well. We communicate in Hebrew. S3zf4: People speak or Hebrew or Arabic, not English.

Although discourse indicated that students perceive of Arabic and Hebrew as similar languages, students who studied Arabic stated that they find Arabic to be a difficult language to learn and much more difficult than Hebrew. A few students said that they dislike learning the language.

One student articulated this in the following way:

I: What languages would you like to learn in the future? S8Z: Ahh, Spanish—Ah and I know Arabic a little bit. I: You’re studying Arabic here? S8Z: Yeah. I: So you know literary Arabic?

S8Z: Yeah. I: Okay. Do you like learning Arabic? S8Z: Not so much. I: Not so much, okay. How come? S8Z: I don’t agh. I’m good at it. I just don’t like the language.

This aversion to Arabic seemed to be tied to the sociolinguistic characteristics of Arabic and more specifically the diglossic nature of the language. As will be discussed when I address the monolingual minority school and the bilingual minority-majority school, students from all three schools mentioned challenges posed by learning Arabic. Proficiency in the language seemed unattainable, and this contributed to their negative perceptions of the language.

The final point I wish to address concerning monolingual majority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards Arabic relates to the area of peace and coexistence. One of the purposes of this study was to consider the role of English in areas of intractable conflict such as Israel and

Palestine. In particular, I aimed to examine whether participants viewed English as a means for mediation and reconciliation between Jews and Palestinians. As will be discussed in subsequent sections, there is substantial discourse from all three populations pertaining to this subject.

However, specifically concerning the monolingual majority school, there is also discourse supporting the need for Arabic-Hebrew bilingualism. Thus some students indicated that they perceive of knowledge of Arabic as a necessary tool for peace and coexistence and that knowledge/use of English is not sufficient. During one of the conducted focus groups, students articulated this point as follows:

S3zf2: It’s good to learn the language of the people that live with you because if you want coexistence and shalom so you have to respect them and know their language and all that. I: So it’s not enough for everybody to speak English? S3zf2: No because English is an international language and you use it and so does the whole world but you need to—it’s like in Israel, so we don’t speak English as an official language, we have our language—Hebrew and we need to use it. So what if they speak to you in English, they

99 should speak to you in your language (Hebrew). He has his language and you need to learn his language and he needs to learn your language.

While this perspective was not the majority, there were several voices among the students that said that knowledge of Arabic was critical for peace and reconciliation between Jews and

Palestinians. Ironically, as will be discussed during the section addressing monolingual minority students, Arabic speakers placed little to no significance on Jews knowing Arabic. However, monolingual majority students perceived of knowledge of Arabic by Jews as a means for transmitting respect. They again seemed to adopt a romanticized notion of Arabic and, at least momentarily, allowed ideology rather than pragmatics to dictate their articulations.

Summary of Findings related to Arabic: Monolingual Majority Students

This study found that monolingual majority students do not use or encounter Arabic in their day to day lives. While they identified the language as historically and culturally a part of the linguistic landscape in Israel, students stated that they do not use Arabic in the ways that they use English. Moreover, those students who study Arabic described the language as difficult and esoteric. They said that most Arabic speakers know Hebrew well and articulated having little motivation or reason to use the language. Some participants romanticized the status of Arabic, ostensibly ranking it on or above the status of English. However, when push came to shove, they generally relinquished their ideological leanings in favor of more mobilizing linguistic choices.

Students’ perceptions and attitudes towards Arabic reflected a gamut of opinions with some participants indicating that Arabic was an important linguistic tool and an essential component for their future and for peace and coexistence within Israel. Other students regarded Arabic as inconsequential and placed little or no emphasis on the language. In the end, discourse shows

100 that for monolingual majority students, Arabic and its accompanying sociocultural consequence is, to varying degrees, a language of consequence. Nevertheless, its consequence ultimately wanes when confronted with the need to acquire two other powerful languages—namely Hebrew and English.

English

English Usage

In the following section, I will discuss English usage among monolingual majority students. In particular, I will address English usage in three different arenas: (a) the international arena; (b) the local arena; and (c) the cyber arena. For monolingual majority students, English usage was prevalent, and students described having to deal with the language in a variety of contexts and situations.

English Usage in the International Arena

Students from the monolingual majority school spoke extensively about their need to use

English in the international arena. All of the participants except for one had traveled outside of

Israel, and they spoke about their need to use English while traveling. One of the students articulated this in the following way:

S1zf3: When I flew to Turkey and Greece I speak English. I: When you went to Turkey. Okay, so traveling abroad. Okay, anybody else go abroad and speak English? Ss zf3: Yeah, yes, everywhere S2 zf3: Yeah like when you go to, I don’t know, the United States, so the language there is English but also when you go to France. If you don’t know French, you can still speak with them in English.

101

Students were aware of the expanding role of English in the world. Many articulated that the language would not only serve them in the United States or the United Kingdom but

“everywhere” outside the local context. While most of the participants had traveled abroad, only a fraction of them had traveled to an English speaking country. Nevertheless, they gave numerous examples of times when they needed English or could imagine themselves hypothetically needing English to manage and communicate. The following example exemplifies this point:

I: Have you traveled to other countries? S7Z: Yes. To Turkey, to France—and where were we? That’s it. I: And in France, what language did you speak? S7Z: English with the people. I: Also in Turkey? S7Z: Yes

Discourse shows that students primarily use English is what Kachru (1992) refers to as the expanding circle. As was mentioned in the review of literature, this means that students are using varieties of English in effectively EFL contexts to communicate with speakers of other languages. A second student articulated this as follows:

I: Where have you traveled? S10Z: Turkey, Spain, Switzerland, um Italy. But all these countries speak in different languages. I: Sure. So when you were there, what language did you speak? Or what languages— S10Z: I talked English with people that know English. I: Okay, so that was the language that you used to communicate with Italians or Spaniards? S10Z: yeah.

Discourse also clearly shows that within the expanding circle, participants use English as the language of wider communication (LWC). Such a language can be defined as a tool for intra- communication between people who speak different languages. While the language often does

102 not have an official status, it emerges as the primary means for communication between local individuals and speakers of other languages. In the international arena, these students use

English as their LWC. In rare instances, were students using the language to communicate with native English speakers. Rather, the language became a pragmatic tool for enhanced tourism and understanding of local cultures as well as a means for communication among and across diverse population groups.

English Usage in the Local Arena

Students from the monolingual majority school also spoke about situations within the local context where they needed to use English. While English does not have an official status in

Israel, it is well established as the first foreign language in the region (Ministry of Education,

2001). Discourse from student interviews and focus groups support this declaration, and while the dominant local language for these students continues to be Hebrew, English language usage has infiltrated more and more places in Israel.

Participants gave examples from their day-to-day lives where they needed to use English.

They spoke about tourists, visitors from abroad, and in general having to communicate with people who did not speak Hebrew. During one of the conducted interviews, a student said the following:

I: Um—can you think of a situation where it would be better to use Hebrew instead of English? S10Z: Ah, here in Israel. I: Okay. In every situation in Israel? S10Z: Almost. If someone is new in the country or he traveling in the country so he don’t know Hebrew, so I have to talk to him in English.

103

Monolingual majority students spoke about their need to use English in Israel when encountering outsiders or non-locals. In addition, students articulated a variety of points concerning the use of

English in their school environs.

Students mentioned using English in school, in particular during English class and sometimes with school visitors who did not speak English. On the whole, students spoke favorably about their opportunities to use English in school for a variety of purposes. That said, students indicated that English usage was positive only to a certain degree. Thus, for example, when asked whether it would be a positive decision if the prime minister were to come to their school and implement an all English policy, students were adamantly opposed. English usage needed to be moderated, and too much English usage was perceived as a threat to local identity which students tied to the local language. The following excerpts exemplify this point.

I: If the prime minister came to your school and said from now on you’re only going to study in English, you and all your friends. How do you think you would feel and do you think that would be a positive decision? S10Z: If something like that would happen, I don’t know what I can do to the prime minister. I: Okay (laughing). S10Z: This is a very negative decision. I think that Hebrew must be the first language in Israel. English is very important but it’s the second language. I: Okay. So it shouldn’t take over Hebrew? S10Z: No.

* * *

S1zf1: If everyone will switch to speaking English, so we won’t have something special from our tradition S2 zf1: Yeah, there won’t be something special for Israel S3 zf1: Yes, there won’t be something to unify Israel. The thing that unifies a country is its language. S4 zf1: the language, the words and the culture S5 zf1: All of our past is in Hebrew.

104

English usage and proficiency in the language were highly valued by participants. However, student discourse from the monolingual majority school indicated that English was a tool to be used with discretion. English usage in the school context was positive only in so far as it did not infringe upon or infiltrate the local jurisdictions.

During the conducted interviews, students were also asked to think about what language they use in day to day bilingual encounters between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis with the idea of investigating whether English was ever used in such encounters. Here the emphasis was on daily, ordinary interactions that might occur in the grocery store or the mall or between friends.

For the most part, students from the monolingual majority school said that they use

Hebrew in interactions between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. The overriding sentiment articulated by these students was that Palestinian Israelis know Hebrew and do not need to be spoken to in English or in Arabic. One student articulated this in the following way:

S5Z: I don’t have Arab friends but I do know Arabs. . . And well, we speak Hebrew. Most of the Arabs who live here in Jerusalem, in the East of the town, you know, they speak Hebrew very well. Yeah, I don’t need to talk English with them. They know Hebrew much better than we know Arabic.

Students from the monolingual majority school predominantly said that they speak Hebrew or would speak Hebrew with Palestinian Israelis. That said, several participants articulated concern that Palestinians might feel that they were being forced to speak a language that is not their own.

Some students emphasized the importance of gauging each particular circumstance and then proceeding accordingly. This desire to respect and honor linguistic preference is articulated in the following excerpt:

I: . . . if you were to have an Arab friend-- or maybe you have Arab friends, what language do you think you guys would communicate in?

105

S1Z: Hmm, I don’t know. It’s really, it’s really not a question that you can answer in the same way because every person is different. So if he came and was speaking English so I guess that I would speak to him in English. But if he feels like trying to speak Hebrew, if he thinks that he can speak Hebrew and feel ok with it, without thinking that it’s not his language or something than it would be ok if we speak in Hebrew.

This sensitivity was articulated alongside an adamancy that “the thing that unifies a country is its language” (S3zf1), and in Israel “Hebrew is preferable because we live in Israel and Hebrew is the language of Israel” (S2zf1). As was mentioned in the section on Hebrew, almost all of the students found some expression of nation-state rhetoric through Hebrew. Nevertheless, a number of participants were able to insert empathetic undertones into this rhetoric. They acknowledged that not all people living in Israel identify with the connotations they associated with Hebrew and Hebrew usage and offered English as an alternative. Whether or not Arabic speakers prefer using English over Hebrew will be discussed in subsequent sections. However, as in previous examples, students seemed to be attempting to sympathize with “ the other ” and offered English usage as a less loaded, more neutral linguistic alternative.

English Usage in the Cyber Arena

English usage in the cyber arena refers generally to technology and media with a special emphasis on internet applications. Such usage transcends international and local frameworks and constitutes the bulk of participants’ day to day encounters with English. Even students who were minimally proficient in English acknowledged needing to use the language for technological purposes such as e-mail, internet searches, instant messaging and phone applications.

106

First and foremost, students spoke about the need to use English when they were using the computer or were “online.” During one of the conducted focus groups, a student said the following:

S4zf3: I can say why you need to know English, like you know, to know it. I: Okay S4 zf3: Because of the computer. Because all the sites are in English. Nu, the sites are in English, you need to know English.

During the interviews, most participants identified media and technology as the primary context for English usage. A second student elaborated further:

I: Ok. What about hearing English. Where do you hear it? S3Z: In the television, in the computer all the time, everything. . . I: Is in English. S3Z: playing on the computer, ICQ, everything is in English.

English emerged as a necessary tool when using technology. In addition, students identified most communicative circumstances involving technology as being dominated by English. Thus, in order to participate in online spaces or chat-rooms, students said that they need to use English.

During one of the conducted focus groups, a student articulated this point as follows:

S1zf4: Let’s say we are talking to people from other countries. We are not going to talk to them face to face. We’re going to talk to them through the computer, let’s say. So we’ll use English, like with a French person and an Israeli. . .

Students were acutely aware of the fact that English usage dominates communication through cyberspace, and this was one of the primary reasons they gave for wanting to achieve proficiency in English.

107

In addition to using English for technological purposes, students also spoke about how the use of English via the computer and cyberspace had exposed them to new ideas and concepts.

While this point was more salient in the integrated bilingual school, students from the monolingual majority school also spoke about innovations, historical events and concepts that they had first learned about in English by way of information technology. English usage was no longer confined to the classroom but permeated the subjects learned and the information available to participants.

Summary of Findings: English Usage

This section has dealt with English language usage in three areas: the international arena, the local arena and the cyber/technological arena. In the global arena, students primarily use

English as a LWC to communicate with speakers of other languages. In the local arena, participants use English to communicate with tourists and visitors. However, when interacting with local Israelis, including Arabic speakers, they use Hebrew. In the cyber arena, students rely on English and through the use of English in cyberspace, students were exposed to new concepts and information. While Hebrew remains the principle language for these study participants, discourse shows that English is being used in more and more situations—both abroad and in

Israel—and in real and in virtual time.

English Status

Student discourse shows ambiguity concerning the status of English. When asked what language was more important to them, Hebrew or English, most students gave emotional and personal priority to Hebrew and in the local arena identified Hebrew as the most important

108 language. However, as was mentioned in the section on Hebrew, in the international arena, students awarded English the highest status across the board. They identified knowledge of

English as an essential tool for travel, communication and future success. One student articulated this in the following way:

I:What language is more important? Your mother tongue or English? S9Z: I guess for the future, English but for now, it’s Hebrew. I: Can you explain more. S9Z: Because now I need to know Hebrew to learn English. And to speak with my friends. I: you need Hebrew? S9Z: Yes. And in the future, I don’t know what kind of friends I’m going to have so—and what kind of people I’m going to meet. . . Hebrew is important. But it’s also important to learn English so we can know it better in the future. I: But you would lose something if you didn’t know Hebrew? S9Z: Yeah.

For these students, competency in English was associated with what Bourdieu refers to as

“cultural capital” meaning that knowledge of the language conferred social mobility, power and clout. Nevertheless, most students were not willing to relinquish Hebrew despite the fact that

English was ultimately deemed more critical for future achievements and success. In some ways, this is again an example of nation-state rhetoric successfully prioritizing ideology over practicality. Students awarded greater power and prestige to English, but ideologically they had to award the highest status to Hebrew, the language they tied to their nation and homeland.

The second point I wish to address in reference to the status of English refers to a linguistic instrumentality articulated by students. English had an elevated status because participants viewed the language as a critical key for “getting ahead” and advancing in life.

Students spoke about wanting to study abroad, to pursue careers that require English and generally to prosper through global connections. They also viewed the language as a critical key for “getting out.” In the monolingual majority school this “getting out” translated to leaving

109

Israel, getting away from compulsory military service, war and terrorist attacks. One participant articulated this as follows:

I: Um, and what kinds of people know English? S3Z: People who know what’s important. Because people who live in their own country and don’t look to other countries, they don’t care because this is a Hebrew country, we talk here Hebrew. But if someone wants a connection with the outside world. He wants to know more about the world and he wants to improve—it’s not bad to know English, you don’t suffer because of it. It just helps you to— I: to advance? S3Z: Yes. So people who care and they want to go out from this country, not to live here, just to see and stuff.

This declared instrumentality carried power and prestige. Knowledge of English was deemed essential for future opportunities, success and survival.

The final point I wish to address concerning the status of English relates to elitism.

Throughout this study, discourse shows that students associated English with the educated and the elite. When asked what kinds of people know English, most participants gave examples such as smart people, rich people, educated people and people who have money to travel. One student elaborated on this idea as follows:

I: So what kinds of people know English? S1Z: Um, I don’t know; smart people. People that—like in poor countries, not everybody can pay for English lessons so only the ones that can pay for it and are really from wealthy and from good families. I: Do you think that’s true in Israel also? S1Z: I don’t think that only some people can learn English. But I think that only people that are from good homes can learn a lot. You need this for success and university. So they learn it more seriously, they put more effort to this.

In general, monolingual majority students tied English speakers to elitism. When asked what kinds of Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinians knew English, students also mentioned the educated and the elite. Some students singled out Christian Arabs stating that they were the most educated

110 cohort of the Arab population and therefore knew English the best. However, most participants did not distinguish between Jews or Palestinians but simply tied knowledge of English to “S6Z: intelligent people who work and who are educated.” A second student mentioned the following:

I: What kinds of Arabs know English? S5Z: I don’t know how to say notsrim (Christians). I: Christians. S5Z: Christians. I think they know English. They are the more educated of them. I: Okay. Of the Arabs? S5Z: yeah. I: Do you think that’s true for Jews also? S5Z: Ah, yeah. Because you know, you learn it in high school but the uneducated people don’t use English, they must work and they didn’t actually learn in school. So, they don’t use it, they don’t know it. They know a few words, a few sentences here and there but not English.

For the most part, discourse shows that students have ultimately placed English on a symbolic pedestal both in terms of the power and clout conferred by knowledge of the language and in terms of the status and power ascribed to speakers of English.

Summary of Findings: English Status

The status of English as articulated by monolingual majority students shows that they associate English with a high status. Participants awarded instrumentality to English and viewed the language as both a means to success and a means for survival. While their comments reflected ambiguity, students connected English to socioeconomic mobility, power, and elitism.

Undoubtedly, such symbols have an effect on the local linguistic practices as well as individual ambitions for the future.

111

Perceptions and Attitudes towards English

In the following section, I address three overarching topics concerning students’ articulated thoughts and opinions about English: (1) students’ perceptions of English and language learning (2) students’ perceptions of English as an aspect of identity and (3) students perceptions’ of English and conflict resolution/peace education initiatives. Each of these subtopics attempts to sharpen specific areas of sociolinguistic consequence concerning English while bearing in mind the complexity afforded by qualitative accounts based on diverse individual perspective. The perspectives and opinions articulated by monolingual majority students within these subtopics are invariably not all encompassing. Nevertheless, they offer sufficient patterns and trends both within each school and across cultural contexts so as to provide a rich base for cross-cultural comparison and analysis.

Language Learning

Student discourse pertaining to perceptions of English language learning relates to both learning that occurs in the confines of the classroom and learning that occurs in the broader context. In particular, I focus on three aspects of English language learning: acquisition, conferred knowledge, and pedagogy.

English acquisition for monolingual majority students primarily involves two languages,

Hebrew and English. For the most part, students learn English as their second language and they do not have to balance other local or indigenous languages. English is taught as a foreign language and curricular materials are designed to facilitate the acquisition of English as a foreign language (EFL). That said, on numerous occasions, students described situations where acquisition and subsequent use were more characteristic of English as an international language

112

(EIL). In particular, this refers to students’ use of English in the expanding circle as an LWC and students’ perception of the acquisition of English as imperative for success and outside communications. One student articulated this as follows:

I: Do you think learning English is important? And if so why or why not? S5Z: Yeah, because it’s an international language. Ah, I have to talk English if I want to travel in the world, if I want to see what’s going on in other countries. Um, if I want to connect with the outside world. I: Ok. So English is the language that helps you connect to the outside world? S5Z: Yeah. I: When you say it’s an international language, what does that mean to you? S5Z: Almost any place in the world, when I go to I can talk English. I mean if I go to Rome, I can speak English and people will understand me, I think. Or any other place. I: Ok. So it’s a language for communication? S5Z: Yeah.

EIL and EFL learning processes are not strictly incompatible. However, according to McKay

(2002), “whenever English is being used alongside other languages in a multilingual context as the unmarked choice for purposes of wider communication, English in some sense is being used as an international language (p.38). What it means to acquire and use EIL then focuses primarily on how the language is acquired and for what purposes it is ultimately being used. Monolingual majority students acquire English in both formal settings involving the classroom and in naturally-occurring settings involving travel, cyberspace and multicultural interactions. While students mentioned needing and using English in the classroom (EFL), their predominant need and use was for intra and intercommunication (EIL).

The second point I wish to address concerning language learning relates to students perceptions of knowledge conferred through exposure to and acquisition of English. Many participants spoke about how they had learned about new ideas and concepts through English.

113

They identified English language learning as a portal for information. One student described this in the following way:

I: Do you think there are new ideas and cultures that you were exposed to through English? S1Z: Yea, of course. Like I said earlier, McDonalds, it started there and people that came and eventually it started to get bigger and bigger and now in every country in the world, every city and place you can find one, so. I think that the culture and stuff in the US and in English is everywhere and through the language you can learn new stuff.

In some cases, students noted that the concepts and ideas they were learning through English added to knowledge initially acquired in their L1. In other cases, students mentioned that they were encountering such knowledge and information for the first time in English. One student articulated this as follows:

I: The person you are today, is there a part of you that’s that way because of English? S6Z: Um, vocabulary—there are even words that I didn’t know in Hebrew and in English I learned them. I: Do you have an example? S6Z: At the moment no-- but I know that there were a lot of words that I asked Avigdor what the meaning was in Hebrew, and I didn’t understand them at all and then he explained them in Hebrew.

At times, the information and knowledge conferred by English language learning bypassed students’ L1 and resulted in the conceptualization and construction of new paradigms formerly unfamiliar to students. They articulated an awareness regarding this transfer of new knowledge and it appeared to be one of the driving forces behind their desire and motivation to learn

English.

Both students’ articulations concerning the acquisition of English and their articulations concerning knowledge conferred through English relate to the final point I wish to discuss, namely pedagogy. Students spoke extensively about how they disliked learning English

114 grammar and syntax. Any exercise involving rote learning was viewed as unnecessary and passé. Moreover, students perceived of such tasks as veering from their reasons for learning

English—that is to be able to communicate and function in contexts where English is being used.

One student spoke about this as follows:

I: Are there things you don’t like about English? S3Z: I like English. But I don’t like how we learn with the tenses— I: With dikdook (grammar)? S3Z: I like to talk. When we talk we listen to each other and we learn to communicate and it’s good. I: Okay.

Generally speaking students indicated that they liked learning English. However, employed EFL pedagogical practices did not seem to sufficiently cater to students’ articulated need for communicative competency and media competency in English. As will be addressed in the discussion section, students’ perceptions of English language learning processes reveal a profound need for the reevaluation of current pedagogies bearing in mind that change may be necessary in light of the growing field of EIL. Today English language learning does not begin or end in the classroom, and effective teaching methods must complement and enhance these ongoing learning processes

Language & Identity

Monolingual majority students articulated several points with reference to English and identity. In particular, I will address identity perceptions related to others and identity perceptions related to self. Discourse shows that English was a resource in students’ ongoing identity negotiation processes including their conceptions of others and of self.

115

Monolingual majority students readily discussed their perceptions of English speaker identifications. For the most part, they ascribed denationalized attributes to English language learners stating that the identity of an English speaker spans a variety of cultures and ethnicities.

One student described this as follows:

S4Z: Hm— an English speaker? It can’t— it’s impossible to complete that sentence because an English speaker is someone who lives here, or an English speaker is someone who lives someplace else. An English speaker is simply someone who knows that language really really well but it’s impossible to say what an English speaker is. I: So in your opinion, it’s not connected to America? Or Britain? S4Z: No.

In general, students ascribed broad identifications to English speakers and did not link their identity to countries in the inner circle. In addition, several students elaborated further describing English as an international language and a language whose users adopt the language and then adapt and personalize it. As such, local culture and identifications are articulated by way of English but the language is no longer tied to certain countries or places. One participant described this in the following way:

I: Do you think there are customs or culture that’s connected to English? S8Z: No. English as a language is not a culture because we can see that English has a lot of cultures together. For example the Indian, in India they speak English but they are acting a lot different than what they do in the United States or what they do in England. You see in England drinking tea and be very polite and in America they’re eating junk food and hamburger. In India they’re very traditional and they’re eating their traditional food in India. The same language but different acts. . . English, specifically because it’s an international language, it’s not connected to any one culture.

A second student further generalized this idea:

I: Do you think that there are customs or cultural traditions that go with English, that are connected to English? S1Z: No— I don’t know. When you said it, it’s like. I don’t think there is something really special. Like I know that it started from small countries that only they spoke English but because

116 it became so universal I don’t think that any traditions really stayed with the English cause every country put her traditions with the language. I: With English? S1Z: Yea.

Discourse shows that many participants disconnected English from one specific culture and that they perceived of speakers as being able to use the language to articulate local identifications including culture and traditions. Students perceive of the identities accompanying English as malleable, adaptable, and unfixed. Through ongoing acquisition of the language, identities are constructed, amended and reconstructed.

This process of identity negotiation is applicable not only to perceptions of others but also to perceptions of self. English acquisition and subsequent use functioned as an arbiter of identity construction in terms of the way participants viewed themselves. One student articulated this as follows:

I: Now I’m going to ask you some questions about what you think about English speakers. If I say to you, an English speaker is— how would you finish that sentence? S10Z: I don’t know how to finish that sentence because I think about American or British people but I also think about other people that learn English. I: Okay. Like whom? S10Z: Like me. I: So you’re also an English speaker? S10Z: Yes.

Some students included themselves under the identity of English speaker, but this self identification was usually tied to the United States or the United Kingdom. Denationalized notions of English resonated with participants in reference to identifications ascribed to others.

However, in reference to the identities they ascribed to themselves, students mentioned America,

Britain and other countries where English is spoken as a first language. One student described this in the following way:

117

I: Do you think who you are is connected in any way to English? S5Z: Yeah. Because I listen to a lot of English music. I watch a lot of English movies, aghh I pretty much connected to the American culture. I: And how does that influence you? S5Z: Um, about—no, now you see me at school but about my clothing, about the places that I go out with my friends. Things like that, the music I hear. I: And what about what you think about or your ideas? Does it also influence them? S5Z: About my ideas. . . maybe. Somewhere in my agh. . . I: Subconscious? S5Z: Right. I: Ok. Um. Do you feel that learning English has exposed you to new ideas and cultures and things? S5Z: Yeah, yeah yeah. I think so, yeah. I: Do you have any examples? S5Z: Because when I speak in English better than I sometimes watch movies without subtitles and I learn a lot about the American culture about Britain and Australia and all the English speaking countries.

In discussing the ways in which English contributed to their perceptions of self-identity, a counter discourse emerged that equated English with America. Participants said that they were influenced by culture, media, and technology connected to the United States, and that these concepts had exposed them to new ideas and information.

In addition, as was mentioned in the section on English status, students also ascribed the identities of educated, smart and successful to English speakers. These identifications translated into a perception of social mobility. In other words, the more students knew and used English, the more others perceived of them as educated and successful. The following example illustrates this point:

I: Ok. Um, What do you think Jews think of English speakers? S5Z: Jews? Jews in the world? I: Jews in Israel. S5Z: In Israel? What do they think about English speakers? Maybe they think they are sophisticated because they come from developed countries. Maybe when they see someone speak English , they say ‘oh, he’s educated, ah he’s successful maybe. You know it’s very—it’s connected to what we see on TV and things like this.

118

The acquisition of English contributed to the construction of a positive self-identity associated with success and prestige. That said, as was discussed in the section on English usage, to a degree students were wary of English acquisition and use and did not want it to take over or replace Hebrew. Students indicated needing to negotiate between identity markers in particular those accompanying Hebrew and English. On the whole, students from the monolingual majority school ultimately articulated a sense of harmony when discussing the identities achieved through the acquisition of English. As will be discussed in subsequent sections, unlike

L1 Arabic speakers, monolingual majority students were able to meld together competing ethnolinguistic identities and reach a state of balance and accord.

Conflict Resolution and Peace Education Initiatives

Students from the monolingual majority school articulated varying perspectives with respect to the role of English in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives. In particular, students were asked to think about the role of English in planned encounters between Jewish and

Palestinians Israelis. Two distinct viewpoints emerged—the first identifying English as a means for reconciling conflict and the second identifying English as a means for propagating conflict.

At times, within individual students both perspectives were supported depending on the context and circumstance. English was neither an entirely neutral force nor an entirely biased force.

Examples of both perspectives are addressed.

Throughout this study, both directly and indirectly, students were asked to think about the use of English in planned, intentional encounters between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis.

In general, students from the monolingual majority school identified English as a force for reconciliation stating that when Palestinian Israelis and Jewish Israelis speak English to each

119 other, they are on the same level and neither person has an advantage. One student elaborated further:

I: Okay. Um, do you think English contributes to settling arguments? S8Z: Yeah, like I said before. If nobody feel like he doing what the other one wants him to do, no one feel like he’s doing them a favor and feeling less worth, so it can—when they come from the same start, they’re both even, nobody feel better or nobody feel less. The Arabic people won’t say ‘you control us, look we’re speaking your language, I want to speak in my language.’ The thing with the Jews, the Arabic, why should I speak their language, I want to speak Hebrew.’ So if he spoke English, nobody can complain because the other one is talking English too, not in his first language. We come from the same place, in the start and then it’s more easy to communicate— I: Get along maybe? S8Z: Yeah.

Students spoke favorably regarding the role of English in encounters between Jews and

Palestinians in general and in peace and coexistence initiatives in particular. That said, specifically students from the monolingual majority school made a distinction between encounters that occur in the international arena (i.e. outside of Israel/Palestine) and encounters that occur in the local arena (i.e. inside of Israel/Palestine). In the former, students were adamant that English could be a neutral force and a means for communication and subsequently resolution. However, in the local arena students placed a greater importance on Hebrew and

Arabic

In the international domain, students said that English did not belong to either side and was therefore the optimal linguistic choice. During the third focus group students articulated this in the following way:

S1zf3: If I speak to an Arab English, he don’t feel bad. If he speak Hebrew, maybe he feels hurt because he want that I speak Arabic. Cause when you asked the question if Americans speak with us English and said to us to speak in English we were angry about it. So if he speak Hebrew he would feel the same and if I speak Arabic, I feel the same (as in feel angry). So English is the connecting language.

120

S3zf3: It’s the neutral language. I: So when you say a neutral language, what do you mean by that? S1zf3: Because it’s not our language and it’s not their language. S3zf3: It’s something from outside

When discussing meetings that occurred within the local context however, for the most part students indicated that Hebrew and Arabic were better choices. They also made a distinction between encounters occurring in Israel proper and encounters occurring in the West Bank or

Gaza. During the third focus group activity, students articulated this in the following way:

I: What language do you think should be used in face to face conversations between Jewish Israelis and Israeli Arabs? S1zf4: Arabs that live here? I: Yes S1zf4: Hebrew, because they know Hebrew very well—and they live in Israel. S4zf4: They working for the Jewish. S1zf4: We live in the same country.

One participant then elaborated further.

S2zf4: Let’s say they want to meet with us and we are in the United States let’s say, so that is a neutral place so yes, there we should speak English. But let’s say we are in Gaza, they live in Gaza and we go to meet with them in Gaza, then we would speak with them in Arabic.

Students from the monolingual majority schools ascribed importance to both Arabic and Hebrew in encounters occurring within the local context. In part, this emphasis on local languages stemmed from the fact that they perceived of Palestinians as possibly disliking English and associating it with an alliance between America and Israel. While monolingual majority students themselves did not articulate perceiving of English as an occupying force, they mentioned that

Palestinians might feel that English was not neutral. One participant explained this as follows:

I: I want you to imagine Dani, a Jewish shop owner. He works in the old city and he knows a lot of English speakers. What does he think about those English speakers? S3Z: Ah, about the people?

121

I: Ah ha S3Z: He loves them because the United States helps us. The Arabs don’t like them. I: So that was the next question. If Dani and Mustafa think something different. S3Z: Yes. I: Ok. Go ahead. S3Z: The Arab guy hates them. He serves them because he want only their money, he don’t care about them. Dani-- he help them because he want money but he loves them more because we have good kesher (connection) with America and the United States.

A second student was even more explicit stating the following:

I: What do think Arabs think about English speakers? Arabs in Israel or Palestinians. S5Z: Maybe they see them as enemies or not. I’m not sure, I don’t know. I: When you say enemies, why? S5Z: You know, because they come from countries like America. The Arabs and the Americans are not such good friends.

On one hand, English was perceived as a denationalized language, a linguistic equalizer between

Arabic and Hebrew and a tool that they argued would “ help to like knock a wall down between the people” (S2zf4) . On the other hand, English was perceived as tied to America and this correlation meant that for Palestinians, English might be perceived as allied with Israel and therefore a means for propagating conflict. In fact, as will be discussed in subsequent sections, like monolingual majority students, Palestinian Israeli students articulated diverse perceptions regarding the role of English in peace education and coexistence initiatives.

Summary of Findings: Perceptions and Attitudes towards English

This section has dealt with monolingual majority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards English. In particular, I discussed (1) students perceptions of English language learning

(2) students perceptions of English and identity construction and (3) students perceptions of

English and peace education and coexistence initiatives. Regarding English language learning, discourse shows that English is taught as a foreign language. However, given students’ use of

122

English and future aspirations, EIL may be a more appropriate didactic framework. Student discourse also shows that the knowledge conferred through the acquisition and subsequent use of

English exposes students to new paradigms imbedded in the English language. Employed pedagogical practices may need to be adapted in light of the changing position of English and its accompanying sociolinguistic consequences.

Regarding English and identity construction, discourse shows that students maintain denationalized identity conceptions that disconnect English from particular countries or cultures.

Conversely, with reference to their own identity negotiation processes, students generally identified with American culture and attached English to the United States.

Regarding English and coexistence initiatives, discourse shows that under certain circumstances, in particular encounters between Jews and Palestinians occurring in the international arena, students viewed English as a means for reconciling conflict. However, students also acknowledged that for Arabic speakers in particular, English might be viewed as a means for propagating conflict. In the end, student discourse exposes some of the complexities accompanying English and ultimately dismantles the simplified notion that English can be equated with neutrality (Pennycook, 2000). In fact, the linguistic interaction between English,

Hebrew and Arabic reveals an infinitely more complicated picture.

Summary of Findings Related to the Monolingual Majority School

This section has dealt with findings related to the monolingual majority school (Hebrew-

English). Monolingual majority participants function in Hebrew dominate contexts. They use

Hebrew in their day to day lives and for most local communication. While they do not use

Arabic for communicative purposes, participants did identify the language as ethnically and

123 historically a part of the linguistic landscape in Israel. English was ultimately perceived as an outside language but nonetheless the main language for communication in the international arena and among tourists and visitors within Israel proper.

Regarding language status, student discourse reflected ambiguity. Psychologically and emotionally, Hebrew had the highest status. In addition, in the local arena Hebrew was regarded as the most important language. Some students also awarded importance to Arabic and even stated that in Israel it had a higher status than English. In the end however, instrumentality generally prevailed. This translated into English being awarded the highest status in the international arena, Hebrew being awarded the highest status in the local arena and Arabic being relegated to the margins.

Regarding perceptions and attitudes towards Hebrew, Arabic and English, complex linguistic negotiations unraveled. Students perceived of Hebrew as the language that reflected their identity and their nation. They perceived of Arabic as an important linguistic tool primarily because of the army but also because of Israel’s geopolitical location and demographic composition. Participants also perceived of English as an essential linguistic tool both because of the knowledge conferred through acquisition of the language and because of its global sphere of influence. This international quality supported students’ reappropriation of identities achieved through the acquisition of English because they no longer linked the language to a specific country or place. That said, when reflecting on their own personal identity negotiation processes, students tended to equate English with America. As such, only under particular circumstances was English viewed as a means for reconciling conflict. In other situations, it was demarked as an extension of the United States and therefore possibly perceived as connected to colonialism and ongoing conflict.

124

Ultimately, English was not perceived as a neutral vessel but as a powerful sociolinguistic tool that students desired and deemed valuable. English in practice had an effect on the local languages, pushing Arabic and, at times, Hebrew to the margins and informing present and future aspirations.

125

SECTION (2): Monolingual Minority Students

Introduction to the Monolingual Minority School

The following section deals with findings related to the monolingual minority school

(Arabic). As in the previous section, I will first discuss findings related to the languages of local consequence— (1) Hebrew and (2) Arabic, and then discuss findings related to the language of global consequence— (3) English. For each language, I also adhere to the same order of subtopics as outlined on p.79. Monolingual minority participants primarily use Arabic in their home and school environs. However, in the local public arena Hebrew is the predominant language and in the global and cyber arenas, English is the predominant language. As will be addressed throughout this section, students strove to find a balance between L1 maintenance, local linguistic demands and global linguistic needs.

Hebrew

Hebrew Usage

The monolingual minority students participating in this study had varying degrees of proficiency in Hebrew. Although none of the conducted interviews or focus groups utilized

Hebrew, at times students made reference to their ability to use Hebrew, and most identified

Hebrew as their L2. In a manner similar to the monolingual majority participants, monolingual minority students spoke about needing to use Hebrew in their day to day lives. One student articulated this as follows:

S4bf2: When we go to the mall and when we meet someone Jewish and he want to ask something. . . if he is in our city and he don’t know where he is going, so we talk with him in Hebrew.

126

Within local public contexts, Hebrew emerged as the language of communication. Even students who identified their L2 as English noted that at times they could not always revert to using

English. They mentioned that when they went places in Israel, the Hebrew speakers they interacted with often did not know English and certainly did not know Arabic. Therefore, they had to use Hebrew. During the third focus group activity, students spoke about this point in the following way:

I: When you meet people who speak Hebrew, do you speak to them in English or in Hebrew? S4bf3: No, Hebrew. I: Hebrew? Ssbf3: (from Arabic) Hebrew is better S2bf3: We use it a lot, we use it more than the English in our country. S3bf3: We use Hebrew JUST in this country because Hebrew is the main language here. S1bf3: Most of them (the Jews) don’t understand English good

Monolingual minority students were clear about their need to use Hebrew to communicate with people in the local context and, in particular, needing to use Hebrew to communicate with Jews.

Alongside this recognition of the need for Hebrew, discourse emerged showing that, if given the option, some of the monolingual minority students would prefer to use English over

Hebrew. However, because this option was not available, students adopted a very pragmatic stance towards Hebrew—a “whether we like it or not” perspective that seemed to accept the fact that Hebrew usage dominates most local interactions. Below are two discourse samples exemplifying this point:

S5B: (from Arabic) English has things which are better than Hebrew but the Hebrew enables you to be in contact with who’s around. Not everyone, but most are Jews.

* * *

S4B: (from Arabic) At this time, I am living among Jews so I must speak Hebrew.

127

Many students were quite matter of fact concerning their need to use Hebrew to communicate in the local market. That said, student discourse concerning Hebrew usage encompassed a wide spectrum of emotions ranging from acceptance to indifference to refutation.

Some students articulated resentment in having to use Hebrew all the time. They said that they did not like using Hebrew or learning Hebrew and, whenever possible, they opted to use English.

At the edge of the spectrum, were students who said they felt seized and occupied by Hebrew.

The following two excerpts demonstrate this perspective:

S2B: In this place Jewish, we have to talk Hebrew. I: Um, do you like learning Hebrew? S2B: Hebrew? No. I: But you like learning English? S2B: I don’t like the Hebrew teacher or the books. . . but I should talk, learn. . . it’s better to talk English than Hebrew for me. * * *

I: Okay. So when you speak Hebrew, what do you feel? If you speak Hebrew or when you speak Hebrew. . . S3bf2: I feel bad I: You feel bad? S3bf2: yeah, because they took our land and we should (have to) talk Hebrew to do my usual work like shopping, buying something, you have to talk Hebrew. I: But it makes you angry? S3bf2: Yeah.

Generally speaking, student discourse revealed an implicit dissonance between participants’ need to use Hebrew in their daily lives and their desire to reject and rebel against the local regime, including its expressions through the use of Hebrew. This discord was particular resonant for monolingual minority students who spoke English well. As will be discussed in the section on

English, they articulated having a viable and profitable alternative to Hebrew, one that was usually sufficient for interactions in the local arena and vital for interactions in the global arena.

128

Hebrew Status

The status of Hebrew for monolingual minority students was characteristic of minority majority dynamics where the majority language is tied to local acceptance as well as prosperity and success. According to Bourdieu (1991), “The official language is bound up with the state, both in its genesis and in its social uses. It is in the process of state formation that the conditions are created for the constitution of a unified linguistic market, dominated by the official language.

. . this state language becomes the theoretical norm against which all linguistic practices are objectively measured” (p.45). While institutionally Arabic remains one of the official languages of the State, Hebrew prevails as the only legitimate language in the local linguistic market.

Students articulated an awareness of the linguistic capital tied to proficiency in Hebrew and awarded a high status to the language. They argued that Hebrew was imperative for gaining access to higher education and to professional networks. One student, whose ambition was to become a police officer, articulated this as follows:

I: What languages would you like to learn in the future? S10B:Hebrew. I: Hebrew. So you know a little Hebrew? Not a lot of Hebrew or? S10B: No, I know a lot of Hebrew. I: And you want to know more? S10B: Ah ha. I: Okay. Um—why do you want to learn Hebrew? S10B: (from Arabic) I want to be a police officer and you have to know Hebrew very well. T: She wants to be a police officer. I: And you need to know a lot of Hebrew for that? S10B: Of course.

Students were frank about the fact that they lived among Jews and therefore Hebrew had a high status. Moreover, some students used the pronoun our when referring to Israel ( “it is the

129 language of our country” ) and this seemed to translate into linguistic obligation on behalf of

Palestinian Israelis. For some students, this obligation and prioritization meant that Hebrew earned a higher status than both their L1 (Arabic) and English. During the semi structured interviews, students were asked which language was more important, their mother tongue or

English. Although in principle, Hebrew was not one of the choices presented, four of the twelve students interviewed gave Hebrew as their response. The following example articulates this point:

I: What language is most important to you, your mother tongue or English? S4B: Hebrew I: Hebrew. Okay, why? S4B: (from Arabic) Because we live with Jews, our life is with the Jews. T: (from Arabic) Cause we are living with the Jews. I: O.k., and it’s important to be able to communicate or… T: (from Arabic) Why is Hebrew important, for what? S4B: (from Arabic) Communication with them, yes. T: (from Arabic) Yes, to communicate I: Communicate. So you think Hebrew is more important than Arabic? S4B: Yes

This partialness to Hebrew was reminiscent of nation state rhetoric including its expression through the State’s “official” language. Hebrew dominance also seemed to be tied to very real economic and social mobility considerations that remained at the forefront of students’ decisions.

Despite nation-state inculcation, whether ideological or pragmatic, some students maintained a semblance of linguistic complexity in reference to language status. As will be discussed in subsequent sections, a few students awarded the highest status to Arabic and identified it as the language connected to their culture and identity. More frequently, students referenced English and awarded the highest status to the language they associated with their global ambitions. During the first focus group, one student explained this as follows:

130

“S2bf1: Hebrew is just in our country but we can’t use Hebrew for like all over the world. English is better.”

Some students said that English was more important than Hebrew. Despite this frequent acknowledgement that English had a broader scope and was more applicable than Hebrew, the pendulum almost always ultimately swayed back in favor of Hebrew and the State’s “official” language prevailed. This point is particularly clear in interview discourse reporting that parents and students sometimes make the decision to move from private preparatory schools specializing in English to schools that utilize standard Israeli curriculum. Among other things, these schools promise a high level of proficiency in Hebrew. During one of the conducted focus groups, students articulated this in the following way:

I: Do your parents want you to know English? Ssbf1: Yes, of course! S2bf1: My parents put me first of all not in an Arabian school, the Schmidt school but they moved me on. . . English is more useful. But it (the Schmidt school) doesn’t teach Hebrew, which is the language of my country. So they moved me to this school, to learn Hebrew and English.

This trend of switching from an elite private school in East Jerusalem to a standard Israeli State school was also mentioned by bilingual minority majority students. Some of the students interviewed from both the monolingual minority school and the bilingual school were examples of such a phenomenon. This act illustrates the point that English initially has the highest status, but parents and students ultimately opt to attend schools that will equip them with the linguistic capital necessary to prosper in the local context.

131

Perceptions and Attitudes towards Hebrew

Monolingual minority students live in a Hebrew-dominated society. While students said that in their immediate surroundings, such as their home or their neighborhood, they speak

Arabic, they speak Hebrew in the wider local context. As was mentioned in previous sections, for the most part, students articulated a neutral attitude towards Hebrew describing it as an inevitable outcome of living in Israel. Some students articulated disdain and said they disliked learning Hebrew but nevertheless, they learn it. One student described this in the following way:

S3B: I don’t love to learn Hebrew but I’m in a project about Hebrew to learn more Hebrew. I: In this school? S3B: yeah, in this school. I: Because you think you will need it? S3B: I must speak Hebrew, if I don’t learn Hebrew I can’t live in this country. Because every people speak Hebrew; they don’t speak English. So I can’t speak English because Hebrew is the mother language in this country.

Students perceive of Hebrew as a necessary tool for functioning in Israel. In most cases, instrumentality overrode objections students held towards Hebrew.

In several instances, students reframed their perceptions of Hebrew, connecting knowledge of the language to power and clout in the local context. So although Hebrew was perceived as something negative and even “the language of the enemy” , knowing the language was helpful because it enabled students to flourish in the occupier’s territory. The following excerpt from the second focus group exemplifies this point:

S1bf2: But you know, it’s good to talk Hebrew because like then you know the language of the enemy. S3bf2: Yeah, it’s good to learn their language S4bf2: And if they (the Jews) heard you speaking Hebrew then maybe they’re gonna be angry then cause you’re Arabian and talking with him Hebrew so he’s— S3bf2: jealous S4bf2: He says “oh my g-d, she’s talking Hebrew, like us.”

132

For some monolingual minority students, Hebrew personified the language of the enemy. Along with this seemingly antagonistic exclamation was an acknowledgement that knowledge of the language carried efficacy and power. During one of the conducted interviews, a student described this as follows:

I: Do you feel like any of who you are is connected to Hebrew? T: (from Arabic) to Hebrew. S4B: (from Arabic) Ya, for sure T: (from Arabic) the way you see yourself? Or how? S4B: no doubt [Hebrew] gave me things. It gave me the confidence and the faith that when I go out I will know how to speak with the people around me T: Security I: Security? T: She's like I feel more secure because I know Hebrew and I am not afraid to speak or to say what's on my mind

Thus, Hebrew was perceived as a leveraging tool in ongoing majority-minority relations where

Palestinian Israelis are frequently marginalized and treated as second class citizens. Knowledge of Hebrew was perceived as empowering Palestinian Israelis and enabling them to be on more equal grounds with their Jewish Israeli counterparts.

The perceived need for Hebrew among monolingual minority students was paramount.

Alongside this need was discourse articulating frustration at the fact that Hebrew often took precedence over English. So much so that at times, this had an effect on the availability and acquisition of English. Monolingual minority students spoke about being pushed to achieve a high level of proficiency in Hebrew and how English often fell to the back burner. One participant, who was particularly weak in English, described this in the following way:

S4B: (from Arabic) Honestly, I want to learn English, but those—there are people around me that don’t encourage me to learn English. Instead it’s Hebrew, Hebrew, Hebrew, and Arabic only.

133

A second student elaborated further saying that within the school context, one of her primary frameworks for learning English, Hebrew was emphasized more than English. She spoke with dissatisfaction about the fact that her school context teaches Hebrew successfully but does not teach English well. The following excerpt illustrates her perspective:

S9b: (from Arabic) I feel that English is very important; it is the most important language. We must study it because I don’t know what will happen in the future. T: we should study it because you never know what happens in the future. I: okay, so in the future it might be important for you? S9B: (from Arabic) it would be more but we study Hebrew more than English for now and I cannot find ways to help myself (to learn English). . . . School does not benefit me with anything when it comes to studying English.

Students’ perceptions and attitudes to toward Hebrew reveal a complex linguistic picture colored by the need for L1 maintenance, local linguistic demands and global linguistic needs. These combined parameters translate into the need to be proficient in three languages. Trilingualism is not a simple feat in underfunded, overcrowded educational environs, but current contextual trends leave few alternatives if students are to prosper and succeed.

Summary of Findings related to Hebrew: Monolingual Minority Students

This section has addressed findings related to Hebrew and monolingual minority students. These participants were L1 Arabic speakers living in a linguistic context that requires proficiency in Hebrew. Students acknowledged that while they use Arabic in their immediate surroundings, they depend on Hebrew in the broader local context. Some students indicated resentment towards having to know and use Hebrew. However, practicality generally superseded ideology, and students resigned themselves to using Hebrew.

134

Concerning language status, some monolingual minority students awarded a higher status to Hebrew than to their L1 or to English. Other students vacillated between loyalty to the language tied to their ethnicity (Arabic) and prioritizing the language they tied to prosperity in the international arena (English). In the end, the fact that students attend Israeli State run schools and sometimes deliberately choose this option over all English schooling seems to imply a prioritizing of Hebrew, the language tied to the State and success in the local arena.

As ethno-linguistic minorities, participants were highly aware of the imperative need for

Hebrew in the local arena. While some students maintained negative perceptions of Hebrew, instrumentality generally overrode ideology. Some students even reconstructed their perceptions of Hebrew to encompass power and clout when engaging with Hebrew speakers. Other students spoke about how proficiency in Hebrew came at the expense of their L1 and English which in turn had an effect on their future achievements. Discourse supports the fact that L1 Arabic speakers cannot suffice with one or two languages but ultimately need to be trilingual if they are to actualize their articulated goals and ambitions.

Arabic

Arabic Usage

Monolingual minority students, for the most part, have Arabic as their first language. One student said that although he was born in Bethlehem and identified himself as Palestinian, he felt most comfortable speaking in English. The remaining participants identified Arabic as their first language. As was mentioned in the previous section, in the local public arena, students indicated the need to use Hebrew. Nevertheless, Arabic was still their “home” language and dominated their daily interactions within their villages or communities. Students reported that they use

135

Arabic in school, in the streets, with their relatives and in their village. One student articulated this as follows:

S2B: We talk Arabic in the streets. . . Like here in school, they don’t talk English. They think it’s hard. They talk Arabic.

Arabic was clearly the language students used for neighborhood communication. In addition, students mentioned that they use Arabic when traveling to Arabic-speaking countries such as

Egypt or Jordan. Moreover, they hypothesized that if they were to travel to Arabic speaking countries such as Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, countries that do not have normal relations with Israel, English would not be welcome, and they would need to use Arabic. One student explained this in the following way:

I: Can you think of a situation where it would be better to use Arabic instead of English? S3B: Arabic. In some countries people don’t love to speak English , like Saudi Arabia—and just everyone to speak Arabic, cause it’s their mother language. I: Ok. So there it wouldn’t be a good idea to speak English. S3B: Um, correct.

Thus, while students frequently mentioned their need to use English and, at times Hebrew, there were certain circumstances where the use of Arabic was more appropriate. In some cases, this preference for the use of Arabic extended to places within the Palestinian territories. Several students mentioned that in Bethlehem, Nablus and Hebron English would not be welcome and that it would be better, if not imperative, to use Arabic.

Students also spoke about their need to use Arabic when talking about personal and emotional issues. As will be discussed in the section on perceptions and attitudes towards

Arabic, many students mentioned that Arabic was the language they associated with their spirit

136 and self. Students said that in situations where they needed to discuss something personal or emotional, they would only use Arabic. In other words, students use Arabic to articulate their emotions. One student described this as follows:

I: And are their things you can only say in your first language? S1: Yes, of course, personal things. I: So it says who you are inside? Ss: Yeah, yes

A second student elaborated further:

I: Can you think of a situation where it would be better to use Arabic instead of English? S4B: Sure T: (from Arabic) In which situation? S4B: (from Arabic) With a problem. We speak only Arabic when we have problems. If I want to speak with someone about a situation I won't use English, absolutely not. T: She's like I am definitely not using English in any situation ever, especially when I have a problem where I want to discuss something that upsets me

Students use Arabic to communicate with other Arabic speakers and to articulate personal emotions. However, in the broader local contexts (i.e. the supermarket, the bank or the mall) and in interactions involving Jews, participants were unequivocal about the fact that they cannot and do not use Arabic. Discourse was divided between students who said that they use Hebrew and students who said that they use English. What was highly evident from the collected discourse was that students did not feel they could use Arabic. One student described this as follows:

I: Um, if you were to have a Jewish friend or maybe you have Jewish friends S3B: Um yes, I am in a project, it’s name is networks, about conflict resolutions and networks I: Ah, at Hebrew University? S3B: No. At um, Moshava Germanit (the German Colony). I have maybe two or three friends, Jewish. I: Jewish. Ok. And what language do you communicate in? S3B: Sometimes in English, sometimes in Hebrew. I: But never in Arabic?

137

S3B: No. Never. Maybe they learn Arabic but they can’t speak it.

Students placed an emphasis on the need to be understood. For the most part they said that they would use whichever language facilitated the greatest comprehension and communication. That said, some students indicated that Arabic should not be used in encounters involving Jewish

Israelis. In fact, they viewed Jewish Israelis using Arabic as something negative and undesirable. Knowledge and use of Arabic by a Jew symbolized further occupation and disempowerment. Moreover, any Jew knowing or wanting to know Arabic was likely learning it for the army or in order to be able to work for Israeli intelligence. They were certainly not learning Arabic for peaceful or communicative reasons. During the second focus group students described this in the following way:

I: How do you feel when Jews speak Arabic? There aren’t that many Jews that speak Arabic but—would you rather speak English with somebody Jewish or Arabic? S4bf2: I think—English. Cause I don’t like to talk with them in our language. So, as they don’t like, so I don’t like. I: So maybe English is a compromise? Ssbf2: Yes, yes.

While use of Arabic was important for students from the monolingual majority school (i.e.

Jewish participants), students from the monolingual minority school (i.e. Palestinians) did not indicate that Arabic should be used. Instead, they opted to speak English or Hebrew during encounters involving Jewish Israelis. This finding has implications for initiatives that promote bilingualism and efforts to learn the language of the other side. Within the framework of this study, monolingual minority students placed no importance on Jewish students using Arabic. In fact, Jewish students using or learning Arabic carried negative connotations. Such a finding could well mean that educational initiatives devoted to peace and coexistence between Jews and

138

Palestinians would have equal impact if they conducted their initiatives in Hebrew and invested in other program components besides two-way bilingualism.

Monolingual minority students use Arabic among their friends and relatives and to express personal matters. However, in contexts outside of their immediate surroundings, they must rely on and even at times indicated a preference for Hebrew and English.

Arabic Status

Monolingual minority students’ articulations of the status and power conferred by Arabic reveal a complex picture colored in part by minority-majority language relations. Students indicated that they regularly encounter situations requiring Hebrew. They do not have the privilege to fully prioritize Arabic and completely disregard Hebrew even if they might wish for such status realignment. As was addressed in the section discussing Hebrew status for monolingual minority students, some participants identified Hebrew as the most important language and seemed to adopt official nation-state rhetoric that legitimizes only one language.

Other students articulated additional perspectives concerning the status of Arabic demonstrating that language stratification encompasses a complex interplay between cultural, emotional and practical priorities.

Some students awarded the highest status to Arabic connecting the language to their religion, their family and their nation. One student articulated this in the following way:

I: What language is more important Arabic or English? S5B: Arabic I: O.k. Why? S5B: (from Arabic) Because my religion is in Arabic and the Quran is in Arabic and I speak Arabic and all of my relatives are Arabs and I want to be able to deal with them T: Her religion is in Arabic and the Quran is written in Arabic, her relatives speak Arabic and she wants to deal with them as best as she can.

139

Students described Arabic as “our language” and indicated that they could not simply leave the language. While English was also awarded a high status, most of the students were clear that at least culturally and emotionally English was second to Arabic. During one of the conducted focus groups, students described this as follows:

I: What’s the most important language for you to know? S4bf1: I think English Ssbf1: English I: English even before Arabic? Ssbf1: No, no S2bf1: Not before Arabic, but after our language, it’s English. Because we use it a lot in our world. S1 bf1: And it’s beautiful too. S3bf1: But Arabic is the most important I: Why is it so important to know Arabic? For you? Ss bf1: It’s our language S2 bf1: It’s our religion’s language I: Okay, it’s the language of your religion. That’s very important S1 bf1: And we are living in Palestine S2 bf1: Palestine is an Arabic country

Discourse articulated by monolingual minority students concerning the status of Arabic referenced cultural, national and religious identifications and these markers influenced the position awarded to Arabic. That said, in some cases students qualified their declarations concerning the status of Arabic acknowledging that in order to advance and get ahead, knowledge of Arabic alone was not sufficient. During the same focus group, one of the students described this as follows:

S2bf1: Like there are two ways, a person must to know his basic language that’s in his culture and the language that everybody uses in the world, like English. To build himself, to help himself, to keep moving in this world. Like not just his main language will help him I: His main language like his mother tongue? S2bf1: His culture language

140

I: So everybody should speak two languages, at least? S2 bf1: Right—cause it will help him a lot.

As will be discussed in the section on English, students worked to find a balance between honoring their L1 and prioritizing English. Some students achieved this balance by equalizing the languages (everybody should be bilingual). Other students did not make an explicit choice but simply stated that they prefer English over other languages including Arabic. One student explained this as follows:

I: Ok. What language is more important, your first language, in this case Arabic, or English? S3B: Arabic and English are the best languages in the world. I love them so much. I: So they’re both important. Um, so one isn’t more important than the other? S3B: I don’t know but I like English more than other languages.

At the other end of the spectrum were students who indicated that Arabic carried little power or status. They were willing to relinquish Arabic in favor of what they perceived to be a more international, utilitarian and accessible language—namely English. The student who was highly fluent in English articulated this as follows:

I: What language is more important, your mother tongue or English? S1B: English. I: English. Can you elaborate a little bit. S1B: umm, sometimes, like English is not like, you know, I like English a lot. I mean it’s better than my mother language, a lot. I mean Arabic, so what, Arabic. But English, it’s like really special and useful. Arabic, we have different kinds of stuff cause like in Arabic there’s like Fousa and Ami stuff. . . English all the words are like in one dictionary and stuff and you can easily use it like-- like now

As was mentioned in the introduction to the Findings & Analysis section, students’ ambivalence towards the status of Arabic and their blanketed admiration for English may be tied, in part, to the fact that Arabic is a diglossic language. In the face of globalization and ever expanding

141 genres of communication, standard literary Arabic remains static. In contrast, varieties of

English are being adopted and adapted by multiple speech communities to reflect local cultures and practices (Crystal, 2010). One hypothesis is that participants identified with the malleability and communicative power conferred by English and therefore awarded it a higher status than

Arabic.

Students’ articulations concerning the status of Arabic represented a wide range of opinions. Most students awarded some importance to Arabic tying the language to their ethnicity and personal identity. As will be addressed in the section on English and identity, some

Palestinian participants had difficulty blending their allegiance to Arabic with their desire to prioritize English. This dissonance was also apparent in their articulated ambivalence concerning the status—or lack of status— awarded to Arabic.

Perceptions and Attitudes towards Arabic

In the subsequent section, I will address monolingual minority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards Arabic. As was mentioned in previous sections, monolingual minority students said they use Arabic in their immediate local surroundings, and they articulated feeling connected to the language. Students spoke about how they perceive of Arabic as “their language,” and this ownership connected Arabic to several identity camps including individual identifications and collective identifications.

Students said they perceive of Arabic as the language connected to their individual, personal identity. They indicated feeling obligated to the language and said they could not abandon it. This expressed personal identification and obligation to Arabic meant that students

142 perceived of Arabic as a significant and meaningful part of their ethnic tradition. Below are two examples from different interviews articulating this point:

I: Is there anything special about Arabic? S3B: It’s my mother language, so I can’t leave it.

* * *

I: What language is more important—Arabic or English? S10B: I think Arabic because I live in an Arabian community so we should talk with them as they speak. I: Ok. So it represents your community? S10B: Yeah. I: Does it represent you, also? Arabic? S10B: I think, yes, cause I’m Arabian.

Participants often merged together individual identifications and collective identifications. What was clear was that Arabic was the linguistic vehicle for encoding both personal and communal aspects of their culture. Students articulated feeling proud of their language and its accompanying cultural traditions. During the first focus group students articulated this as follows:

I: The language of your culture, what does that mean to you? S3 bf1: Pride S4 bf1: Our Arabic language I: Okay, in this case it’s Arabic for you S4 bf1: Yeah, we are proud about our language cause we are talking to each other with our language and we can understand each other by our language.

Across the board, students said they perceive of Arabic as the language tied to their culture, their ethnic traditions and their nation (i.e.. Palestine). While Arabic was not always the most utilitarian choice or the language that conferred the most power, students were adamant that it was through Arabic that their cultural traditions were encoded and transmitted.

143

A second point concerning students’ perceptions and attitudes towards Arab relates to the perceived similarities between Arabic and Hebrew articulated by participants. Students spoke about how they perceive of Arabic as similar to Hebrew. Like monolingual majority students, monolingual minority students drew parallels between Arabic and Hebrew both in terms of the linguistic structure of the languages and in terms of the role the languages play in the region.

Students said that Arabic and Hebrew were structurally similar to each other and that they were both Semitic languages. During one of the focus groups, students described these similarities as follows:

S4bf1: Hebrew is similar like Arabic. Like when you say— S1bf1: kelev in Hebrew, kalb in Arabic S2bf1: They are Semitic languages

A second student, who had previously studied French extensively, remarked that linguistically

Arabic and Hebrew belonged in one language family while English and French were part of a different language family. He explained this as follows:

I: Do you think English is different from other languages? S2B: No. It’s different from Arabic and Hebrew but other than that, no. I: It’s different from Hebrew and Arabic? S2B: Yeah. But French, not that different. I: Ok S2B: I learned French for two or three years. I: Right, of course— when you say different you mean because of grammar and the structure not the ideas in the language? S2B: Yeah. I mean words and something like that.

Discourse shows that while participants clearly perceived of Arabic as their first language, they also acknowledged that Arabic and Hebrew were, in fact, very similar languages.

144

This meta-cognitive recognition extended beyond purely linguistic structures to include their perceptions of the role the languages play in the region. Like monolingual majority students, monolingual minority students said that both Arabic and Hebrew were part of the local linguistic landscape. English, albeit important, was a foreign or outside entity. During the third focus group, a student elaborated on this idea as follows:

S2bf3: I think that Arabic is our main language in our country and I think that like schools must be strong in English but not the main language. Arabic and Hebrew must be the main languages because these languages will help us in this country. English must be strong to help us in other countries and to communicate with the world but um, not like the main language in our school.

From a linguistic and structural perspective, students indicated that Arabic and Hebrew were similar languages. However, Arabic was perceived as the language tied to their culture, identity and self, and these identifications did not carry over in any way into Hebrew.

Students’ articulated perceptions and attitudes towards Arabic show that participants maintain affirmative yet nostalgic associations with the language. They perceive of Arabic as deeply imbedded in both their past traditions and present cultural practices.

Summary of Findings related to Arabic: Monolingual Minority Students

This section has dealt with findings related to Arabic and monolingual minority students.

This study has found that monolingual minority students use Arabic in their immediate local surroundings. They also use Arabic when traveling in the Palestinian territories and in Arabic speaking countries that neighbor Israel. However, they do not use Arabic to conduct their daily activities in the wider local contact or to communicate with Jewish Israelis. Regarding the status of Arabic, discourse reflects a wide range of perspectives. Some students awarded the highest status to Hebrew because of the pervasiveness of the language and the need to use it in a variety

145 of situations. Other students awarded the highest status to Arabic linking the language to their religion, ethnicity and nation. Still other students awarded the highest status to English, rejecting the sociolinguistic traits that characterize Arabic and adopting the more linguistically malleable international English.

Students’ perceptions and attitudes toward Arabic reflected both emotional/personal connections to the language and meta-cognitive language awareness. Participants perceive of

Arabic as the language tied to their personal identity as Arabs and to their collective identity as

Palestinians. While students acknowledged that linguistically, Arabic and Hebrew were similar languages, they indicated that Arabic alone reflected their culture and identity. In the end, despite the global breadth of English and the local breadth of Hebrew, most students articulated positive perceptions about Arabic and remained committed to the language within their immediate communities of practice.

English

English Usage

In the following section, I will discuss English usage among monolingual minority students. As with the monolingual majority students, in particular, I will address English usage in three different arenas: (a) the international arena; (b) the local arena; and (c) the cyber arena.

Monolingual minority students described numerous circumstances where English usage was warranted. The specific parameters and sociolinguistic consequences are elaborated here.

English Usage in the International Arena

146

Students from the monolingual minority school mentioned their need to use English in the international arena. Many of the students had traveled outside of region, and they provided examples of times when they needed English or could imagine themselves hypothetically needing English. One student described this as follows:

S4bf1: I’ve been in Turkey and we were using the English language a lot over there because they don’t know Arabic or Hebrew.

Students from the monolingual minority school described situations outside of the local context where they needed English. However, like students from the monolingual majority school, most participants had never traveled to English speaking countries. Instead, they articulated needing to use English to communicate with people while traveling in countries such as Turkey, Greece,

Italy and France. English emerged as the common linguistic denominator and, as was previously described, as a language of wider communication (LWC) to overcome language and cultural barriers.

Unlike students from the monolingual majority school, monolingual minority students did not rely solely on English when traveling outside of Israel. In fact, several students explained that when they traveled to countries in the region such as Egypt or Jordan, they utilized Arabic. English was used as an LWC only when other linguistic options were not available. Moreover, while participants did indicate needing to use English in the international arena, their usage of English was more paramount in the local and cyber arenas.

English Usage in the Local Arena

Discourse from the monolingual minority school shows that there is an increasing need for the use of English in the local context in a variety of settings. Like their monolingual

147 majority counterparts, monolingual minority students gave examples of instances in their day-today lives when they needed to use English in the local context. Participants spoke about interacting with tourists, giving directions to visitors from abroad, and in general having to communicate with people who did not speak Arabic or Hebrew. During one of the conducted focus groups, a student articulated this in the following way:

S2bf1: If someone from America or from another country want to ask me, where like a place is and he ask me in English, I can’t answer him in Hebrew because he don’t know—I can help him with my English

Students also gave examples of situations where they needed to communicate with visitors in their communities and in their homes. Students described this as follows:

I: Have any of you been in an English speaking country before? S1bf1: Not to another country. But when visitors from America came to our house, I speak with them English. I: So sometimes when you’re in Beit safafah or—you have to use English. S2bf1: Yes, sometimes without traveling—right here

Discourse shows that in a variety of circumstances students needed to use English in the local context when encountering outsiders or non-locals. In addition, students articulated several points concerning the use of English in their local school context.

Monolingual minority students spoke at length about their desire to learn English. They identified the classroom as one of the primary places where they learn and use English or could potentially learn and use English. Some of the students said that the classroom context was not conducive to learning English and that their English teacher did not use English but only spoke in Arabic when teaching them. Preliminary observations in the students’ English class support

148 these statements. Students and the teacher use English minimally, if at all, in their school environs.

Students were divided as to whether more English should be introduced to their school context. When asked whether it would be a positive decision if the prime minister were to come to their school and implement an all-English policy, some students were supportive of such an initiative. They did not indicate feeling threatened by English or that something would be lost.

Rather, Arabic would be relegated to their home environs, and their school would be an English environment. One student described this as follows:

I: Ok. What language is more important, Arabic or English? S12B: Maybe Arabic because it’s my mother language so—but English too because I love this language. I: So if the prime minister came to your school tomorrow and said you’re only going to study in English, you and all your friends, how do you think you would feel? Do you think that would be a good decision? S12B: Maybe yes, it’s gonna be a good decision. We can talk Arabic out of the school. It’s not important. It’s good in my opinion. I: So if you didn’t study Arabic at school you would still have it at home? S12B: In home or I would bring some teacher to the house to make me learn Arabic.

Other students were opposed to implementing an all English initiative in their school. Their opposition was twofold and stemmed from (1) the linguistic challenges and (2) ideological objections. The former refers to challenges and difficulties such an initiative would pose. It would simply be too difficult to study only in English. The latter refers to ideological objections that link students’ ethnicity and identity to Arabic. In other words, Arabs use Arabic and therefore their studies must solely be in Arabic. One of the students elaborated on this opposition as follows:

I: If the prime minister came to your school and said from now on you and all your friends are going to study only in English, how do you think you would feel?

149

S11B: I feel that we are Arabian so we don’t— we shouldn’t talk just English, that’s awful. I: That’s awful. Why is that awful? S11B: Cause this is our mother language so we can’t leave it. The English language is the second language that we talk so we shouldn’t talk English all the time and not talk Arabic in school. We have to talk with our friends in Arabic cause we are Arabian and Arabians talk just Arabic with each other.

Like students from the monolingual majority school, some monolingual minority students indicated that too much English would be a threat to their local identity which students tied to the local language. English usage and proficiency in the language were highly valued by participants. However, in the school context English was to be used in moderation.

With respect to the local arena, students were also asked questions about their use of

English in day-to-day bilingual encounters between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. As was previously mentioned, the emphasis was on daily, ordinary interactions that might occur in the grocery store or the mall or between friends.

Students from the monolingual minority school gave varied answers in response to questions about interactions between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. Some students were clear that with interactions involving Jewish Israelis the lingua franca should be Hebrew. In part, this choice was simply one of pragmatics as students said that it would be easier to speak in Hebrew than in English. Other student discourse shows that participants felt pride in knowing Hebrew and being able to communicate and use the language fluently. One student articulated this in the following way:

I: Ok. If you were to have a Jewish friend what language do you think you would speak to him or maybe if you have Jewish friends, what language? S2B: I speak to them in Hebrew. I: In Hebrew? Not in English? S2B: No. I KNOW Hebrew; I don’t need to talk to him in English.

150

For some participants, Hebrew usage was a practical choice. For other students, Hebrew was a means for them to exert power. Speaking Hebrew during interactions that involved Jewish and

Palestinian Israelis emerged as a way of demonstrating/maintaining power. Participants were well aware of the fact that most Jewish Israelis do not know Arabic, and that fluency in Hebrew was a way for them to maintain the upper hand. Students described this as a “we know your language and you do not know our language” phenomenon.

Other study participants from the monolingual minority school said that they use English in interactions between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. As with Hebrew usage, for some participants this was a pragmatic choice because they did not speak Hebrew well. One student articulated this as follows:

S1bf3: I go places where they (Jews) speak Hebrew only so it’s kind of hard to communicate with them. So I speak English, and that helps a lot.

Like Hebrew, for some participants English usage was a utilitarian choice. In addition, in a manner similar to Hebrew, students also spoke about how English usage in interactions between

Jewish and Palestinian Israelis was a means for exerting power. However, unlike Hebrew,

English usage had the added benefit of being a tool for dismantling the sense of occupation that accompanied Hebrew usage. One student articulated this sentiment in the following excerpt:

I: You said you don’t feel comfortable speaking Hebrew with a Jewish person S11B: yeah. I: Do you feel more comfortable speaking English with Jewish people? S11B: Yeah, cause I don’t want to talk with them Hebrew so I talk with them English and let them also talk English. I: Ok. Why don’t you want to talk Hebrew with them? S11B: Cause you feel that they are possessive of you. I: Ok. And when you speak English, you don’t feel that way? S11B: Yeah. Cause not all of them speak English. So when you are gonna talk with them English, they go oh my g-d, she’s talking English and we don’t know how to speak English.

151

I: Ok. So you maintain some power. S11B: Yeah.

English usage in Arabic-Hebrew interactions became not only a means for leveling the playing field but, in some cases, for giving Palestinian Israelis the upper hand. In this particular context,

English usage provided emancipation from occupation. It is worthwhile emphasizing that this

“emancipation” came not from a sense that English was a neutral language but rather from students’ impression that Jewish Israelis do not speak English particularly well and certainly not as well as the Palestinian Israeli cohort. As such, English usage provided leverage for

Palestinian participants. In the second focus group at the monolingual minority school, students articulated this in the following way:

S4bf2: Maybe if we talk English, and they don’t know English, so they’re going to be in shock and they won’t know what to say. S3bf2: Like we would be better than them.

English usage emerged as a means for “being better than the Jews”. It also functioned as a tool for circumventing Hebrew and the multiple connotations that can accompany Hebrew usage. In the end, for monolingual minority students both Hebrew usage and English usage were tied to leverage and empowerment.

English Usage in the Cyber Arena

English usage in the cyber arena refers primarily to computer use involving technology, media and internet applications. Such usage transcends local and international frameworks and constitutes a major part of participants’ use of the English language. During one of the conducted focus groups, students described this as follows:

152

S2bf1: We use English sometimes on the internet and on the computer. We use English very, very much because Arabic is not that basic a language in the internet. The English is more basic and more important. S1bf1: popular S2 bf1:. . . like when we do a search I: A search, in Google or something? Ssbf1: Yes

Study participants use English extensively in the cyber arena. In particular, students mentioned using the internet, Facebook , iPhone applications and any number of technological services that require English. One student described this as follows:

S1B: Online I only speak English, I have a MySpace, Facebook, most of that like that people do. I speak with myself in English, I text in English—everything. My lifestyle is in English. I: And who do you talk to online? S1B: Many, many friends I: People from here? S1B: No, no. I don’t talk to anyone from here, Arabs, I don’t talk to Arabs. I talk to friends from USA-- Cali-- USA, Britain, Liverpool, London, umm--

Students spoke about the need to use English when they were using the computer or were

“online.” They also spoke about how a considerable part of their English language learning had occurred via technology and the media. In addition to computer applications, students mentioned watching television and movies and listening to music in English. During one of the interviews, a participant explained this in the following way:

I: So through your brother, that’s how you know English? S3B: And also through movies and internet, I chat with people from America and other countries. I: Wow, hilu (nice). You speak very well

English acquisition and subsequent usage was no longer principally something that occurred in formal educational settings such as the classroom. Rather, via technological avenues students

153 acquired excellent skills in English and gained opportunities to engage with and make use of the language.

Like students from the monolingual majority school, English emerged as an indispensable tool for internet use and technological applications. Students were aware of this and articulated a need and a desire to advance in English and therefore to gain access to the multiple fields connected to information technology.

Summary of Findings: English Usage

This section has dealt with English language usage among monolingual minority students in three areas: the international arena, the local arena and the cyber/technological arena. In the international arena, students use English to communicate with speakers of other languages.

While they articulated using English as a LWC, at times they also made use of Arabic depending on their location of travel. In the local arena, participants use English to communicate with tourists and visitors. In addition, sometimes they use English to interact and communicate with

Hebrew speakers. For the most part, they did not articulate feeling threatened by English and for pragmatic or ideological reasons opted to use it over Hebrew. In the cyber arena, students regularly use English. Technology and media resources have contributed significantly to students’ acquisition of English. Discourse shows that English is a central linguistic tool for monolingual minority students in the global, local and cyber arenas.

English Status

The following section addresses the status of English for monolingual minority students.

Like students from the monolingual majority school, most participants from the monolingual

154 minority school gave emotional priority to their L1, in this case Arabic. However, discourse clearly shows that students coveted the power and social mobility conferred by knowledge of

English and viewed the language as imperative for their future. During the first focus group, one of the participants articulated this in the following way:

S2bf1: English is very popular, a language that all over the world people use it. And I think it is very, very important for the person to know it cause if the person don’t know English, he can’t do— he can’t build himself in the world and like, he don’t know what’s going to be in the future and if he’s going to travel to another country so it’s very useful for him to know English.

When taking into account solely pragmatic considerations, English was awarded the highest status. Students viewed knowledge of the language as crucial for travel, communication and future success.

Like students from the monolingual majority school, discourse shows that for monolingual minority students the high status awarded to English was linked to the linguistic instrumentality associated with English. This instrumentality was twofold and was connected to

(1) socioeconomic mobility and (2) geographical mobility. The former refers to the ability to

“get ahead” reiterated by multiple participants. Knowledge of English was viewed as a means for building oneself and achieving success. The latter refers to the ability to move away from

Israel, to study abroad, to pursue international careers and in general to abandon the connotations accompanying their status as a marginalized minority. During the first focus group, several participants described this as follows:

S1bf1: I have to learn English because if I want to go out of this country, I HAVE to speak English. If I don’t know how to speak English, I won’t know how to build myself. S4 bf1: It’s a pass in our life because if we want to go out, I don’t know, to another city, maybe, countries maybe, like where we can go and they talk English.

155

Monolingual minority participants viewed English as vital for advancing themselves and ultimately leaving Israel/Palestine. For a few students this instrumentality was not only critical for mobility but was an imperative component of their mere existence. By prioritizing English and awarding it a high status, students were attending to their sustainability and survival. One of the participants explained this idea in the following way:

I: Do you think learning English is important? And if so, why or why not? S1B: Yes-- because English is like a worldwide language and if you know English you’re fine. If you know English, you can survive anywhere.

English, unlike Arabic or Hebrew, was identified as the language for survival. No matter how ideologically or emotionally committed participants were to Arabic, survival of the fittest pragmatism generally meant that English ultimately earned a higher status than Arabic.

The final point I wish to cover in reference to the status of English refers to elitism. As was previously mentioned in the chapter addressing monolingual majority students, discourse shows that monolingual minority students associated English with the educated and the elite.

When asked what kinds of people know English, participants mentioned characteristics such as educated, cultured and civilized. One student elaborated as follows:

I: What do you think people think of English speakers in general? S5B: (from Arabic) Educated T: Educated S5B: (from Arabic) Cultured I: Again? T: Cultured S5B: (from Arabic) They travel or they travel abroad or they learned courses. They are educated and that sort of stuff.

In general, students ascribed attributes associated with power and prestige to English speakers.

They also singled out Christian Arabs and Ashkenazi Jews, two stereotypically affluent

156 populations, when asked what kinds of Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinians know English. For the most part, discourse shows that monolingual minority students like their majority counterparts, associated English with the educated and the elite—entities that symbolize power and clout and ultimately a correlation between English and high language status.

Summary of Findings: English Status

Monolingual minority students awarded a high status to English indicating that the language was critical for their success and achievement. Participants awarded instrumentality to

English and identified the language as both a means to success and a means for survival.

Students also spoke about how knowledge of English was connected to being elite and being educated and how these attributes contributed to students awarding a high status to English.

Ultimately, while Arabic remained an important personal and familial language, English was the language that conferred power, prestige and socioeconomic mobility.

Perceptions and Attitudes towards English

The following section deals with monolingual minority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards English. Like in the previous chapter, I address the same three overarching topics as were discussed in relation to the monolingual majority school. Namely: (1) students’ perceptions of English and language learning (2) students’ perceptions of English as an aspect of identity and (3) students’ perceptions of English and conflict resolution/peace education initiatives.

Language Learning

157

Student discourse pertaining to perceptions of English language learning refers to both learning that occurs in the classroom and learning that occurs outside of the classroom. As in the previous chapter, in particular I focus on three aspects of English language learning: acquisition; conferred knowledge; and pedagogy.

English acquisition for monolingual minority students primarily involves Arabic and

English. As was previously mentioned, in the classroom-setting students are taught English through Arabic and their L1 is regularly used to teach vocabulary, grammar and syntax. Students learn English in addition to Hebrew and Arabic, and they must work to achieve proficiency in all three languages and to find a balance between their linguistic commitments. Discourse was divided between students who said that they perceive of English as very difficult to learn and not very accessible and students who said that they perceive of English as easy to learn and readily available. The former were primarily students who were not proficient in English and articulated having little exposure or opportunities to use the language. One student described this as follows:

I: Can you think of a situation where it would be better to use English than Arabic? S4B: No I: No, never? S4B: (from Arabic) No. English, we don't speak English. The teachers that taught us didn't teach us well. T: She’s like, we don't need to talk English like never. The teachers that taught us they didn't— also they didn't teach us well S4B: (from Arabic) they talked to us in Arabic, not in English. T: They come into class and they teach English in Arabic. They don't speak to the students in English so she’s like I don't know how to use the language.

In contrast to this perspective of English acquisition were students who viewed the language as accessible, easy to learn and a gateway to information. Such a perspective was generally

158 articulated by students who were highly proficient in English. The student who identified himself as fluent in English articulated this as follows:

I: Ok, do you think English is different from other languages? S1B: Um, yes I do. I: How so? S1B: Cause like I think also like I think like there is no other language like it, like it’s easy to learn, fun to learn and like it’s useful worldwide, like I said. I: Ok-- And you don’t think that’s true for other languages? S1B: No, I don’t.

For the most part, these students indicated that they had acquired much of their English outside of the classroom setting. Students whose acquisition of English depended primarily on the classrooms setting, for the most part did not achieve proficiency in the language. As was previously mentioned, English acquisition was no longer something that occurred primarily in formal educational settings but rather via media, technology and global access.

English acquisition was directly related to students’ perceptions of the knowledge conferred through exposure to English. Like students from the monolingual majority school, many participants indicated that in learning English, they had also learned about new concepts and ideas. Students said that their knowledge of English had broadened the range of information available to them. One student described this in the following way:

I: Ok. Do you think who you are is connected in any way to English? S11B: Yeah, cause if I’m smart then I can learn this language and I can understand it and maybe I can communicate with other people through it. I: Ok. Do you feel learning English has exposed you to new ideas or cultures or things? S11B: Um, yeah cause when you are watching T.V. on the channels that they are just speaking English, so you are watching new ideas and learning something new.

Students perceptions of the knowledge conferred through English refers to new concepts and ideas imbedded in the English language. It also pertains to a perceived communicative

159 competency accompanying the acquisition of a global language. Students mentioned being able to communicate with a wide range of English speakers and subsequently learning and benefiting from the knowledge that accompanied these instances of communication. One participant expressed this as follows:

I: Ah, ok. Do you think that learning English has exposed you to new ideas or things that you didn’t know before? S3B: From different people. I meet him and I talk to him. I get new ideas. I: News ideas. Can you think of an example? S3B: Um, like I talk to a person from America and he say to me that I must speak with more people from America or from different countries to make my English better. And I did that. I: And it helped you? S3B: Yes, it helped.

Many students perceive of English language learning as opening up the world to them. Students said that English enables them to communicate with people all over the world, to use technology and to acquire new knowledge and information.

The final point I wish to address concerning students’ perceptions of English language learning relates to pedagogy. Discourse shows that students feel there are major flaws in the pedagogical practices employed in their classroom. In particular, students mentioned the lack of

English being used when teaching English and the emphasis on “old school” didactic methods focusing on the book/textbook, rote memorization and language devoid of context. One of the students who was not very proficient in English described this as follows:

I: Do you feel that learning English has exposed you to new ideas or cultures? S9B: (from Arabic) I don't like the way the teacher teaches, I don't know, school does not benefit me with anything when it comes to studying English. When the teacher comes into class she asks us to open the text book. We only study from the text book and we do not have conversations in English very often. T: she says no and she does not like the way the teacher teaches, that she always comes into class and says open your text book on page blah blah blah and they never speak and they never have discussions.

160

Students indicated that they thought learning English was important and that knowledge of the language was imperative for their future. However, they view current pedagogical practices as passé and spoke about wanting more of an emphasis on communication and technology. In effect, students are still being taught traditional EFL but they want didactic methods that more closely resemble EIL. As was previously mentioned, these two frameworks are not mutually exclusive. However, as will be addressed in the discussion section, more awareness and training is needed as well as reform in language education strategies, curricula and instruction, if EIL pedagogy is to be practiced.

Language & Identity

Discourse related to English and identity shows that for monolingual minority students

English contributed to ongoing identity negotiation processes including their perceptions of others and their perceptions of self. As with monolingual majority students, first I will address perceptions of identity related to others and then I will address perceptions of identity related to self. Discourse shows that the acquisition and subsequent use of English plays a role in students’ representations of identity—both for others and for themselves.

Monolingual minority students had clear ideas about the identifications accompanying

English speakers. They ascribed romanticized notions to English speakers such as good, kind and well-mannered. They did not offer critical perspectives but simply mentioned broad, positive associations. One of the participants articulated this as follows:

I: Ok. Um, now I’m going to ask you some questions about what you think an English speaker is. If I say to you, “an English speaker is?” How would you finish that sentence?

161

S11B: Ah, a good person maybe—cause he talk a good language and he speak a language that everybody will know it in the future or in our time. So, it’s a good language and he’s a good person cause he know how to speak English and how to communicate with English people.

According to some of the monolingual minority participants, a person was “good” simply by the virtue of knowing English. In addition, as was previously mentioned, they perceived of English speakers as educated and elite. For the most part, they identified an English speaker as someone who is not from Palestine, someone who is smart and someone who has studied a lot. The following excerpt demonstrates this point:

I: I’m going to ask you about what you think is connected to an English speaker, Um, if I say to you, an English speaker is—who is an English speaker? S3B: An outsider, outside of the country. I: Outside of Palestine, bara min Palestine, ok. Um, what kinds of people know English? S3B: People who learn more than one language and he studies. If you ask somebody who don’t study and who don’t do good in school, he won’t know what you’re saying. Cause he don’t learn English or any languages.

Generally speaking, students put forth idealistic notions of English speaker identifications.

Nevertheless, they did not tie these traits to specific ethnicities or countries. Instead, like students from the monolingual majority school, they ascribed denationalized attributes to English speakers. One student described this as follows:

S2bf1: English is in every country I think. I: If I say to you, an English speaker, do you think of somebody specific? S2bf1: Like if I saw you, everyone says that oh she speaks English, she’s American. So we go to ask from where you are and then we know that you are not American. English is not just for—I understand now that English is for everyone and not just for Americans. Like Arabs speak Arabic and Turkish speak Turkey and German—but English is for everyone.

This transnationalization of English is in line with a relatively new body of research dealing with the reappropriation of English by speakers in the expanding circle (see for example Dissanayake,

162

2009). To a degree, participants were able to redefine their associations with English and to apply them to other cultural and ethnic groups. As will be discussed in the subsequent paragraph, this included not only identifications they ascribed to others but also identifications they ascribed to themselves.

As was mentioned as the beginning of this chapter, all the participants except for one identified themselves as L1 Arabic speakers. Nevertheless, there were a number of highly proficient English speakers, and discourse suggests that their knowledge of English contributed to their forming a positive self-identity. In other words, they assumed the previously mentioned identifications they ascribed to English speakers—such as smart, special and successful. One student articulated this as follows:

I: Is it important to your parents that you study English? S12B: Yeah, because they want me to be, you know, smart, and know more languages. They want to feel proud of me. I: And somebody who knows English is someone who’s smart, in your opinion? S12B: Yeah.

Knowledge of English facilitated the construction of positive identities. Students mentioned that they were proud of themselves because they spoke English and that knowing English contributed to them feeling like they were special. Along with these positive traits, a few students articulated cultural dissonance between their desire to know and use English and the expectation that as

Palestinians they should primarily know and use Arabic. By demonstrating proficiency in

English, they were betraying their ethnic identity and were somehow less authentically

Palestinian. The student who identified himself as fluent in English described this as follows:

I: How would you describe yourself? S1B: Well, hmm, something negative about me like I’m lost sometimes.

163

I: Lost? Okay. S1B: I feel like I’m in a place where I don’t really belong, you know. I: And you think part of that is because you’re an English speaker? S1B: Yes, mostly because I mean like my first language now is English and um, well Arabic isn’t like a priority for me. And like I’m not that great with Arab people and stuff. I am isolated and stuff so mostly yea. But like I also feel like I’m good at English so that’s a positive. Um, I can make good friends sometimes and that’s a positive too. I: So you don’t identify as a Palestinian? Or? S1B: Nationality wise, I do, of course. I mean, I can’t change my heritage but if I could change my heritage I’d go umm, I don’t know what I’d be. I mean. . . I: It’s interesting though because it’s-- your saying that your heritage is one thing and your language is another thing and that here-- S1B: It’s a conflict!

As will be addressed in the discussion section, some L1 Arabic speakers from both the monolingual minority school and the integrated bilingual school articulated cultural identity dissonance. This was particularly paramount for students who were highly proficient in English.

Unlike L1 Hebrew speakers, who articulated being able to converge different group identifications (such as being a Hebrew speaker and being an English speaker), L1 Arabic speakers wrestled with competing identity expectations which, at times, resulted in discord.

They mentioned that other Palestinians might equate their fluency in English as meaning they were not authentically Palestinian—and possibly even supporters of the Israel/USA alliance. In this case, English was no longer perceived as a denationalized language but rather directly linked to the United States and Israel. As has been written about extensively (Brutt-Griffler & Davies,

2006; Phan Le Ha, 2005; Kachru, 1992), the acquisition of English has an effect on local/indigenous self-perceptions, and identity accord is not always readily achieved.

Conflict Resolution and Peace Education Initiatives

The final section of this chapter deals with students perceptions of the role of English in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives. A major impetus for this study was to

164 investigate students’ perceptions of the role of English and English language learning within the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like students from the monolingual majority school, monolingual minority students articulated varying perspectives with respect to the role of English in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives. Students’ perceptions ranged from English being perceived as the middle way to English being perceived as part of the conflict.

Some students said they perceive of English as a denationalized middle choice. They said that Palestinian Israelis might not speak Hebrew well and that Jewish Israelis might not speak Arabic well and that English—as an international language— could serve as a bridge between the two languages. During the second focus group, a student expressed this as follows:

I: Do you think that the Israeli Palestinian conflict would be easier to solve if Israelis and Palestinians spoke English to each other? S3bf2: Yeah, because it’s the middle choice. Maybe if you talk Arabic, the Israelis can’t understand your language and if you talking Hebrew, the Arabs can’t understand but if you talk in English the two will understand each other.

Students also gave concrete examples of times when they had participated in peace education programs and had needed to use English. These students participated in short-term encounter projects between Jews and Palestinians. They spoke about how these encounters, which took place abroad and transpired solely in English, had given them the opportunity to make “real friends” and “be so happy with each other.” During the second focus group, a student described her experience as follows:

S4bf2:I was in a soccer team that between Hebrew and Arabian but it’s from the American, I don’t know, the American (in Arabic) how do you say— T: They sponsored the program. I: Oh, okay. S4bf2: We lived, we traveled to America and Canada when we was in that soccer team and we talked English.

165

Later on in the focus group she added:

S4bf2: We were Arabian and Jewish and all the time we’ve been friends and talking a lot English. We were just Arabian and Jewish not from Jordan or from the United States. And it was amazing there, really.

For some participants, English was clearly perceived as the middle way and the means to begin reconciliation between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. They argued that English was more neutral, more appropriate, less politically loaded, and an international language that everybody could understand.

At the other end of the spectrum were students who said that English was not a part of the linguistic climate in Israel or in Palestine and that each cohort needed to speak the others’ language. One student, who was not very proficient in English, described this as follows:

S4B: (from Arabic) We don’t mix a lot with English speakers. . . what's important to us, the Arabs, is that the Jews will know how to speak Arabic and that we will know how to speak Hebrew. I: O.k. Why is it more important for— why is it more important that the Jews know Arabic and that the Palestinians know Hebrew? S4B: (from Arabic) Because we mix together, we live together in the same area, we visit each other, we have friends and so we must know how to speak each other’s language I: Okay. And the best way to talk to each other is through Arabic and Hebrew? S4B: Yes

A few students said that it was important that Palestinian-Israelis speak Hebrew and that Jewish

Israelis speak Arabic. However, most participants did not articulate this as a priority or mention the simultaneous use of Arabic and Hebrew in coexistence initiatives. In fact, as was mentioned in the section on Arabic usage, some monolingual minority students said that that Arabic should not be used in planned encounters between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis. As was previously mentioned, students said they perceive of Jewish Israelis using Arabic as a symbol of further occupation and disempowerment. English or Hebrew were better linguistic alternatives.

166

This finding has implications for peace education initiatives that promote bilingualism and efforts to learn the language of the other side. Within the framework of this study, the majority of the monolingual minority students placed no importance on Jewish students knowing or using

Arabic. In fact, Jewish students using or learning Arabic carried negative connotations. Such a finding could well mean that educational initiatives devoted to peace and coexistence between

Jews and Palestinians would have equal impact if they conducted their initiatives in English or

Hebrew and invested in other components of their programs.

Summary of Findings: Perceptions and Attitudes towards English

This section has dealt with monolingual minority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards English. In particular, I discussed (1) students perceptions of English language learning

(2) students perceptions of the role English in identity construction processes and (3) students perceptions of English and conflict resolution/peace education initiatives. With respect to

English language learning, students spoke a lot about their classroom context. Some mentioned that in school the medium of instruction for English was primarily Arabic and that the classroom setting was not conducive to English language acquisition. Students who were proficient in

English said that they had acquired the bulk of their language skills outside of the classroom, particularly through media and technology. Moreover, students said that through learning

English, the amount information available to them had increased and they had been introduced to new ideas, concepts and opportunities for communication. Despite these affirmations, students indicated that classroom learning and current pedagogical practices were out of date and did not meet global or technological needs. Pedagogical reform is needed if English language learning within the school context is to remain relevant and effective.

167

With respect to the role of English in identity negotiation processes, discourse suggests both positive and negative consequences. Some students ascribed positive identity markers to

English speakers—such as intelligent, special and successful. Those participants who spoke

English well seemed to internalize the positive attributes they accredited to English speakers. In other words, knowledge of English contributed to their formation of positive identities such as being smart, successful and self confident. On the other hand, a few students articulated identity dissonance directly related to a perceived cultural conflict expressed, in part, through English and Arabic. Students mentioned that their fluency in English was sometimes perceived as a betrayal of their Palestinian identity and they struggled to find a balance between their linguistic and ethnic obligations.

With respect to English and coexistence initiatives, discourse shows that the majority of the students preferred to use English in such circumstances and they viewed the language as the middle way. While a few students said that Arabic-Hebrew bilingualism was preferable in encounters between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis, most participants did not give importance to Arabic usage among Jewish Israelis. In fact, they viewed usage of Arabic as something negative and opted to revert to either Hebrew or English.

It would be erroneous to say that students perceived of English as a strictly neutral force with no national alliances. That said, discourse does support an evolving tranationalization of

English tied to globalization and prosperity which may ultimately pave the way for better understanding, cooperation and in time, mutual respect.

Summary of Findings Related to the Monolingual Minority School

168

This section has dealt with findings related to the monolingual minority school (Arabic-

English). Monolingual minority students—as Muslim and Christian L1 Arabic speakers— are an ethnic and linguistic minority in Israel. While they predominantly use Arabic in their home and school environs, they spoke about needing to use Hebrew in the local public arena and needing to use English in the international and cyber arenas. Some student said that they use

English in the local public arena thereby circumventing Hebrew and the ideological connotations accompanying the language. Other students resigned themselves to using Hebrew in the local context and even reveled in the perceived power and clout accompanying Hebrew usage.

Ultimately, discourse supports the fact that L1 Arabic speakers must know and use Arabic,

Hebrew and English. They wrestle with competing linguistic demands and must find a balance between L1 maintenance, local linguistic demands and global linguistic needs.

In reference to language status, student discourse reflected a range of perspectives.

Culturally and emotionally, students generally awarded the highest status to Arabic. However, participants were acutely aware of the power and prestige accompanying Hebrew in the local arena and accompanying English in the international arena. As such, language status was not strictly hierarchical but depended on which linguistic entity was being prioritized. Where ethnic identity and cultural obligations were concerned, Arabic was awarded the highest status.

However, as in many situations involving ethnic minorities, students often needed to prioritize the languages that would offer them the greatest instrumentality and power.

In reference to perceptions and attitudes towards Hebrew, Arabic and English, participants articulated perspectives that are often associated with ethno-linguistic minorities. In other words, they relegated their L1, in this case Arabic, to the personal/familial sphere while the majority language dominated the wider social context. For monolingual minority students,

169

Arabic was perceived as the language tied to ethnic identity and emotional/personal connections.

However, beyond these personal associations participants had little say about Arabic. Hebrew, on the other hand, evoked a range of perspectives. Some students’ maintained negative perceptions of Hebrew. Nevertheless, in the end they generally accepted the language as a principal part of the linguistic climate in Israel and a necessary tool for local success. Other students reappropriated Hebrew, adopting more positive perceptions of the language and reconstructing their perceptions to encompass power and clout when engaging with Hebrew speakers.

Participants also perceived of English as an indispensable linguistic tool although learning the language and having regular access to the language was not always feasible. The range of English language abilities among participants was very broad. Those students who had acquired a high level of proficiency in English articulated appropriating aspects of English into their constructed identities. At times, this appropriation resulted in dissonance between their identifications as Palestinians and their identifications as English speakers. Students mentioned that they might be perceived by other Palestinians or Palestinian Israelis as not genuinely

Palestinian.

In the end, while most participants indicated that English was a reasonable middle choice when seeking to mediate between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis, English was not inherently neutral. Moreover, the interplay between Arabic, English and Hebrew supports a rich and complex sociolinguistic climate—one where linguistic commitments are constantly being reassessed and subsequently reorganized.

170

SECTION (3): Bilingual Minority Majority Students

Introduction to the Bilingual Minority Majority School

The following section deals with findings related to the bilingual minority majority school (Arabic-Hebrew-English). In general, students from the bilingual minority majority school exemplified greater linguistic and ethnic diversity than their cohorts from the monolingual schools. While the school context espouses one of two identifications—Arab or Jew, study participants did not always fit into these categorizations. Thus, for example, two of the students who identified themselves as Christian were not ethnically Arab, and several of the Palestinians

Israeli students said that although Arabic was their mother tongue, they felt more comfortable using Hebrew. Because of the limitations of the categorizations, Arab and Jew, I have opted to refer to the group as bilingual minority majority students with the hope that such nomenclature will include and accommodate the heterogeneity that was present among the participants. At the same time, when emphasizing ethnic or linguistic difference, I refer to participants as Jewish

Israelis and Palestinian Israelis or L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers. These categorizations are not all inclusive, and I aim not to lose sight of the rich complexity that accompanies in depth qualitative research. However, in order to expand on points and findings, some lexicon must be employed albeit at times compromised.

As in the previous two chapters, I will first discuss findings related to the languages of local consequence— (1) Hebrew and (2) Arabic, and then discuss findings related to the language of global consequence— (3) English. I also follow the same subcategories as outlined in the introduction to the Findings & Analysis chapter (p.79). Bilingual minority-majority students attend an integrated bilingual school characterized by ethnic diversity and constant

171 language interchange between Hebrew, Arabic and English. This multilingual context— in its own right and as a tool for comparison— sheds light on a wide range of sociolinguistic consequences pertaining to English and English language learning that will be explored throughout this section.

Hebrew

Hebrew Usage

The integrated bilingual school involved in this study is modeled after a strong form of bilingual education entitled two-way or dual language programs (for further discussion see

Baker, 2006). Such a program aims to produce students who are bilingual and biliterate in both the majority and the minority languages. In the case of the Israeli context, Arabic and Hebrew are the target languages. To date, despite laudable efforts, the school has not been successful in achieving bilingualism for majority language speakers (i.e. L1 Hebrew speakers), and the lingua franca of the school is primarily Hebrew ( in Hebrew, Amara, 2005). Outside of the school environment, in particular in the public sphere, students also encounter a Hebrew-dominant context. Student discourse shows that like the other schools researched, Hebrew is used for most daily and routine activities such as hanging out at the mall or going to the supermarket. One student described this in the following way:

I: Um, and what about Hebrew. Can you think of a situation where it would be better to use Hebrew instead of English? S1D: in Israel (laughing). I: In Israel? S1D: Like all the public places in Israel, I think. I: Um, cause people don’t really speak English? S1D: Yeah, so it’s gonna help you like to talk to people here.

172

All of the participants talked about using Hebrew in their day to day lives. L1 Arabic speakers specified further explaining that for the most part they use Hebrew in situations involving Jewish

Israelis. Students said they not only use Hebrew but they prefer to speak Hebrew with Israeli

Jews. Their reasoning behind this preference was principally utilitarian. Students mentioned that Arabic was a difficult language and that Jewish people do not usually know or use Arabic in the same ways in which Palestinian Israelis know and use Hebrew. In order to maximize communication and efficiency, they said that Hebrew should be the default language. An Arabic speaking participant explained this as follows:

S9D: [The Jewish students] don’t use Arabic like we use Hebrew because they, well, they’re not going to the mall and speaking to all the people there in Arabic, and well we do. We speak to everyone in Hebrew so— I: Okay. So with your Jewish friends, what language do you communicate in? S9D: Hebrew. I: Always Hebrew? S9D: yeah. Well I, sometimes I say things in Arabic but it feels weird that you speak to someone who is Hebrew in Arabic because he doesn’t know Arabic well so I probably will just speak in Hebrew and solve it.

L1 Arabic speakers were very frank about the fact that they needed to use Hebrew with their

Jewish Israeli counterparts. In contrast to students from the monolingual minority school, for the most part Palestinian Israelis from the bilingual school did not indicate that they resented using

Hebrew or that they felt occupied by the language. Discourse shows that they have come to terms with the fact that they need to use Hebrew to communicate with Jewish Israelis. One

Palestinian Israeli student articulated this in the following way:

I: With your Jewish friends, what language do you communicate in? S4D: Hebrew. I: Always Hebrew? S4D: yeah, always. If they talk English, like maybe. I: Do you ever wish you could communicate with them in Arabic?

173

S4D: No, I don’t have a problem to talk with them in Hebrew.

Bilingual minority-majority students adopted a very practical stance concerning language usage which included acknowledging the need to use Hebrew in the Israeli context. Despite the fact that they were learning in a bilingual educational context, L1 Arabic speakers did not indicate resentment or expectations with respect to their Hebrew speaking peers’ language capacities. In the local context, Hebrew emerged as the language of wider communication, and all involved parties seemed to accept this reality.

For all participants from the bilingual minority majority school, Hebrew usage abounds.

Despite the fact that students study in a bilingual Arabic-Hebrew context and, in the ever globalizing national context, English has infiltrated more and more spheres, students ultimately live and function in a context that requires Hebrew. Students remained highly aware of this reality and, as will be addressed in subsequent sections, used Hebrew to their advantage and success.

Hebrew Status

The articulated status of Hebrew for bilingual minority majority students was not definitive and reflected competing priorities. Discourse shows that both L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers wrestled to find a balance between emotional/personal linguistic priorities and utilitarian linguistic priorities. Most study participants, both Jewish Israelis and

Palestinian Israelis, indicated that in the local arena Hebrew was the most important language.

However, this declaration was frequently qualified by an acknowledgement of additional considerations that seemed to have an effect on the status awarded to Hebrew.

174

Student discourse shows that Jewish Israelis generally awarded a high status to Hebrew, in part, because of a declared personal identification with the language. One L1 Hebrew speaker described this identification in the following way:

I: What language is more important, Hebrew or English? . . . S12D: For me personally, Hebrew. I: Can you explain why? S12D: Because that’s the language I speak here and that’s my mother’s language and that’s the one I feel the most comfortable to talk and— I: Okay. So it’s part of who you are? S12D: Yes.

Like students from the monolingual majority school, for the Jewish Israeli participants from the bilingual school, Hebrew resonated as the language that reflected their culture and personal connections.

Hebrew was also awarded a high status because students identified the language as imperative for being successful Israel. This perceived instrumentality was articulated by both L1

Arabic speakers and L1 Hebrew speakers. Participants awarded a high status to Hebrew because they viewed the language as key to their prosperity and ability to succeed in the future. During one of the conducted interviews, a student described this in the following way:

I: What language is more important? Your first—Arabic or English? S4D: Ahh, in Israel, it’s Hebrew. I: Okay— S4D: In Israel it’s the most important thing—and then English. I: Okay. So it’s important to you that you know Hebrew? S4D: Yeah, very.

In the local arena, in general Hebrew initially had a higher status than Arabic or English.

However, after students thought about and considered the three languages further, declared stratifications became less straightforward. For L1 Hebrew speakers, status ambiguity was

175 primarily a conflict between local demands and global demands. Like students from the monolingual majority school, in the local arena Hebrew had the highest standing. However, outside of Israel, English was the most important language and the language that conferred power and clout. One student explained this as follows:

I: Um—what language is more important, your mother tongue or English? S7D: To me or in general? I: Both. S7D: Um, I think English is more important um in general. Like I can use it more in more places and with more people but I still think my mother tongue is very important. Like I don’t think the whole world should just know English and that’s it.

Students were quite clear that outside of Israel, English was the language that carried the most power and prestige. Nevertheless, Jewish Israeli students were not prepared to abandon Hebrew or completely rescind its importance in favor of English.

L1 Arabic speakers also articulated ambiguity with regards to language status. Initially, participants said that Hebrew was the most important language. However, as will be discussed in subsequent sections, some Palestinian Israeli students attributed the highest status to Arabic arguing that it was the language that was connected to their culture, religion and identity. Other students awarded the highest status to English linking the language to global communication and prosperity in the international arena. In the end, however, like in the other two schools, students frequently came back to Hebrew and awarded it the highest standing.

This prioritization was expressed through reports from students regarding their or their parents’ choice to switch from English only elite private schools in East Jerusalem to Israeli

Ministry of Education public schools. As was mentioned in the previous section, some

Palestinian Israeli students initially prioritize English. Eventually, however, they switch to

Israeli Ministry of Education public schools where they learn less English but acquire fluency in

176

Hebrew. Like their Arabic speaking peers at the monolingual minority school, L1 Arabic speakers from the bilingual school seek proficiency in Hebrew and recognize the status and power conferred through knowledge of the language. Ultimately, what was highly apparent was that L1 Arabic speakers from both cohorts had to work to find a balance between competing linguistic demands including whether to prioritize cultural demands (Arabic), local societal demands (Hebrew) or global demands (English).

In the end, for all bilingual minority majority students, complexity prevailed and in the words of the non-Arabic Christian, L1 English speaker “it depends.” When asked which language was the most important he replied “ Ugh, it depends. It depends where, it depends for what!” In the end, language status was not static and was intimately bound to circumstance and context—in particular to the community of practice in which the language was being employed.

Perceptions and Attitudes towards Hebrew

In the subsequent section, I will address bilingual minority-majority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards Hebrew. In their school environs and in the local public sphere, for the most part students function in a Hebrew dominant context. All students mentioned needing to rely on Hebrew for many situations and interactions. However, differences in perceptions and attitudes emerged between L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers. Jewish Israeli students

(L1 Hebrew speakers and one L1 English speaker) identified Hebrew as the language of their country and the language that represented their culture. Like students from the monolingual majority school, participants articulated a personal/familial connection to Hebrew and said that something would be taken away or lost if they did not speak Hebrew. One student described this in the following way:

177

I: If the prime minister came to your school and said from now on, you and all your friends are going to study only in English. How do you think you would feel and do you think this would be a positive decision? S3D: I think it wouldn’t be positive first of all because there would be tons of rioting and it wouldn’t work at all. I: Why rioting? S3D: Because the languages aren’t just languages they also represent a certain tarbut (culture) I: And so people would feel like something was being taken away from them? S3D: Well something would be taken away from them!

Jewish Israeli students articulated an affiliation with Hebrew and said that they would lose something if they did not speak Hebrew. However, bilingual L1 Hebrew speakers did not articulate nation state rhetoric in the way that was present among their peer equivalents from the monolingual majority school. For the most part, student discourse reflected personal identifications rather than national identifications, and students did not connect Hebrew to ideological symbols associated with the Jewish State. This lack of nation-state jargon did not mean that students identified any less with Hebrew than their monolingual majority counterparts.

They simply indicated that Hebrew symbolized ethnic/cultural rather than national identifications.

In contrast to Jewish Israeli students, Palestinian Israeli students (L1 Arabic speakers) did not perceive of Hebrew as a language that was connected to their culture and ethnic identity.

Although Arabic speaking students regularly use Hebrew and are highly fluent in the language, they did not indicate that they adopt Hebrew or integrate it into their basket of identifications.

Ethnically, Palestinian Israelis were not connected to Hebrew, but contextually and pragmatically they remained intimately bound to the language. A Palestinian Israeli participant succinctly captured this point:

I: Ok. Do you feel like part of you is reflected in Hebrew?

178

S5D: Um, no, not really. I speak Hebrew because of the society here—if I didn’t live in Israel, I wouldn’t speak Hebrew. I: So you really have a pragmatic stance. You say, I need Hebrew— S5D: Yeah, Hebrew is necessary, it’s not that I want Hebrew.

Students perceived of Hebrew as imperative for success in the local arena. They associated the language with symbolic power that students connected to achievement and social mobility.

However, participants were very clear that they did not perceive of Hebrew as their language but rather as an outside linguistic tool for ensuring success in the local arena. A Palestinian Israeli student described this in the following way:

S13D: Hebrew is a stranger language for me but I use it, like I use it every day. So— and I think it’s important too, to live in Israel, you need to know Hebrew. There is no other way. I: for pragmatic reasons? S13D: Yes.

Palestinian Israeli students do not perceive of Hebrew as their language but they adopt it in order to be on par with or above their Jewish Israeli counterparts in the local arena.

Palestinian Israeli students also mentioned that they view Hebrew as the means for fully integrating into Israeli society. Fluency in Hebrew was perceived as a way to blend in and be a legitimate part of Israeli society. One Palestinian Israeli student articulated this in the following way:

S9D: It’s probably easier for me to speak Hebrew and it’s better and people will see me—if I speak to someone in Arabic so they’ll look at me and think “well she’s not from here, we’re not going to talk to her.” Or “she’s gonna blow herself up or something.”. . . .So it’s probably easier for me to communicate with people when I know that I can speak Hebrew well and show them that I can be in this country even though no one really accepts that.

Palestinian Israeli students identified Hebrew as a central tool for legitimate participation in

Israeli society. They placed a heavy importance on fluency in Hebrew and articulated an

179 inclination towards integration. Unlike their peers from the monolingual minority school, for the most part they did not explicitly articulate resentment towards Hebrew or perceive of themselves as being occupied by the language. However, as the above excerpt shows, the perceived connotations accompanying their identity as Arabic speakers were not void of negative implications. Speaking Hebrew so as to not be identified as an outsider or as a terrorist does have potentially harmful repercussions for students’ constructed confidence and self-perceptions.

Whether explicitly stated or inadvertently implied, students are preoccupied by marginalization and second class status, including the expression of these societal ailments through the local languages of Hebrew and Arabic.

Additionally, a few Palestinian Israeli students constructed phrases that suggested some harbored resentment towards Hebrew. In particular, one student referred to Hebrew as the language of the enemy. During his in-depth interview, he described this as follows:

I: Now I’m going to ask you some questions about specifically here, the conflict, and the role of English in the conflict here. Um, what do you think a Palestinian feels when he or she speaks English to a Jewish Israeli? S4D: I don’t know, maybe, he will think that he doesn’t will be in peace because he doesn’t talk any of the languages here, we talk in a third language. The third language doesn’t help. It maybe helps to understand but if you want to talk to the enemy you have to learn his language. I: Ok. So it doesn’t really help. It’s more important that a Jewish person would speak Arabic to a Palestinian. S4D: And the Arab talk Hebrew. I: Ok. And what about a Jewish Israeli speaking English to a Palestinian? S4D: The same. You want to go to peace; they have to learn the enemy’s language.

At first glance, the phraseology the enemy’s language would seem to be an explicit declaration against Hebrew. However, further analysis suggests that students do not perceive of Hebrew as something adversarial but were simply adopting the rhetorical structures available to them. In the context of the bilingual minority majority school, this refers to a reified, extremely stubborn

180 binary limited to one of two ethno-religious identifications— Arab or Jew (Bekerman, 2003).

The phrase the enemy’s language seems to simply be an extension of this “us and them” binary constructed by the surrounding context and perpetuated by both Palestinian and Jewish Israeli students. Later on in the interview, the same student elaborates further:

S9D: I speak Hebrew with Jewish people but when I speak to them I don’t feel bad. I just know it’s their language. I accept that.

The language of the enemy emerged as “their language” , the language of the other , the language of the Jews. As might be expected, Palestinian Israeli participants did not identify with the

Jewish/Hebrew half of the binary. However, discourse shows that they also did not seem to resent Hebrew or feel bad about needing to make use of the language.

Palestinian Israeli students from the bilingual school did not perceive of Hebrew as their language. In addition, students who were outside the Arab- Jewish binary, for example one of the non-Arab Christian participants, also indicated that they did not perceive of Hebrew as their language. A Russian Christian student explained this in the following way:

I: What language is more important? Your mother tongue or English? S6D: I think that my mother tongue because it’s like something that I’ve known since I was born and it kind of has a deeper connection for me. . . Russian is a language that I was born with so it has like a connection for me and for my culture and for my parents. I: Do you feel that for Hebrew also? S6D: No because I have no relation to—Hebrew is the language that I use the most because in school and in everyday life and because I live in a country that speaks Hebrew. But as well I think that my deepest connection is from the Russian language.

As with most reified concepts, the “ us and them ” binary does not allow for diversity or exceptions. It assumes and imposes linguistic identification and does not provide participants with a means to articulate their perceptions and attitudes. Dismantling binary rhetoric, “the

181 enemy’s language”, may be an important first step in recognizing heterogeneity and giving voice to those students’ perspectives that fall outside of the binary.

A final point concerning students’ perceptions and attitudes towards Hebrew relates to contextual pressure to achieve a high level of proficiency in the language. Like students from the monolingual minority school, some L1 Arabic speaking students mentioned feeling pushed to excel in Hebrew even to the detriment of English. One student articulated this as follows:

S9D: I would rather know English well than speak more Hebrew. I speak more Hebrew but I would like to know English better.

The interplay between Hebrew, English and Arabic in the bilingual minority majority school has an effect on linguistic equilibrium. Although in theory, this educational context espouses balanced bilingualism between Hebrew and Arabic, in practice Hebrew is the second language for L1 Arabic speakers whereas English is the second language for L1 Hebrew speakers. L1

Arabic speakers must achieve trilingualism whereas their Hebrew speaking counterparts can suffice with Hebrew and English. Like in the monolingual minority school, Hebrew’s dominance in the local context has an effect on the acquisition of English for Arabic speaking students. As will be discussed in subsequent sections, this imbalance has implications for the role of English in the region as well as its characterization as a neutralizing force.

Summary of Findings related to Hebrew: Bilingual Minority Majority Students

This section has dealt with findings related to Hebrew and bilingual minority majority students. The addressed findings show that all bilingual minority majority students primarily use

Hebrew for their daily activities. Participants also indicated that they use Hebrew in bilingual

182

(Arabic-Hebrew) interactions, and L1 Arabic speakers did not articulate having a problem with this Hebrew language dominance.

Regarding Hebrew language status, discourse reflects ambiguity both within and between each ethno-linguistic group. L1 Hebrew speakers generally gave emotional and personal priority to Hebrew but awarded the highest status to English in the global arena. L1 Arabic speakers vacillated between prioritizing their cultural language, giving precedence to the principle local language and awarding a high status to the international language. Initially, some students prioritize English by attending private, English only schools in East Jerusalem. In the end, the fact that most students attend Israeli State run schools that promise fluency in Hebrew and students sometimes deliberately choose this option over all English schooling, seems to imply a prioritizing of Hebrew. That said, for the most part students resigned themselves to prioritizing all three languages, recognizing that trilingualism was necessary for their future prosperity and success.

Regarding perceptions and attitudes towards Hebrew, discrepancies also emerged between L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers. Jewish Israelis perceived of Hebrew as their language and the language tied to their culture and religion. However, unlike monolingual majority students, they did not correlate nation-state rhetoric with their perceptions of Hebrew.

Palestinian Israelis did not perceive of Hebrew as their language. While they perceived of

Hebrew as imperative for integrating and succeeding in Israeli society, Hebrew remained an outside entity and the language of the other . Ultimately, all bilingual minority majority students appeared to be more inclined to binary rhetorical structures espousing one of two ethnic identifications. As such, Hebrew was perceived as the linguistic signifier associated with

Judaism and perhaps Israel—a construction which inevitably drew in Jewish Israelis while

183 simultaneously alienating Palestinian Israelis. The need for a reassessment of this perpetuated binary is warranted if inclusion and coexistence are to be actualized alongside Hebrew language dominance

Arabic

Arabic Usage

Arabic is an intricate part of the linguistic landscape of the bilingual minority majority school. This school is part of a network of schools that strive to foster coexistence and equality through various agendas including bilingual (Arabic-Hebrew) education. The simultaneous use of Arabic and Hebrew in the classroom is one of the outstanding characteristics of this educational initiative. Unlike in the monolingual schools participating in this study, in the bilingual school language usage is continually at the forefront of declared curricular and pedagogical decision ( from Hebrew , Amara, 2005) and students articulated a heightened awareness of linguistic usage as compared to their monolingual counterparts. Nevertheless, discourse shows that two-way Arabic-Hebrew bilingualism has not proliferated in the school context. Moreover, L1 Arabic speakers’ articulations of Arabic usage differed significantly from

L1 Hebrew speakers’ articulations.

L1 Arabic speakers and the Palestinian Israeli who identified herself as an English speaker all spoke about the need to use Arabic in their local environs. Arabic was the principle language for interactions in their home, in their village and in their community. In addition, L1

Arabic speakers also mentioned needing to use Arabic in the wider Arabic speaking world. They said that they use or would hypothetically need to use Arabic when traveling to an Arabic- speaking country. One student articulated this as follows:

184

I: Can you think of a situation where it would be better to use-- I have written here your first language instead of English. Where it would be better to use Arabic instead of English or-- well let’s start with Arabic and--- S1D: Maybe in like Arabian country I: In an Arabic speaking country. Okay. S1D: Yeah. Exactly. So there I like speak their language so I don’t need to talk to them in any other languages, you know. I: Okay S1D: And at home, with my family and stuff like this.

For L1 Arabic students from the bilingual school, Arabic was the language they used for personal and familial interactions. Arabic usage also facilitated a sense of belonging to the wider

Arabic-speaking world.

In the local public arena, students indicated that they use Hebrew for most interactions.

Like participants from the monolingual minority school, L1 Arabic speaking participants described needing to use Hebrew to function and communicate with people. However, unlike monolingual minority students, the Palestinian Israeli participants from the bilingual school indicated that they were fluent in Arabic and Hebrew. Because of their status as fully bilingual, they were able to choose which language to use in the local public arena. The choice to use

Arabic was one that presented students with a double edged predicament characterized by power and clout on the one hand and discrimination and subordination on the other hand.

Several students mentioned using Arabic with other Arabic speakers in public places where there were predominantly Hebrew speakers. They described the power conferred by being able to converse with their friends without other people around them understanding or intervening. One student described this as follows:

I: If all Jewish Israeli’s were fluent in Arabic, would that change what you think? S5D: Um, that would be better for the Jews because then the Arabs wouldn’t be able to communicate with so much privacy.

185

I: Ok. So right now Arabs maintain some power because Jews don’t know Arabic— S5D: It’s an advantage for Arabs that they can, for example, get on the bus and stam, curse—no seriously, they curse and make fun of Jews. I hear it a lot. . . And like the people don’t understand but they (the Arabs) have an advantage because they know Hebrew and Arabic.

Some bilingual minority students viewed Arabic usage as a means for exerting power over the

Jewish Israeli population. They identified symbolic control in the fact that they could use Arabic at will but when necessary, they could revert back to Hebrew whereas their Jewish Israeli counterparts had to rely solely on Hebrew.

At the other end of the spectrum were bilingual minority students who were hesitant to use Arabic in local public places because of the connotations associated with Arabic usage.

Students mentioned that people might be suspicious of them, think that they were terrorists, interrogate them or respond to them in unkind ways. One student articulated this in the following way:

I: Ok. Um, what about the opposite, can you think of a situation where it would be better to use English instead of Arabic or instead of Hebrew? S2D: When I’m at the airport, I shouldn’t speak Arabic because then they’re suspicious. I: Ok. So there it’s better to speak English or it’s better to speak Hebrew? S2D: Hebrew and English-- and every other language except for Arabic.

Arabic usage for bilingual minority students constituted more than simply use of the language.

Students mentioned both positive and negative unintended sociolinguistic consequences that had an effect on Arabic usage in the local arena.

L1 Hebrew speakers from the bilingual school made little reference to Arabic usage.

When they did mention Arabic usage, it was generally qualified by statements attesting to the fact that their desire to communicate and be understood overrode their efforts to make use of

Arabic. One student described this pragmatism as follows:

186

I: With your Palestinian friends, what language do you communicate with them? S7D: Hebrew—cause it’s much faster and simpler— I: Than English? S7D: I wouldn’t even think of speaking English to them. I: Okay. And you wouldn’t think of speaking Arabic? S7D: I would but not anymore just because it’s so much more simpler to speak Hebrew and they’re used to speaking Hebrew in their everyday life and I’m not, like, I don’t ever get to use Arabic. I: Okay, so you feel like it’s an issue of use and practicality? S7D: Yes.

Students opted to use Hebrew in bilingual interactions because they identified it as the fastest and most efficient means for communication. Even though all the bilingual majority students, except for one, indicated that they were proficient in Hebrew and Arabic, they rarely, if at all, use Arabic. Moreover, the increasing presence and use of English has meant that the use of

Arabic for L1 Hebrew speakers has become almost entirely obsolete. When confronted with situations where Arabic speakers do not know Hebrew, participants said they spoke English.

Moreover, they indicated that knowledge of English was a necessity whereas knowledge of

Arabic was a nicety. One student explained this in the following way:

S12D: For me? If I need more English than Arabic? Yes, obviously, because I told you the things that I do— the computer, and that I need English and not Arabic. And the only Arabs that I know are from this school or are connected to this school and they know Hebrew, most of them.

For the most part, L1 Hebrew speakers do not use Arabic. They depend on English for circumstances where they cannot use Hebrew and Arabic is increasingly marginalized.

Arabic usage differed for L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers from the bilingual minority majority school. Although linguistic practice differed, both cohorts recognized Arabic as culturally a part of the local linguistic arena. They also seemed to accept the fact that L1

Hebrew speakers’ knowledge of Arabic was primarily symbolic and that bilingual interactions

187 generally transpired in Hebrew. Neither side articulated being bothered by this reality nor did a lack of bilingualism appear to be a barrier to conflict resolution and coexistence. Ultimately, like students from the monolingual minority school, L1 Hebrew speakers’ usage (or lack of usage) of

Arabic carried little significance and the educational initiative’s emphasis on two-way bilingualism may be extraneous.

Arabic Status

Bilingual minority majority students’ articulations of the status and power conferred by

Arabic reveal a deep seated struggle between their various linguistic loyalties. As in the previous sections, differences emerged between L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers, and the status awarded to Arabic was more straightforward for the Jewish Israeli participants.

L1 Hebrew speakers function in a social context that requires Hebrew in the local arena and English in the global arena. Like their peers from the monolingual majority school, they can choose to prioritize Arabic or they can disregard the language completely. Their principle struggle is whether to prioritize Hebrew or to prioritize English. During the conducted interviews, Jewish Israeli students made little reference to Arabic. While they indicated that

Arabic was a part of the linguistic landscape of the country, they do not deal extensively with the language and did not award a high status to Arabic. One student mentioned that Hebrew,

English and Arabic were all important languages, but his acknowledgement of Arabic was primarily a jester of goodwill and not because he associated power or prestige with the language.

He articulated this as follows:

I: What language is more important? Hebrew or English or Arabic?

188

S8D: Um, I think all of them are important but what I feel the most connected to is mostly Hebrew and English but I think that it’s also very important that everyone learns Arabic cause like they’re also part of our country.

Jewish Israeli students gave priority to Arabic because of a perceived emotional or political obligation to Arabs in Israel. However, like students from the monolingual majority school they did not tie the language to success or prosperity in the local or global contexts. Moreover,

Arabic belonged to “them” a problematic conception when striving to achieve ethno-linguistic equality and coexistence.

L1 Arabic speakers wavered between prioritizing Arabic, Hebrew and English.

Practically speaking they awarded a high status to Hebrew in the local arena and English in the global arena. However, many participants articulated an emotional and moral obligation to

Arabic. One student explained this in the following way:

I: Okay. Um, what language is more important? English or your mother tongue? S13D: Well from a moral standpoint um, my mother tongue is better because I need to learn from where I come from, what my religion, what is my nationality and all that so I need to know that. But when you look at the whole picture, when you see that you need English to be an educated man in this time, so you see that English is very important and may help you more than your mother tongue. But you still don’t need to forget from where you come from and you still need to remember your mother tongue.

A second student mentioned not only a cultural obligation to Arabic but a concern regarding the increasingly high status of English and the implications of this on the positioning Arabic. She ultimately prioritized Arabic in an attempt to sustain and safeguard the language associated with her ethnic identifications. She articulated this as follows:

I: Ok. Um, what language is more important, your mother tongue or English? In this case Arabic.

189

S1D: I think Arabic-- for me Arabic, you know because like I learn like, English, it’s-- I don’t feel it’s like for me. Arabic, it’s me. It’s says who I am. Like I am Arabic speaker and like it’s umm-- I: You can say it also in Hebrew if it helps. S1D: (in Hebrew) It expresses my culture. I: Ok. It expresses your culture. S1D: Yeah. Exactly. I: So you would lose something if you only spoke English. S1D: Yeah, of course. If like, if like now I speak English and this, all the Arabs will speak English-- Arabic will be not, like not spoke anymore. So, I don’t want that this will happen so I prefer to talk Arabic because other people are not thinking about that choice that maybe Arabic, if they speak English, Arabic will be--will be like (in Hebrew) not existing anymore.

Arabic earned the highest status because of an articulated emotional connection to the language as well as an expressed need for linguistic sustainability. Although students said they enjoy learning English and they perceive of the language as important, for the most part students were not prepared to relinquish Arabic or replace it with English.

This struggle between linguistic priorities was particularly salient with regard to Arabic and Hebrew. As was mentioned in the previous section on Hebrew, Palestinian Israeli participants linked fluency in Hebrew to future success, prosperity and social mobility. Initially the tended to prioritize Hebrew but after further consideration, acknowledged that Arabic had the highest standing because of familial, cultural and religious obligations. A student expressed this in the following way:

I: I asked you this earlier when we did the activity together. Um, if the prime minister came to your school and said from now on, you and all your friends are going to study only in English, how do you think you would feel and do you think this would be a positive decision? S4D: It’s a bad thing to do because Arabic, it’s my mother language, it’s my religion’s language, it’s my friends’ language and English, it’s like an international language. For me it’s better Arabic and if it’s English, I would leave the school, because they tell me to talk a language that nobody from my friends talk. And my religion doesn’t talk in this language, my mom doesn’t talk in this language. So, I would leave the school. I: Ok. And what about if the school said tomorrow you’re only going to learn in Hebrew? S4D: Ah, this is harder, cause Hebrew, it’s important also. It’s the most important thing in Israel but maybe again, I would leave the school.

190

I: Ok. Because of who you are? S4D: Yeah.

L1 Arabic speaking participants from the bilingual school were outspoken about their identity as

Palestinians. Some of the students connected this identity to Arabic and awarded a high status to the language.

For both Palestinian Israelis and Jewish Israelis, language status reflected ongoing negotiations between local language maintenance and global concerns. Language stratification was not articulated in absolute terms but involved a balance between political, cultural, emotional and practical priorities.

Perceptions and Attitudes towards Arabic

In the subsequent section, I will address bilingual minority majority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards Arabic. As in previous sections, differences emerged between L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers concerning students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the language.

Bilingual majority students rarely made reference to Arabic. The little available discourse suggests that L1 Hebrew speakers perceive of Arabic as optional rather than obligatory. As was previously mentioned, participants said that they do not depend on Arabic for communicative purposes or socioeconomic mobility and when necessary, they revert to

English rather than Arabic. In contrast to students from the monolingual majority school who indicated that they perceive of Arabic as an important linguistic tool that will serve them in the future, Bilingual majority students were frank about the fact that they do not perceive of Arabic as imperative. L1 Hebrew speakers did not perpetuate romanticized perceptions of Arabic. They

191 study with Palestinian Israelis and interact with the other on a daily basis. Perhaps the normalization of an integrated reality enabled them to shed rhetorical pretenses and to frankly, albeit briefly, state their rather pragmatic attitudes towards Arabic.

Bilingual minority students spoke at length about their perceptions and attitudes towards

Arabic. They indicated feeling a personal connection to the language and, as was previously mentioned, spoke about how they perceive of Arabic as the language connected to their identity.

Nevertheless, like their Jewish Israeli peers, some Palestinian Israelis mentioned that they perceive of Arabic as insignificant for their future. They articulated discord between their linguistic obligations as Arabs and the fact that they did not perceive of Arabic as contributing to their future prosperity and success. One student articulated this dissonance in the following way:

S5D: I don’t like Arabic very much but all the time they are forcing me to learn it, telling me that it’s important. In my opinion no country— there are a lot of countries that use it (Arabic) but it’s not very helpful for work or for the future in this country. So I prefer studying English. I: If you were to not know Arabic, do you think you would lose something? S5D: Yes, it’s a symbol; I would be less connected to Arabic and to the nation. People would say “what is an Arab who doesn’t know how to speak Arabic, that’s not a real Arab.” I wouldn’t , that would bother me a little bit. I: So in your identity, in your zhot— S5D: Yeah, it would be missing.

Some Palestinian Israelis from the bilingual school indicated that while they perceived of Arabic as the language connected to their ethnic identifications, they did not perceive of the language as necessary or critical for success.

Some Palestinian Israeli participants also mentioned having to deal with an internal conflict that stemmed, in part, from their perceiving of Arabic as a marker of identity. This constructed identity was sometimes in direct opposition with their identification as citizens of

Israel. As was previously mentioned, Palestinian Israeli students did not perceive of Hebrew as a

192 language connected to their identity. However, unlike monolingual minority students, bilingual minority students did mention some connection to Israel and to the Hebrew language. This friction between competing identity markers ultimately resulted in some bilingual minority students feeling caught in the middle between two ethno-linguistic groups. One Palestinian

Israeli student explained this as follows:

S1D: I’m an Arabian girl that live in Jewish country, Israel. Um, and I feel like Palestinian. I: Okay S1D: Like I feel like in the middle of like two sides. Like one side is the Israeli and Jewish side. It’s the side like that they are like my country. And the other side is the Arab, Arabian side. I am Arabian and they are my brothers. So, I’m in the middle. I: The Palestinians are your brothers? S1D: And all, all the countries where they speak Arabic. They think about us something and the Jewish think about other things. So like we are in the middle of this-- I: Of a big mess. S1D: Yeah, exactly. A big, big mess!

On the one hand, students perceived of Arabic as their language and the language that connected them to the broader Arabic speaking world. On the other hand, Arabic was also perceived as a marker of their identity as other , as outsider and as minorities in Israel. A second student elaborated further

S9D: I just speak Arabic and I’m Arab. It doesn’t matter if I live here or not. I just, I support both sides, the Arab side and the Jewish side, and I hope they live together. It doesn’t matter if I’m a Palestinian or an Israeli. So—I guess I’m just Arab. I come from an Arab house and I speak Arabic so it’s probably that I’m Arab. It doesn’t matter if I’m Palestinian or Israeli.

Students perceived of Arabic as a definitive component of their ethnic identity. The language emerged as the defining arbiter between students’ identifications as Palestinians and Israelis

The final point I wish to address concerning perceptions and attitudes towards Arabic refers to articulated difficulties concerning the acquisition of Arabic. Both L1 Hebrew speakers

193 and L1 Arabic speakers mentioned that the structure of Arabic was extremely difficult and inaccessible. Moreover, like students from the monolingual minority school, participants identified with the linguistic malleability associated with English and mentioned that in contrast, they perceived of Arabic as rigid and stagnant. One student described this as follows:

S13D: I think that English is not like Arabic. It can be like a free language so that you don’t have—you need to learn the basics but after that all the tiny things in grammar, I think it’s like, it’s like not helping the language. You can speak English in a free way and everybody will understand you. I feel like it’s— I: The grammar is unnecessary? S13D: Yes. I: Interesting. And you don’t feel that’s true in Arabic? S13D: No, in Arabic you need to have grammar cause it’s a very difficult language.

As was discussed in the introduction to the Findings & Analysis chapter, students’ perceptions and attitudes toward Arabic seemed to be colored, in part, by the fact that Arabic is a diglossic language. Students study literary Arabic. They mentioned that they perceive of this form of the language as difficult, impractical and esoteric. For some students, they translated this perceived difficulty into simple terms “I hate Arabic.” This attitude was particularly salient among students who demonstrated a high level of proficiency in English. Whereas English enabled them to access information and communicate globally, Arabic remained limited to the realm of literature and religion. One student explained this in the following way:

I: Um, before you said you don’t like Arabic. What don’t you like about Arabic? S10D: I just hate some words and especially the Fousa (literary) Arabic. I just really hate it because there are difficult words. Even in writing it, there’s the letters and just, I don’t know what they call it. I just can’t do it.

At first this student, who identified herself as fluent in English, simply stated that she hated

Arabic. Later on in the interview, she elaborated further and her objections became clearer.

194

I: Okay. What language is more important? Arabic or English? S10D: In my opinion, English. I don’t know, many people say it’s like the Arabic because it’s the language of the Koran and stuff like this— I: Oh. S10D: Like they say it’s the most important language but I don’t think so— It’s really like a secret language. You can’t understand anything if they write in the books or something. I don’t read in Arabic because I won’t understand anything . . . and like there are many words that I can’t say it in Arabic and so I just say it in English.

The sociolinguistic characteristics accompanying Arabic, including the fact that it is a diglossic language, appears to have a profound effect on students’ perceptions and attitudes towards

Arabic. As was discussed in the review of literature, the ongoing struggle between colloquial and literary Arabic among Palestinians in Israel, has contributed to the marginalization of Arabic

(Jabareen, n.d.) and possibly the reliance on and preference towards other languages such as

Hebrew or English.

In the end, students from the bilingual school perceive of Arabic as “S3D: much harder to learn than English.” Given this perceived difficulty, alongside the multiple socioeconomic and professional benefits they associated with English, it is not surprising that students articulated ambiguity regarding Arabic. They wrestle with competing priorities and with balancing their ideals with their ambitions.

Summary of Findings related to Arabic: Bilingual Minority Majority Students

This section has dealt with findings related to Arabic and bilingual minority majority students. This study has found that major differences emerged between bilingual majority students and bilingual minority students concerning Arabic usage, Arabic status and perceptions and attitudes towards Arabic.

195

Arabic is an outstanding curricular and ideological feature of the bilingual minority majority school. Nevertheless, usage of the language was not equal among participants. L1

Hebrew speakers said they rarely, if at all, make use of Arabic whereas L1 Arabic speakers regularly use Arabic in their immediate local surroundings and when traveling to Arabic speaking countries. All study participants indicated that in bilingual interactions they primarily use Hebrew and not Arabic. Neither side mentioned being bothered by this linguistic imbalance which suggests that the educational initiative’s emphasis on two-way bilingualism may be unnecessary.

Regarding the status of Arabic, student discourse reflected ambiguity. For the most part,

L1 Hebrew speakers mentioned needing to balance local priorities (Hebrew) with global priorities (English). They made little reference to the status of Arabic aside from articulating a symbolic obligation to the language. L1 Arabic speakers mentioned ongoing negotiations between personal/cultural priorities, local priorities and global priorities. They ultimately awarded a high status to all three languages and aspired to and often achieved trilingualism.

Regarding perceptions and attitudes toward Arabic, pragmatism accompanied ideology.

L1 Hebrew speakers did not perceive of Arabic as particularly useful or critical for their future.

While they acknowledged that the language held a legitimate place in the Israeli linguistic climate, students did not adopt exotified perceptions of Arabic or champion its merit or value. L1

Arabic speakers were unequivocal about their personal/emotional alliance to Arabic. They said that they perceive of Arabic as the language tied to their ethnic identifications and a primary marker of identity. For some participants, this marker of identity contributed to dissonance between their identification as Palestinians/Arabic speakers and their identification as

Israelis/Hebrew speakers. Palestinian Israeli students articulated feeling caught in the middle

196 both linguistically and in relation to their society. Ultimately, neither L1 Hebrew speakers nor

L1 Arabic speakers spoke favorably of Arabic. Both cohorts said they perceive of Arabic as difficult and inaccessible. When weighing solely pragmatic considerations, participants favored

Hebrew or English over Arabic. Nevertheless, for Palestinian Israelis in particular, Arabic remained a powerful symbol tied to tradition, culture and identity.

English

English Usage

In the following section, I will discuss English usage among bilingual minority-majority students. As in the previous two chapters, in particular I will address English usage in three different arenas: (a) the international arena; (b) the local arena; and (c) the cyber arena.

Bilingual minority majority students said they use English in a variety of situations. The unique makeup of their school has attracted extensive public attention. Consequently, more than students from the other two schools, bilingual minority majority students described regularly having opportunities to use English. Students were afforded opportunities for travel under the auspices of the school, and out of town guests often visit their classrooms. For the most part,

English was the language that dominated these interactions, and students reported needing to use

English for communicative purposes in international, local and technological fields. The particularities of each of these arenas will be elaborated on in the subsequent section.

English Usage in the International Arena

Bilingual minority majority students articulated several points concerning English usage in the international arena. Like students from the monolingual schools, bilingual minority

197 majority participants indicated that they use English to communicate with people when traveling outside of Israel. They mentioned that in most cases they could not resort to using Arabic or

Hebrew and that they had to rely on English. One student explained this as follows:

I: When might it be better to use English instead of--? S1D: Hebrew or Arabic? I: Hebrew or Arabic S1D: Um, everywhere in the world I: Ok. As soon as you’re outside of Israel, English is better? S1D: Yeah, yeah exactly. Because um like everywhere you can find people that can speak English but not everywhere you can find people that speak Arabic or Hebrew. So, it’s like the only language you can talk to other and speak to other people.

All of the study participants said that they had traveled outside of Israel either with their families or under the sponsorship of the school. They identified a strong need to use English in the international arena. Moreover, unlike students from the monolingual majority schools, many of the participants from the bilingual school mentioned traveling to English speaking countries and using English to communicate with L1 English speakers. That said, students also described situations where, like their peers from the monolingual school, they needed to use English as an

LWC in the expanding circle in order to overcome linguistic barriers. During one of the conducted focus groups, participants elaborated on this communicative need as follows:

I: Try to think of three times English has been most useful to you? S4df3: Like when you go to a different country I: Okay. What country did you go to? S4df3: Like every country I went to, even if it’s like English speaking or not S5df3: When we go to other countries S1df3: That you don’t know their language S5df3: So we need to communicate with other people

198

In the international arena, students use English to communicate with both L1 English speakers and speakers of others language. In both circumstances, English emerged as the common linguistic denominator.

Students from the bilingual school were particularly cognizant of the need to use English in the international arena, in part because of opportunities students had had for travel and international communication. More specifically, students mentioned traveling to Italy as part of a school visitation project and participating in an exchange program with students from

Germany. In both of these situations, students mentioned needing to rely on English for communication. One student explained this as follows:

I: Have you ever traveled to an English speaking country? S11D: I traveled to Germany and Italy with my school and we speak there English because I didn’t understand German or Italian. I: So English was the language for communication? S11D: Yes

Such international exchange initiatives are not commonplace in Israeli state schools. These outstanding experiences seemed to heighten students’ awareness of the need to use English in the international arena.

Overall, student discourse shows that bilingual minority majority students most often use

English in the international arena. Nevertheless, as will be discussed in the subsequent section, they also encountered circumstances in the local context that required English.

English Usage in the Local Arena

Students from the bilingual minority majority school mentioned situations within the local arena where they needed to rely on English. Like students from the monolingual school,

199 participants provided examples of times when they needed to interact with tourists or communicate with visitors. In addition, bilingual students identified English as an international language and as an intermediary in the local arena between Hebrew/Arabic speakers and speakers of other languages. One student described this as follows:

I: So at the beginning, when you said English is an international language, what does that mean to you? S3D: Well, that a lot of people know it or across countries, the world. And that it’s kind of a language which you try speaking to different people that don’t know your language, your first language. Like when tourists come or when people don’t speak Hebrew or Arabic I: Okay. It’s like a language for communicating in? S3D: Yeah.

For the most part, participants exhibited high levels of proficiency in English and were able to assist visitors and to serve as mediators between Arabic or Hebrew speakers and speakers of other languages. This was particularly true in the local school context where students mentioned needing to speak English in order to communicate with the influx of visitors who regularly came to their school.

Students also articulated several additional points concerning the use of English in their school environs. Like students from the monolingual schools, participants said that in school they use English during English class. They articulated a desire to learn English well and identified English as an important tool for communication and achievement, both within and beyond the school framework. Nevertheless, like in the monolingual educational settings, students were opposed to a policy of all English usage and indicated that they would lose something if they were to only study in English. One student, who identified himself as bilingual in English and Hebrew, articulated this in the following way:

200

I: Okay. I asked you this before, if the Prime Minister came to your school and said from now you and all your friends are going to study only in English. How do you think you would feel? S8D: That it’s not a good idea because we would forget—like for me English is also my identity but other kids will forget like—we’re living in Israel. We should talk in Hebrew. It’s the language of the country.

Discourse shows that to a degree students viewed excessive English usage in the school setting as a threat to local linguistic identities. That said, unlike in the monolingual schools, discourse also suggests that students were opposed to the sole usage of English less because of the threat to local identities and more because of the challenges such an initiative would pose. While students indicated that English was an easier language to learn than Arabic, they still identified it as difficult and were ambivalent about fully immersing themselves in the language.

In contrast to English or Arabic, Hebrew was perceived as “easy” and “not a complicated language.” As such, in particular for Palestinian Israeli students, they were willing to accept the pervasive use of Hebrew in an ostensibly bilingual setting (Arabic-Hebrew) because Hebrew usage did not require a lot of effort and, at least within the Israeli context, remained tied to social mobility and cultural capital. As was shown in the previous section, within the integrated bilingual setting, in many cases instrumentality and practicality seemed to supersede ideology. During one of the focus groups, a Palestinian Israeli student expressed this as follows:

I: Does it bother you that you speak Hebrew all day in school that is supposed to be bilingual? S2df3: No (pause) it doesn’t bother me. I: But it would bother you if you had to speak English all day? S2df3: Yeah. I don’t know. . . Because it’s easier for me (Hebrew). I: Because it’s easier for you. Okay, so it’s instrumentality— it’s easier? S2df3: Yes

201

Once again, discourse suggests that bilingual minority majority students were less concerned with ideology and principles and were more concerned with efficiency and communicative competency. The use of Hebrew in the school context required substantially less effort than the use of English while simultaneously enabling students to succeed and prosper in the local context.

English usage in the integrated bilingual school had additional implications not present in the monolingual schools. In particular, student discourse suggests that English usage alongside extensive Hebrew usage ultimately threatens Arabic usage. Generally speaking, the language of communication in the school between L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers was Hebrew.

That said, in instances where Palestinian Israeli students were not proficient in Hebrew, English was used. Arabic was never used as a language of communication between L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers despite the fact that the school aspires to be bilingual (Arabic-Hebrew).

The following excerpts exemplify this point. The first is a Hebrew speaker and the second is an

Arabic speaker:

I: If you were to have an Arab friend or I guess you have Arab friends, Palestinian friends S6D: Yes I: What language do you communicate in? S6D: It’s actually kind of difficult because I have a friend that speaks only English and Arabic so I speak with her in English and the people that know Hebrew so I speak to them in Hebrew.

* * *

S10D: When I talk to someone who is not Arabian—so I always speak in English even though they know Arabic. Like Y—she speak in Arabic but we always speak together in English.

When Hebrew usage was not possible, English rather than Arabic became the default language.

This circumstance contributed to the further marginalization of Arabic. As was previously

202 discussed, Hebrew speakers have little incentive to learn or use Arabic since they can fall back on English. Arabic speakers have no expectation that Hebrew speakers will know Arabic and they too, rely on English when necessary. A Palestinian Israeli explained this as follows:

I: with your Jewish friends, what language do you communicate in? S11D: Hebrew I: Always? S11D: Yes. If I don’t know like one word or something I say it in English

English usage ultimately threatens Arabic usage for both Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. Even in instances where both sides speak Arabic, the language is not used.

As was discussed in the section on Arabic usage, within the integrated bilingual school context, proficiency in Arabic becomes nearly obsolete for Hebrew speakers and somewhat obsolete for Arabic speakers. Hebrew speakers have mother tongue Hebrew and they seek proficiency in English. Arabic speakers seek proficiency in Hebrew and in English and use

Arabic solely in their home environs. English usage in the school context perpetuates a linguistic hierarchy where Hebrew is associated with success in the local arena, English is tied to success in the global arena, and Arabic has little cultural capital. Paradoxically, therefore, English usage, though often propagated as neutral, ultimately has detrimental consequences that are anything but neutral. To “blame” the language would be erroneous. However, educational initiatives implementing English language programs need to remain attentive to unexpected sociolinguistic consequences and their effects on proficiency and achievement in the local languages.

With respect to English usage in the local arena, students were also asked to think about what language they use in day-to-day bilingual encounters between Jewish and Palestinian

Israelis with the idea of exploring whether English was ever used in such encounters. As was

203 previously mentioned, the emphasis here was on daily, ordinary interactions that might occur in the grocery store or the mall or between friends.

Students from the bilingual minority-majority school were exceptionally pragmatic in their responses to questions about language usage during spontaneous interactions between

Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. Both cohorts emphasized comprehension and communication.

“Whatever language both sides know ” (S4df3). English therefore, was generally not the optimal choice barring situations where it was needed as a linguistic intermediary. During one of the focus groups, students explained this in the following way:

S5df3: You can’t use English in Israel a lot. You usually use Hebrew or Arabic S1df3: It’s good for like Arabs who don’t know Hebrew S4df3: or Jews that don’t know Arabic

The overriding sentiment among students from the bilingual minority-majority school was that as long as everybody could understand each other, the employed language was of little consequence. Given this emphasis on comprehension, as was previously mentioned, students generally said that they use Hebrew in interactions between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis.

Moreover, a number of students mentioned that speaking English in the local context would be

“weird” or “stupid.” They were adamant that, if possible, one of the parties should be speaking in their mother tongue. One of the Jewish Israeli students articulated this in the following way:

S4df3: I think it’s kind of stupid for an Arab and a Jew to speak English. Cause it’s not like the native language of either of them. So it just seems like weird. I: Cause why should both people speak in a language that isn’t their native tongue. Ssdf3: Yes, yeah.

204

L1 Arabic speakers seemed to be aware of the fact that by prioritizing functionalism the majority of the time they would need to speak in Hebrew. As was discussed previously, they did not articulate being bothered by this imbalance. Hebrew was “just another language” and a given in light of the surrounding social context and reality. A Palestinian Israeli student elaborated on this point as follows:

I: Do you feel—when you speak English with a Jewish Israeli do you feel differently than when you speak Hebrew? S13D: I can’t see myself speaking English with a Jewish Israeli cause I know Hebrew so, I don’t think that I will need to speak with him English. I: For you, does Hebrew symbolize anything? S13D: No. It’s just another language.

For study participants from the bilingual minority-majority school, practicality ultimately trumped ideology, and while most students were highly proficient in English and at least moderately proficient in Arabic, in general they opted to speak Hebrew in bilingual (Arabic-

Hebrew) situations.

English usage in the local arena encompassed a wide range of sociolinguistic consequences including having an effect on local language equilibrium. While Hebrew and

Arabic continue to be the leading local languages, English language usage has turned up in more and more places in Israel.

English Usage in the Cyber Arena

The following section deals with English usage in the cyber arena. As in the analysis of the other schools, here cyber is used to refer generally to technology and media with a special emphasis on internet applications. Such usage transcends international and local frameworks and, as was previously mentioned, constitutes most of the participants’ day to day encounters

205 with the language. Bilingual students from all linguistic and ethnic groups spoke about needing to use English for technological purposes. One student articulated this as follows:

I: When and where do you use English? S6D: So mostly with my friends and almost everything that I read is on the internet in English because I find it more interesting and more, I don’t know, just there’s a bigger choice for what to read and almost the whole shows and movies I watch are in English because as well there is a bigger variety of things you can see or read or hear. And my music is only in English.

English usage in the cyber arena was paramount, and students gave multiple examples of times when they needed to use the language. More specifically, students spoke about using English to write e-mails, search the internet, send instant messages and make use of phone applications.

One student elaborated further:

I: Okay. Do you feel that learning English has exposed you to new ideas or cultures or— S13D: Yeah actually it helped me a lot. When I traveled to competitions or swim camps I used English and it can help me communicate well with swimmers. It can help me online. It can help me in the internet. It can help me in a lot of places.

Discourse clearly shows that students use English for a variety of technological purpose and that the language dominates online activities and communications.

In addition to using English for technological purposes, students also spoke about how the use of English via the computer and cyberspace had exposed them to new ideas and concepts.

Moreover, English and technology had an effect on the information available students. One participant articulated this as follows:

I: Do you think who you are is connected in any way to English or English language learning? S9D: Well, yeah. I think cause, well first of all I like to speak in English, to read in English. It’s like a language that can communicate with all the world in it. Like if I go to the internet and I check something, it’s probably going to be in English of course. It won’t be in Arabic. Or you can go to, I don’t know, any e-mail and it will be in English. So if I don’t know English well, I won’t get an e-mail or even go to the computer. I: Okay. So it’s influenced the things you know and the things you’re able to do?

206

S9D: Yeah.

This point will be addressed more comprehensively in the section on bilingual minority majority students’ perceptions of English language learning. However, here it is worthwhile acknowledging that because English usage dominates information technology, English and information accessibility are highly intertwined. In other words, English alongside technology are, to a degree, gatekeepers of knowledge and information. Students indicated that they desire this technological literacy and were highly motivated to learn English and gain access to accompanying technological networks.

Summary of Findings: English Usage

This section has dealt with English language usage among bilingual minority majority students. As in previous sections, in particular three arenas of usage were addressed: the international arena, the local arena and the cyber/technological arena. In the global arena, students use English to communicate with L1 English speakers and as a LWC to communicate with speakers of other languages.

In the local arena, participants use English to communicate with tourists and to mediate between Hebrew/Arabic speakers and speakers of other languages. However, in interactions between L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers, participants generally use Hebrew. In their local school context, students also reported using Hebrew as the principle language of communication. Moreover, English usage and English language learning seemed to contribute to the further marginalization of Arabic. Students articulated needing to use Hebrew in the local arena and English in the global arena, and the role and usage of Arabic was minimal.

207

In the cyber arena, students said they rely heavily on English. Through the use of English via technology and cyberspace, students mentioned being introduced to new concepts and information. Ultimately, both L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers from the bilingual school use English for a variety of purposes and in all three arenas.

English Status

The following section deals with the status of English for bilingual minority majority students. Similar to the other two schools, discourse from the bilingual minority majority school indicates ambiguity with respect to the status of English. Both L1 Hebrew speakers and L1

Arabic speakers labored to find a balance between their individual, emotional linguistic priorities and their pragmatic linguistic priorities. As was discussed in the sections on Hebrew status and

Arabic status, most students gave emotional and cultural priority to the language they identified as their L1. Moreover, in the local public arena they identified Hebrew as the most important language for communication and success. Nevertheless, English was unquestionably deemed a valuable asset and at times awarded the highest status depending on the context and circumstances.

Discourse shows that in the international arena English carried more power and prestige than Hebrew or Arabic. Students awarded a high status to English identifying it as key for their future success and achievement. One student articulated this as follows:

I: Do you think learning English is important-- S1D: Of course I: Or why or why not? S1D: Cause I think, I think that English, to learn English is very important because if you want to succeed in the world ah you must know English and its like English became umm, like a language that everybody study and know and like English using everywhere in the world. I: Ok. Um, do you like learning English?

208

S1D: Yes. I think it’s gonna help a lot in life. I: Ok, so you like it because you think it’s useful? S1D: Yeah

Students identified knowledge of English as critical for their future. When bearing in mind usefulness, capacity for communication and symbolic power, students awarded the highest status to English.

Students also awarded a high status to English because of a linguistic instrumentality they ascribed to the language. In almost identical discourse to that of students from the monolingual schools, participants explained that English was the language for “getting ahead” and for “getting out.” The former refers to the success, prestige and achievement students identified as accompanying acquisition and knowledge of English. The latter refers to the ability to leave

Israel, to pursue professional ambitions and to leave behind the hardships accompanying life in

Israel. One student articulated this as follows:

I: Umm-- what language is more important, your mother tongue or English? S2D: Um. I prefer English because when I grow up my plan is not to stay here because I can’t advance here. I: Ok. You can’t advance yourself. S2D: So I prefer like learning outside, not here. So I use English.

For both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis, English was awarded a high status because of its perceived role in actualizing success and prosperity. In addition, for Palestinian Israeli participants, English was critical for enabling students to leave Israel and to subsequently shed their status as a subjugated minority population. A Palestinian Israeli student described this subjugation and need for English in the following way:

S1D: If I will learn and work like out of Israel, I think I will need English a lot. I: Ok. Do you think you might go out of Israel?

209

S1D: Yeah, of course yeah. I: Where? S1D: Um, I don’t know, I didn’t think about it. I: Ok, so you are tired of Israel kind of or— S1D: Hard to live here. I: It’s hard to live here? S1D: Yeah. I: Can you say more about that? S1D: Like um, maybe as Jewish people it’s like more um, like how to say it, more easy to live here but I am like Arab student, I know that umm, I’m here, like different from other Jewish people and they will treat me as different no matter what. And that’s it so— I: No matter how good your Hebrew is, no matter how good your English is, no matter how smart you are—? S1D: Yeah. You’re like this— we will treat you like this. So it’s like something that will never go away.

Some Palestinian Israeli students spoke about their desire to leave Israel, to study abroad, to pursue professional ambitions outside of Israel and in general to shed their status as minorities.

Ultimately, English was the ticket out and therefore awarded a high status.

The final point I wish to address with reference to English status refers to elitism. Like students from the monolingual schools, to an extent discourse from the bilingual minority majority school shows that participants associated English with the educated and the elite. This association was more pronounced for the monolingual participants. However, bilingual participants also correlated English with being educated and having a high socioeconomic status.

One of the students expressed this as follows:

I: What about Palestinians? What kinds of Palestinians know English? S4D: Who went to school. Their parents have the money to pay for the school. . . I: So it sounds like you are saying that English is connected to um, kesef (money). S4D: Yeah. Those who have the money to learn it.

When asked what kinds of people know English, most participants mentioned people who are smart, educated and wealthy. As with monolingual students, bilingual students ascribed

210 characteristics associated with power and influence to English speakers. Bilingual students, like their monolingual peers, associated English with the educated and the elite—descriptors that symbolize power and ultimately a correlation between English and high language status.

Summary of Findings: English Status

This section has dealt with English status for bilingual minority majority students.

Discourse shows that participants were ambivalent about the status they awarded to English and struggled to balance personal priorities with practical priorities. However, in the international arena and when bearing in mind solely pragmatic considerations, English was awarded the highest status. Moreover, like their monolingual peers, students tied English to socioeconomic mobility, power, and elitism. They viewed the language as instrumental in advancing themselves and succeeding in the future. For Palestinian Israelis, English was also viewed as a means for potentially leaving Israel and for shedding their status as second class citizens.

Perceptions and Attitudes towards English

In the following section, I will address bilingual minority majority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards English. As with the previous schools, I address the same three overarching topics concerning students’ articulated thoughts and opinions about English: (1) students’ perceptions of English and language learning (2) students’ perceptions of English as an aspect of identity and (3) students’ perceptions of English and conflict resolution/peace education initiatives.

Language Learning

211

Bilingual minority majority students’ perceptions of English language learning relates to both learning that occurs in the confines of the classroom and learning that occurs in informal frameworks. As in the previous chapters, I focus on three aspects of English language learning: acquisition; conferred knowledge; and pedagogy.

English acquisition for bilingual minority majority students primarily involves English.

Although their classroom setting was linguistically heterogeneous and consisted of L1 Arabic speakers, L1 Hebrew speakers, L1 English speakers and an L1 Russian speaker, the language of instruction during English class was English. As was evident through the conducted preliminary observations, the teacher used English in most aspects of her teaching. Moreover, students exhibited high levels of communicative competency and demonstrated proficiency in the language. They identified themselves as trilingual and articulated a meta-cognitive awareness of the language structures accompanying English, Arabic and Hebrew. One student demonstrated this awareness in the following way:

I: Do you think English is different from other languages? S3D: Well yeah, most languages, it can be a lot of the same but it’s derived from a few other languages so— I: So here you are talking about how linguistically it’s different from other languages. S3D: Yeah. But is it different, how do you mean? What else? I: I would say also maybe culturally or maybe socially. S3D: Well yeah, I guess so, cause English, there’s a lot of different types of English. All kinds of people speak English and it’s, it doesn’t really matter what culture you are. If you speak English, the English kind of changes but it’s still English. I: Ok. And that you think is unique to English? S3D: Well in Arabic too sometimes there are a lot of different kinds of spoken Arabic I: Right. S3D: But that’s—that’s kind of the same I guess.

Students from the bilingual school articulated an awareness of language structures and their connection to language learning. They were “good” language learners. In other words, generally

212 speaking their educational context equipped them with the necessary tools to deal with and acquire three languages.

In part, their successful acquisition of English seemed to be tied to the fact that their

English learning focused on the acquisition of English as an International language (EIL). In theory, like students from the monolingual schools, bilingual students are learning EFL.

However, in practice their acquisition and subsequent use of English is much more characteristic of EIL. Discourse indicates that a significant portion of their acquisition occurred through interactions with speakers of other languages, computer mediated learning and total language immersion. In addition, students were awarded opportunities for travel and learned English through encounters with people in both the inner circle and the expanding circle. In short, while

English acquisition for bilingual minority majority students did involve traditional formal educational settings, their exposure and subsequent acquisition extended well beyond the classroom.

The acquisition of English directly relates to the second point I wish to discuss, namely students’ perceptions of the knowledge conferred through the acquisition of English. Students articulated a correlation between the acquisition of English and the acquisition of new ideas and concepts. Like their counterparts from the monolingual schools, bilingual minority majority participants said that they perceive of English as a vehicle to the world. Knowledge of English enabled participants to access information and be better informed about a range of issues. One student described this in the following way:

I: Okay. Do you feel that learning English or using English has exposed you to new ideas, cultures or things? S7D: Yes, definitely. Um, because I can speak and write and read in English, I can search for many more things, I can read more stuff, I can talk to more people. So I know much more.

213

A second student specified further explaining that through English he had learned about the world and more specifically about Indian culture. He explained this as follows:

I: Um, do you feel that learning English has exposed you to new ideas, or cultures, or things? I will translate that, or do you understand? S4D: Yes, it’s helped me to understand people, the world, but not—yeah, it’s helped me. I: Can you give an example? S4D: Like when I read about India, so I have to use at some point English. If I talk to them, if I want to read about them, I can’t understand their language, the Indian language, so I make it English and I understand it. I: So via English, you’ve learned about India? S4D: yeah.

As was mentioned in the section on English usage in the cyber arena, students perceive of

English as a gatekeeper to knowledge and information, especially because of the dominance of

English in the cyber arena, but also because of their perception of English as an international language and a language that traverses multiple cultures and peoples.

The final point I wish to address concerning students’ perceptions of English language learning relates to pedagogy. In contrast to students from the monolingual schools, bilingual minority majority participants spoke quite favorably of the English language learning practices employed in their school. While several students mentioned that they disliked learning grammar, students’ responses to questions concerning their attitudes towards learning English were overwhelmingly positive.

One hypothesis concerning these positive attitudes has to do with the fact that the English language learning program in the bilingual school emphasizes communicative competency and media proficiency in English. During English class, students regularly used the school’s computer labs; they sometimes had English speaking visitors and in general they had the opportunity to bring the outside world into their classroom. These pedagogical approaches were

214 markedly different than those employed in the monolingual schools and were more in line with teaching methods associated with English as an International Language (McKay, 2002).

As was discussed in reference to the monolingual schools and as will be addressed in the discussion section, a change in approach and employed pedagogical practices seems to be in order in the Israeli context. A move towards didactic methods promoting EIL appears to be critical in successfully harnessing the motivation and positive attitudes students correlated with

English language acquisition. In the bilingual minority majority school, this shift is already underway and the consequences appear to be affirmative.

Language & Identity

Bilingual minority majority students articulated several points with reference to English and identity. As with the previous schools, in particular, I will address identity perceptions related to others and identity perceptions related to self. Discourse suggests that the acquisition and use of English had an effect on students’ perceptions of others and students’ perceptions of self. English contributed to ongoing identity negotiation processes related not only to language but also to ethnicity, socioeconomic status and education.

Bilingual minority majority students mentioned positive attributes when articulating their perceptions of English speakers. Like students from the monolingual schools, they ascribed categorizations such as educated, successful and smart to English speakers. Moreover, as was mentioned in the section on English status, they tied knowledge of English to elitism and power.

While the characteristics they awarded to English speakers were lofty, they did not identify them with a specific group or nation. Similar to students from the monolingual schools, bilingual

215 students awarded denationalized attributes to English speakers. One student expressed this as follows:

I: If I say to you an English speaker is____, how would you complete that sentence? S6D: An English speaker person is almost every person on the earth. And I didn’t think of it and it’s not rare, it’s not—it’s something that you see almost every day. And it’s a regular thing for me. I: And so for you it’s not connected to America or— S6D: No, because I think like a lot of people here know English and almost in every country there is a big percent of people that know English.

In particular, this process of “internationalizing” English meant that students disconnected

English from one particular culture or ethnic group. A second student elaborated further:

S4D: English, it’s become like one of the—it’s more than one culture, it’s more, it’s all the cultures. I: So there’s no one culture that’s English? S4D: Yeah. Everyone.

On the one hand, students perceived of English as a language belonging to and representing many cultures. On the other hand, they perceived of English as limited to those people who were educated and had money. Consequently, among students from the bilingual minority majority school a paradox emerged wherein culturally, English belonged to everyone but socioeconomically, English belonged only to the educated and the elite. In that respect, some students mentioned that Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank might not identify or be identified as English speakers. Moreover, as will be discussed later, the Palestinian Israeli participants who were highly proficient in English indicated that by predominantly speaking

English, other Palestinians viewed them as snobs and less authentically Palestinian.

216

The transnationalization of English facilitated the self-appropriation of the identifications participants ascribed to English speakers. Students indicated that knowing English was “good” for them and made them “a better a person.” One student elaborated as follows:

I: Okay. Um, now I’m going to ask you some questions about what you think about English. Do you think learning English is important, why or why not? S13D: I think it’s important because it can help you in a lot of places and it can, you can explore your language and you—you can be a better person. You will be more intelligent. You can learn things that you can’t learn in your language. You can speak with other people from other countries and I think it’s very important for our life now.

Students ascribed positive identifications to themselves as English speakers. Nevertheless, this appropriation of the identifications accompanying English speakers— in particular for L1 Arabic speakers— appeared to come with a price.

In addition to internalizing these articulated positive identifications, students who identified themselves as fluent in English mentioned having to balance different aspects of their identity. For Jewish Israeli students, there seemed to be an overriding sense of harmony and balance between their identification as Israelis/Hebrew speakers and their identification as

English speakers. One student described this as follows:

I: Is something about your tarbut, your culture, that’s expressed in Hebrew or maybe also in Arabic? I don’t know? I’m asking you. S3D: I don’t know. I never thought about it. I: (laughing). Ok. Fair enough. S3D: I guess so, subconsciously. I was born here and I have lived here all my life. I mean I feel very American but I also feel kind of Israeli. So, I don’t know. I: What does being Israeli mean to you? S3D: I guess living here, living here and kind of— I: It’s ok. S3D: I don’t really know what to say. I: Feeling connected to this place? S3D: Yeah. Being—feeling I guess like kind of you’re home. Not just—yeah, that’s kind of what I think.

217

In contrast to the sense of harmony expressed by Jewish Israeli participants, Palestinian Israeli students articulated a sense of dissonance between their identification as Palestinians/Arabic speakers and their identification as English speakers. Moreover, they described being caught between different linguistic communities of practice and being perceived by other Palestinians as traitors to their ethnicity and their people. The Palestinian Israeli who identified herself as a native English speaker described this in the following way:

S10D: I have friends from the LaSalle, you know it? And they only speak in English I: You have friends from where? S10D: LaSalle School. They only speak in English. Like they are not ready to speak in Arabic. Like when we hang out with other friends who don’t speak English. They are not like us in a way, different. I: Like you guys are snobs? S10D: I don’t know. I’m always trying to be with them and with the other one, like speaking Arabic and English at the same time. I: So you’re kind of split between different worlds? S10D: yeah.

Later in the interview, she elaborates further:

I: Do you think somebody from Nablus thinks differently about English speakers than somebody—than a Palestinian from Yaffo— S10D: Of course because I think in Nablus it’s like, they don’t speak English very well, I guess. I don’t know. But um—like they even look at everyone in a different way. Just like why are they speaking in English and not speaking in Arabic. And you know like in Nablus and the problems there so they think of like we are less Palestinian or something.

This sense of cultural identity dissonance was mentioned by both participants from the monolingual minority school and participants from the bilingual minority majority school. As was discussed in the chapter on the monolingual minority school, some L1 Arabic speakers wrestled with competing identity expectations which, at times, resulted in discord. This process of negotiating competing identity constructions will be further addressed in the discussion section. Here I simply reaffirm the point that English is not merely a neutralizing entity but also

218 a linguistic force that affects local/indigenous identity constructions and the equilibrium between various components of identity.

Conflict Resolution and Peace Education Initiatives

The final section of this chapter deals with students’ perceptions of the role of English in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives. One of the principle aims of this study was to investigate students’ perceptions of the role of English and English language learning in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Throughout this study, both directly and indirectly, students were asked to consider the use of English in planned, intentional encounters between

Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis.

In particular for students from the bilingual minority majority school, discourse concerning students’ perceptions of the role of English in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives was extremely polarized. Some students argued that English was the middle way and a source for reconciliation while other students argued that English was associated with the

US/Israel alliance and therefore a source for propagating conflict. Still other students argued both positions and said that the way English was perceived depended on who was speaking and under what circumstances. Bilingual minority majority participants articulated a wide gamut of perspectives. In general, more than students from the monolingual schools, they articulated an awareness of the complexities accompanying English and refrained from blanketed pronouncements such as English is entirely neutral or English is entirely biased.

Bilingual minority majority students articulated pragmatism with regards to what language should be used in peace education initiatives. On the one hand, they argued that Arabic and Hebrew were languages that categorized their speakers and therefore perpetuated

219 presuppositions about beliefs and alliances. English, on the other hand, allowed people to put aside ethnic identifications and to simply communicate with each other. One student described this in the following way:

I: What do you think a Palestinian Israeli feels when he speaks English with a Jewish Israeli and is it different than speaking Hebrew? S10D: I guess it’s different for the person who’s hearing them talking together like um, I guess he won’t know who is the Arabian and who is the Jewish and maybe because the problems with Israeli people and Arabian people are better when we speak in English. Um like in my opinion I think it’s good because like everyone forget—not forget but it’s just like put away the idea that he’s Arabian and he’s Israeli and they can talk in a language that they connect together.

A second student was more specific arguing that initiatives pursuing peace needed to be conducted in English. Moreover, as a former participant in a program called Kids for Peace , she mentioned that she had firsthand experience witnessing the benefits of using English in coexistence initiatives. She explained this as follows:

S9D: If I want peace with Arabs and Jews, I’m probably not going to say it in Arabic or in Hebrew, I’m gonna say it in English, even though it’s about Arabs and Jews. I: Why do you think that is? S9D: Well because it’s just easier. I don’t know how to say it but it just feels better. Like if you speak Arabic they’ll probably think you’re Arab. If you speak Hebrew they’ll think you’re Jewish and it just makes problems. But if you speak in English, they’ll know that you understand them, they understand you, you can make peace together. I: Okay S9D: Like when we were in a peace camp in the USA with the Kid’s for Peace, we spoke just English because like, I don’t have to express myself twice—in Arabic and in Hebrew. I just say it in English and I’ll know, I’ll make sure that everyone understands me.

Like participants from the monolingual schools, there were definitive voices among bilingual minority majority students arguing that English could be perceived as a neutral language and a legitimate option for fostering resolution and reconciliation.

220

Alongside these proclamations arguing that English suspended identifications and nurtured understanding, students maintained critical perspectives concerning the role of English in the region. Students articulated an awareness regarding the associations accompanying

English. Students said that some people—in particular Palestinians— might associate English with the United States and the US/Israeli alliance, and therefore English was not a force for reconciliation. Moreover, when discussing conflict resolution and peace initiatives, English was no longer perceived as denationalized but rather clearly aligned with the United States and therefore Israel. Two students elaborated on this alliance. The first is a Jewish student and the second is a Muslim student:

I: In general, do you think Palestinians have a different opinion of English speakers than Jewish Israelis? S8D: Ah, yeah. Like the Palestinians might think of them as like the people that help Israel and stuff and some of them may not like that and the Jewish people think of them as like our friend cause they help and everything.

* * *

I: Okay. Um, in general what do you think Palestinian Israelis think about English speakers? S13D: Well ah, most Palestinians hate USA because of the love that USA give to Israel, the support. But now it changed with Obama and that so I think more and more Palestinians start to like USA. So I think that they are starting to learn more English . I: Okay, but in the past they connected English speakers with— S13D: In the past, most of the Muslim Palestinians I think didn’t know English very well. I: And didn’t think positively of English speakers? S13D: No.

A second student elaborated further arguing that because of the strong ties between the United

States and Israel, other languages such as German or French, might be perceived as more neutral and perhaps better for negotiation and resolution. She described this in the following way:

I: Ok. So you think that um, Mustafa and Danny have different opinions about English speakers?

221

S1D: Yeah. I think, yes. And maybe it’s like an opinion of politics, maybe. Like we know that United States is with Israel, was— and maybe because he don’t know that there’s a lot of people talk English, not just people from the United States or something like this maybe he will think about them as enemies or something like that. I: Someone from the United States is someone who supports Israel? S1D: Yeah. Exactly. I: So in this case Mustafa might think an English speaker is someone who supports Israel. S1D: Yeah. Because he don’t know like, from where they are or something like that. I: Um ok. And if they spoke German or French you don’t think that would be the case? S1D: No, not really. I: Ok, so actually you’re saying that English is less neutral than German or French or Japanese. You know what neutral means? S1D: Yes, neutrali. . . Yeah, I think so. I: That’s very interesting

Bilingual minority majority students’ perceptions of the role of English in conflict resolution and coexistence initiatives were not definitive. In certain situations, students supported the use of

English arguing that it encouraged equality and minimized differences. In other circumstances, they equated English with the United States and with a country that supports Israel at the expense of the Palestinians.

In the end, bilingual minority majority students’ perceptions regarding the role of English in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives bore similarities to the perceptions articulated by students from the monolingual school. On the one hand, English was perceived as an international, denationalized language and as a means for equalizing interactions between

Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis. On the other hand, English was by no means seen as entirely neutral or an inconsequential vehicle for communication. Arguments were presented from all three schools discarding the use of English and supporting the use of Hebrew and/or

Arabic in bilingual Arabic-Hebrew encounters.

Summary of Findings: Perceptions and Attitudes towards English

222

This section has dealt with bilingual minority majority students’ perceptions and attitudes towards English. With respect to English language learning, students mentioned that they like learning English. Their classes are conducted primarily in English and emphasize both traditional

EFL learning and aspects of EIL such as communicative competency and computer literacy.

Students showed that they are successful language learners who exhibit high levels of meta- cognitive awareness concerning language structures and language learning. They indicated that

English learning had introduced them to new knowledge and information and that the language had served as a window to broader contexts. The pedagogical approaches employed in the bilingual school were more in line with teaching methods associated with English as an

International Language. Such methods seem to harness student motivation and contribute to positive learning experiences.

With regard to language and identity, students ascribed positive attributes to English speakers such as educated and smart. They tended to promote denationalized perceptions of

English speakers and linked the language to a variety of cultures and peoples. Nevertheless, for

Palestinian Israelis, acquisition and use of English was sometimes a source of identity dissonance. Participants mentioned feeling caught between their identity as English speakers and their identity as Palestinians. At times, the two identifications seemed to be in opposition. In contrast, Jewish Israelis articulated more of a sense of harmony in relation to their various ethnic and linguistic identifications.

With regards to conflict resolution and peace education initiatives, bilingual minority majority participants articulated an awareness of the nuances accompanying the use of English in coexistence initiatives. On the one hand, students were strong advocates of English arguing that the language could be perceived as neutral and that it enabled participants to shed presupposed

223 identifications and alliances. On the other hand, many students equated English with the United

States, and the strong Israel/American alliance colored perceptions and attitudes towards

English. In the end, students’ view of English in peace education initiatives was context dependent. English was not always the optimal choice, but, at times, it was perceived as the best available option.

Summary of Findings Related to the Bilingual Minority Majority School

This chapter has dealt with findings related to the bilingual minority majority school

(Arabic-Hebrew-English). Bilingual minority majority participants identified themselves as trilingual, and they participate in educational, societal and personal frameworks that make use of

Hebrew, Arabic, and English. While they do not use these languages equally, they acknowledged the presence and value of all three languages. In the global arena, students indicated that they primarily use English. Moreover, because of the unique agenda of the bilingual school and the large amount of publicity the school has received, participants mentioned having amble opportunities to travel abroad and to interact with speakers of other languages.

While students indicated that they use English in a variety of encounters and they were forthcoming about the merits of English usage, in the local arena participants noted that they reverted to Hebrew usage and Arabic usage. Hebrew usage dominates the local public arena as well as interactions between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis. Neither side mentioned being concerned by the dominance of Hebrew nor by the fact that in an ostensibly bilingual setting, most interethnic communication occurs in Hebrew. Arabic usage was accepted as limited to personal and familial arenas.

224

With respect to language status, bilingual minority majority students articulated ambiguity. Discourse shows that both L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers struggle to find a balance between emotional/personal linguistic priorities and utilitarian linguistic priorities.

Jewish Israeli students generally gave emotional and personal priority to Hebrew but awarded the highest status to English in the global arena. They also mentioned that Arabic was an important language in the region, but this ideological obligation did not translate to power or prestige. L1 Arabic speakers wavered between prioritizing their ethnic/religious language, giving priority to the principle local language and awarding a high status to the global language—namely English. Ultimately, language status was not absolute but circumstance and context-dependent.

Regarding perceptions and attitudes towards Hebrew, Arabic and English, L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers articulated different perspectives. Jewish Israelis indicated that they perceive of Hebrew as the language tied to their personal and ethnic identifications. Unlike their peers from the monolingual majority school, they did not correlate Hebrew with nation- state rhetoric but simply indicated a personal or familial connection to the language. Regarding

Arabic, students were frank about the fact that while they believe Arabic is symbolically significant, they do not perceive of the language as tied to prestige or socioeconomic clout.

Palestinian Israeli participants did not perceive of Hebrew as their language. However, they gave value to the acquisition and use of Hebrew and identified it as critical for succeeding in Israel. With respect to Arabic, they identified it as the language tied to their culture and ethnicity. Moreover, Arabic was perceived as a major marker of identity which sometimes contributed to a sense of dissonance between participants’ identification as Israelis and their identification as Palestinians. English was also perceived as a marker of identity and, at times,

225 students mentioned that English was also a source of disharmony. Students reported that fluency and use of English might be perceived by other Palestinians or Palestinian Israelis as a symbol of not being fully and authentically Palestinian.

With respect to English, all participants from the bilingual minority majority school indicated that they perceive of English as an important tool for their success and future. They reported that they enjoy learning English, and the acquisition and use of the language has exposed them to new ideas and concepts. The employed pedagogical practices at the bilingual school appear to be more in the mode of EIL emphasizing communicative competency and computer literacy. This didactic shift from EFL to EIL seems to contribute to student motivation and language proficiency.

Like students from the monolingual schools, bilingual minority majority students tended to endorse denationalized perceptions of English speakers and associate the language with a variety of cultures. In that respect, to a degree, English was perceived as the middle way and a means for promoting resolution and peace. However, students also mentioned the strong ties between the United States and Israel, suggesting that English was not a neutral, international force but a direct link to ongoing conflict and occupation.

Ultimately, bilingual minority majority students were extremely pragmatic regarding language usage, status and perspectives. They study in an educational context imbued with ideals and ideology. However, for the most part their linguistic choices reflected a utilitarian approach to languages, and pragmatics overrode politics and ideological principles.

226

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION

This study began as a cross cultural investigation of English language learners in areas of intractable conflict. I began my research with several interconnected goals in mind. First, generally speaking, I aimed to investigate the experiences of English language learners in three, linguistically diverse, schools in Jerusalem—what I have since classified as (1) monolingual majority (Hebrew-English), (2) monolingual minority (Arabic-English), and (3) bilingual minority-majority (Arabic-Hebrew-English). More specifically, I intended to compare and contrast learners' experiences—in particular paying attention to how learners perceive and understand the impact of English learning on themselves and others. This consideration of the impact of English included an analysis of the identity negotiation processes accompanying

English acquisition and use. Finally, given the wider sociopolitical context of this study, I planned to examine the role of English and English language learning in conflict resolution initiatives broadly speaking and in Israeli-Palestinian encounters in particular.

All of these aims build on a relatively new body of research that deals with the impact of

English as an international or global language and the multitude of social, economic, cultural and linguistic consequences that transpire when English comes into contact with local and/or indigenous languages. As was discussed in the review of literature, local varieties of English are surfacing all over the globe. The extent to which these varieties constitute a reconstruction of

English to represent local articulations and priorities remains unclear.

Worldwide, local and comparative research is being conducted in a variety of frameworks. Canagarajah for example, has looked at expressions of power and identity construction in English among Sri Lankan Tamils (2006). Macpherson (2005) has focused on

227 identity negotiation processes among Tibetan English language learners. Norton and Kamal

(2003) examined perceptions of literacy and English in Pakistan. Kachru, Kachru and Sridhar

(2008) have conducted extensive research on the effects and development of English in South

Asia while Honna (2009) has focused on English language contact and intercultural communication in East Asia. In the Israeli context, extensive research has not been conducted on the impact and multiple consequences of the increasing presence of English as a global language. This study aims to contribute to this area of research.

In the framework of this study, discourse suggests that the impact of English remains in flux. Participants articulated needing to balance ideological/cultural priorities with practical considerations. As will be discussed subsequently, the perceived denationalization or

“tranationalization” of English has had some bearing on this quandary and, to a degree, enabled participants to acculturate English to reflect local, social and cultural expressions. But the roots of the local languages run deep and students ultimately identified English as an outside or foreign entity and remained bound to their heritage language.

The following section constitutes a comparative analysis of a portion of the points presented in the previous three sections. Until now, I have examined each of the researched schools separately. Now I will discuss findings and implications with reference to all three educational contexts, looking again at the themes of language usage, language status and perceptions and attitudes towards language. This synthesis of the findings provides a platform for examining similarities and differences that emerged between the schools and across linguistic, ethnic and classroom lines.

Language Usage

228

In the following section, I will discuss several points related to English usage and then discuss local language usage. Participants from all three schools indicated that English was an indispensible tool. They stated that they use English for a variety of purposes in international and local arenas. They also said that English usage dominated the cyber arena, and technological literacy was dependent on knowledge of English. Students spoke favorably about their opportunities to use English in a variety of settings. They also seemed to be highly aware of the fact that knowledge and use of English carried power. Proficiency in English served as an entryway to success, prosperity and future achievements.

Alongside this acknowledgement of the benefits of English, emerged some cautionary discourse. Students indicated that English usage was positive only to a certain extent. It needed to be moderated and too much English potentially constituted a threat to local identities which students tied to the local languages. Ultimately, discourse suggests that English needed to be used with discretion and should not replace local languages and the cultural identifications they symbolize.

This awareness of and tendency to synthesize the local and the global suggests a move away from an inner circle conceptualization of English and towards the concept of English as an

International Language (EIL). In addition, such reconceptualizations are framed within the boarder climate of Israel/Palestine and the specific classroom contexts of this study. According to McKay (2002) EIL exhibits sociolinguistic and linguistic characteristics that vary, sometimes dramatically, from Standard English. She describes some of these differences as follows:

• L2 speakers do not need to internalize the cultural norms of native speakers of that language • An international language becomes de-nationalized • An international language functions to facilitate the communication of learners’ ideas and culture. The medium is English

229

Discourse clearly shows that participants in this study use English as a language of wider communication (LWC). Their use of English bore resemblance to EIL both in function and in form.

Concerning the former, function, students reported using English to communicate with speakers of other languages. Many said that they identify themselves as English speakers, but they do not identify themselves as tied to the cultural practices associated with the inner circle.

Finally, while not entirely denationalized, some participants linked English to a variety of cultures and, to a certain extent, disconnected English from inner circle countries such as the

United States or the United Kingdom.

Concerning the latter, form, there are multiple examples throughout the collected discourse of World Englishes in use. Unless otherwise noted, the interviews and focus groups were conducted in English. Students exhibited high levels of proficiency despite the fact that many of them had never had extended exposure to the language or spent time in an English speaking country. Students exemplified linguistic practices that some sociolinguistics argue may ultimately become characteristic of English in international arenas. These students were communicatively competent in English, and some even identified themselves as native or near native English speaker. On the other hand, they produced speech acts that diverged, sometimes significantly, from standard American or British English.

For a native English speaker, failure to add an “s” in third person singular in the present simple or incorrectly conjugating an irregular past participle would be considered production errors. However, given that such “errors” rarely affect understanding or communicative competency, for speakers of international English, they may ultimately become part of an

230 accepted, less complex lexicon that linguists argue frequently accompanies an ever globalized language. Mckay (2002) argues that “as speakers take ownership of English, they will likely change the language. Those changes that do not impede intelligibility should be recognized as one of the natural consequences of the use of English an international language” (p.127). Such linguistic trends are becoming more and more prevalent as the number of English speakers in the outer circle and the expanding circle continue to increase exponentially. According to Crystal

(2003), English is spoken in some form by three times as many nonnative speakers as native speakers (p.69). It is the most commonly used language for communication between speakers of other languages.

Participants in this study constructed a form of successful communicative competency within the framework of their classrooms and during the conducted research activities that bore similarities to EIL. Their discourse provides an example of the ways in which English can be manipulated to facilitate appropriation, communication and local representation. The end result may be a case of a globalized language, what Kachru, Kachru & Nelson (2009), Jenkins (2007) and others refer to as World Englishes —one of the many international varieties of English that are cropping up all over the globe and in cyberspace.

* * *

Regarding Arabic usage and Hebrew usage, study findings support some unexpected outcomes, in particular with respect to language choice in the local arena. With respect to Arabic usage, Jewish Israeli students emphasized the importance of Arabic-Hebrew bilingualism for all ethnic groups whereas Palestinian Israelis were indifferent if not against Jewish Israelis use of

231

Arabic. Students from the monolingual majority school mentioned that it was “not nice” that

Palestinian Israelis know and use Hebrew and that Jewish Israelis do not know and use Arabic.

They argued that in order to be fair and considerate, each ethnic group should learn the other’s language. To a lesser degree, this perspective was also articulated by the Jewish Israelis from the bilingual school.

In contrast to Jewish Israelis, Palestinian Israelis placed little or no importance on Jewish

Israeli students using Arabic. In fact, in some cases, Jewish students using or learning Arabic carried negative connotations symbolizing further occupation and disempowerment. By being the lone bilinguals (or trilinguals), Palestinian Israelis sustained power and maintained the upper hand. Within the framework of this study, at least from the viewpoint of Palestinian Israeli participants, Jewish Israelis’ use of Arabic was superfluous if not objectionable. This finding has implications for educational initiatives aimed at promoting bilingualism and efforts to learn the language of the other side as well as those devoted to peace and coexistence in the

Israeli/Palestinian context. Some of these educational programs invest in two way/dual language bilingualism (Arabic-Hebrew) under the conjecture that understanding and reconciliation can be achieved through proficiency in the other side’s language. In fact, as will be discussed in the subsequent paragraph, such programs might have equal impact if they conducted their initiatives in Hebrew or English and invested in other aspects of their programs.

The benefits of dual language bilingual education for both majority and minority students have been well documented (see for example Baker, 2006; Siegel, 2003). However, in areas of intractable conflict these language programs are “part of a wider society, such that equality of languages and resoluteness of purpose and mission can be difficult to deliver.” (Baker, p.238).

Moreover, programs must deal with competing ambitions such as “English language fluency,

232 high educational achievement and social mobility” (Baker, 2006, p.238). Language acquisition for ideological or political purposes emerges as just one element of a complex picture.

The rationale behind investing in Jewish Israeli acquisition and use of Arabic could be said to be rooted in intergroup contact theory. As was mentioned in the review of literature, this theoretical approach states that intergroup contact with individual members of an out-group can lead to a more positive attitude towards the out-group as well as prejudice reduction. Specific conditions must be met in order for intergroup contact to be effective including equal status among participants within the contact (symmetry) (Dixon, Durrheim & Tredoux, 2005). In theory, Jewish Israeli acquisition and use of Arabic might be a symbolic means for generating equality or symmetry among Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis. In practice, attempts to promote and sustain linguistic symmetry seem to benefit the Jewish Israelis (they feel “nice” and are able to satisfy their ideological principles), whereas Palestinian Israelis gain very little. In fact, they may end up feeling further disempowered.

Along the same lines, the connotations and implications of the use Hebrew were not as detrimental or offensive as Jewish Israeli students perceived them to be. Many L1 Arabic speakers indicated that they did not have a problem using and speaking Hebrew. Some articulated pride in the fact that they know Hebrew well and can successfully function and flourish in Hebrew dominant contexts. Fluency in Hebrew carried symbolic power that was connected to achievement and social mobility on the one hand and empowerment and legitimacy on the other hand. The acquisition and use of Hebrew enabled Palestinian Israeli participants to be on par or better than their Jewish Israeli counterparts.

Nevertheless, the use of Hebrew was not solely positive, and a few Palestinian Israeli students indicated that they did not like learning or using Hebrew and that they felt occupied by

233 the language and its accompanying connotations. In this respect, as was previously mentioned,

English was considered more neutral, more appropriate, less politically loaded and an international language. At the same time, this study has shown that the acquisition and use of

English seems to negatively impact the linguistic equilibrium between Hebrew and Arabic and contribute to a language hierarchy that further demotes Arabic. In the end, ideological aspirations and niceties are limited incentives, and successful language literacy seems to be primarily fueled by pragmatic considerations. Depending on the situation, students use the language that affords them the greatest communicative competency and social mobility, and ideology largely falls to the wayside.

The final point I wish to make with reference to language usage concerns all three languages. During the conducted interviews and focus groups, students from all three schools gave examples of situations where Hebrew, Arabic or English should not be used. Their reasoning behind the decision not to use a certain language stemmed from perceived danger, discrimination and anti-Semitism. Language was perceived as a marker of identity and these identities were sometimes perceived as in direct opposition with a particular local regime.

Despite declarations privileging one language over another, ultimately none of the languages was completely immune to negative repercussions or deemed appropriate in every situation. Thus, for example, in certain contexts in the international arena, students said that Hebrew should not be used because of anti-Semitism. Other students mentioned that in certain Arabic speaking countries, English usage would not be welcomed. Still other students mentioned that in the local context, in certain situations, Arabic should not be used because of the negative connotations attributed to Arabic speakers and the discrimination L1 Arabic speakers might subsequently incur by using their language. Some Palestinian Israelis also said that in certain places in the

234 local arena—such as Nablus or Bethlehem—English should not be used because the language immediately marked its speakers as Americans and thus supporters of Israel.

Ultimately, student discourse indicates that none of the languages addressed in this study proved to be fully neutral or immune to ailments, and being bilingual or trilingual proved to be extremely advantageous for circumventing prejudices and abetting mere survival.

Language Status

There are several implications I wish to address with reference to language status. As was mentioned throughout this study, language status refers not only to students’ articulations of the status awarded to a particular language but also students’ assessment of the power and status, or lack of power and status, conferred by knowledge of a particular language.

Findings related to language status were characterized by participants’ need for heritage language maintenance and their desire to achieve proficiency in the languages offering them the greatest linguistic capital. Psychologically and culturally, Hebrew or Arabic had the highest status. Discourse from the three schools was virtually identical with participants stating that they felt they could not simply forget about their mother tongue or the language they connected to their ethnicity. On the other hand, most students acknowledged that in the global arena and in the bigger picture, English was the most important language and the language that ensured the greatest possibility for success.

Critical approaches in the field of World Englishes as well as in SLA research and bilingual education have been examining this tension between heritage language maintenance and English acquisition (see for example, Canagarajah, 2004; Kachru, 1992; Pavlenko & Lantolf,

2000; Pennycook, 2000). To a degree, the re-appropriation of English to reflect local practices

235 and traditions constitutes one resolution to this ongoing dissonance. According to Dhillon

(2009), “the linguistic phenomena captured by the term World Englishes speak no doubt to the language that is shared, but speak with as much force to the ways in which varieties have developed in response to specific life worlds. The concept captures the creativity with which humans take up the linguistic resources they find in their environment to enable the development and growth of their own projects” (p.536). While extensive research has not been conducted in reference to the adaptation of English in the Israeli/Palestinian arena, within the framework of this study students did articulate some denationalization of English, tying the languages to multiple cultures and communities.

According to Lysandrou (2003) “if English can facilitate the process of universal dispossession and loss, so can it be turned round and made to facilitate the contrary process of universal empowerment and gain” (p.210). Such adoption and adaption does not transpire overnight and educational policies as well as employed pedagogies need to be designed to foster emancipation and reappropriation. Moreover, in areas of intractable conflict where languages symbolize a range of personal, ethical and political issues, prioritizing one language over another is not simply a matter of personal choice but also a sociopolitical statement with sometimes unexpected consequences. Through this study, I discovered that students did find some liberative/emancipatory expression in English. Through English language learning and general acquisition and use, students indicated that they were exposed to ideas, concepts and ideologies beyond what is culturally imbedded in Arabic and Hebrew and beyond what they hear in their school and home environs. I cannot say whether such liberating expressions might be present in other languages or whether English as a global language has particularly emancipating properties. Such questions are worthy of further examination. At this point, however, we can be

236 certain that the acquisition of a language that is outside the present conflict, and specifically one that is tied to power and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977), has multiple implications that extend beyond the mere acquisition of vocabulary and syntax.

The issue of language maintenance has bearing on the second point I wish to address in relation to language status, namely bilingualism versus trilingualism. Previously conducted studies (see for example Shohamy, 2007) along with discourse collected from this study indicate that in the Israeli context, English has the highest status in the global arena, Hebrew has the highest status in the local arena, and Arabic is marginalized and awarded a low status. Arabic is not tied to cultural capital or socioeconomic mobility, and in order to prosper, L1 Arabic speaking students must achieve proficiency in Arabic, Hebrew and English. Whereas L1 Arabic speakers must achieve trilingualism, their Jewish peers can suffice with bilingualism (Hebrew-

English). Palestinian Israelis need to achieve proficiency in two powerful and hegemonic languages, English and Hebrew, but they receive no recognition for their proficiency in Arabic

(for further discussion see Shohamy, 2007). On the contrary, their proficiency in Hebrew and

English often comes at the expense of their heritage language.

This language acquisition imbalance creates a state of inequality from very early on in students’ education and is one, of many components, contributing to systemic inequality in Israel between L1 Arabic speakers and L1 Hebrew speakers. Discrepancies between the Arab

Education System and the Jewish Education System can be found in a number of areas including budget allocation and academic achievement (Blass, 2010). Arab sector schools are underfunded and overcrowded, and the prerequisites for academic success are often absent. Achieving trilingualism in these less than optimal conditions is indeed an educational and linguistic challenge. Bearing in mind the unique linguistic hurdles posed to L1 Arabic speakers in Israel

237 and by addressing them through policy, funding and educational resources is another important step in closing the gap between ethnic populations in Israel. Ultimately, the roots of inequality connect to many parameters, among them language status and the power, or lack of power, conferred by proficiency in a specific language.

Perceptions and Attitudes towards Language

In this final section, I will address several implications and conclusions with respect to perceptions and attitudes towards Hebrew, Arabic and English. In particular, I will discuss language learning, language and identity and the role of language in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives.

With respect to language learning, I have opted to focus the discussion on the issue of motivation as this emerged as a paramount issue with respect to language learning. More specifically, I will discuss motivation as it relates to English language learning and motivation as it relates to local language learning. According to Lightbown and Spada (1999) second language and foreign language motivation “is a complex phenomenon which can be defined in terms of two factors: learners’ communicative needs and their attitudes towards the second language community” (p.56). As was mentioned in the review of literature, when evaluating the impact of motivation on second or foreign language learning, it is helpful to distinguish between different kinds of motivation. In this discussion, we focus on Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) instrumental motivation and what can be defined as ideological motivation .

Today, for much of the world, instrumental motivation drives learners’ acquisition of

English (see for example Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Xu, 2008). Educational opportunities, better jobs, economic security and socioeconomic mobility are all benefits correlated with English

238 language learning. In the Israeli context, this is true for both L1 Arabic speakers and L1 Hebrew speakers. Study participants indicated that they are motivated to learn English and desire the opportunities and skills accompanying knowledge and acquisition of English.

Additional distinct sources of motivation that emerged as prominent in the framework of this study include a desire to access the vast array of information available in English, communicative competency between speakers of other languages and the ability to participate in and contribute to global conversations occurring primarily in cyberspace but also in global and sometimes local locations.

More specifically, learners from all three schools spoke at length about the connection between English and technology. One of the primary sources fueling students’ instrumental motivation stemmed from the fact that they are learning English in order to gain access to the internet and other technologically based frameworks. English dominates information and communication in cyberspace. Students were aware of this and articulated a need to achieve technological proficiency in English. Participants use the internet, Facebook , iPhone applications and any number of technological services that require English. They spoke favorably of English in part because of this concrete, identifiable need associated with English language learning. They want to be able to use these programs and services and are therefore motivated to invest in and expand their knowledge of English.

As was mentioned in the review of literature, research has shown that there is a direct correlation between motivation and success in second and foreign language learning. Dörnyei

(1994) argues that it is one of the main determinants of achievement and success. However, conducted preliminary observations as well as collected student discourse suggest that students perceive of the employed pedagogical practices as out-of-date, boring, and irrelevant. While

239 participants indicated that English language learning was important and they liked learning

English through informal and technological mediums, current classroom practices seem to fail to harness their articulated motivation.

This study suggests that in the Israeli context, like many expanding circle contexts, curricular reforms that bear in mind students’ changing motivations as well as technological advancements may be in order. Undoubtedly, first measures have been taken in the field of teacher education in general and language education in particular. However, an emphasis on learner purposes, globalization and technological literacy need to be a top priority in language training programs and ultimately, in English language classrooms. Such changes, I hypothesize, would ultimately enable teachers to take advantage of the motivation driving so many English language learners today.

Motivation also seems to be a critical factor in the acquisition of local languages.

Ideological motivation , in so far as it is defined as personal, cultural and perhaps professional obligation, appears to drive most Hebrew speakers’ desire to learn Arabic whereas instrumental motivation appears to drive most Arabic speakers’ desire to learn Hebrew. These motivation differences have an effect on language acquisition success and need to be taken into account in any educational initiative proposing to implement two-way, dual language programs in the region. Moreover, the lack of instrumental motivation with respect to Arabic language learning may be a factor in successful language acquisition for both L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Arabic speakers. Certainly, the linguistic and sociolinguistic makeup of Arabic, in particular the issue of diglossia, also plays a part in how well individuals acquire the language. Nevertheless, the role of instrumental motivation may also be significant. While these considerations are beyond the scope of this study, questions concerning L1 Arabic speakers’ motivations for learning

240

Arabic and their effect on acquisition are worthy of further investigation. In particular, what happens to L1 learners’ proficiency levels when they perceive of their language as lacking practical application and instrumental motivation. Clearly, such questions also have relevance for individuals learning Arabic as a second or foreign language.

* * *

With respect to language and identity, student discourse from all three schools showed that participants perceive of language as a strong marker of identity. In describing the relationship between cultural/ethnic identity and language, Toribio (2006) suggests that language is a key signifier of group membership, a cue for ethnic categorization and a means for in-group cohesion (p.138). Discourse from this study suggests that participants perceive of language as demarcating ethnicity and, to a degree, religion, and that language aligned them with a particular ethnic group. The identifications of Jew and Arab and their corresponding languages were particularly salient. On some level, all study participants perpetuated binary rhetoric in which

Hebrew speaker was equated with being Jewish and Arabic speaker was equated with being

Palestinian. That said, differences emerged between the identity perceptions articulated by monolingual students and those articulated by bilingual students.

Monolingual majority students utilized “us” and “them” categorizations to identify Israeli

Jews and Israeli Palestinians. However, their articulations indicated that they were conscious of and could conceive of ethnic and linguistic traits that were common to both sides of the binary.

Thus, for example, they acknowledged that there are Jewish Israelis that speak Arabic and that the language was a part of some Jewish Israelis’ cultural and historical traditions. In fact, in

241 comparison to their bilingual counterparts, students articulated more of an awareness of the diversity and multiculturalism present among the Jewish Israeli population.

Monolingual minority students also articulated some awareness of diversity present in each side of the Arab-Jewish binary. Specifically, they referenced Christian Arabs, Russians and

Ashkenazi Jews. They identified these populations as educated, elite and often highly proficient in English. While some of their articulations seemed to be rooted in stereotypes and preconceived notions of identity, they did recognize a certain level of diversity with respect to ethnic categorizations.

In contrast, students from the bilingual minority majority school articulated very little awareness of the ethno-cultural diversity present on each side of the Arab-Jewish binary.

Bekerman (2003) describes the school as “an educational environment that purposely, from the start and throughout, categorized people not by constructing them but by preventing even the most minute attempt to dismantle even the tiniest brick of their identity. . . a Jew is a Jew and a

Palestinian is a Palestinian” (p.143). The saliency of this Arab-Jewish binary seems to flatten the discourse available to students and limit the scope of what is culturally available to them.

Although the school espouses to be a haven for pluralism and multiculturalism, the pervasiveness of the Arab-Jewish binary supports only one expression of diversity—Arab or Jew.

Consequently, bilingual minority majority students were more aware of cross cultural diversity but were less aware of the ethnic diversity present within each side of the binary.

This hyper-emphasis on the categorizations of Jew and Arab limited the discursive rhetoric available or conceivable to bilingual minority majority students. Then again, as was discussed in the chapter on the bilingual minority majority school, these students seemed less inculcated by nation-state rhetoric and the limitations that accompany this ideology. Within the

242

State of Israel, Palestinian-Jewish identifications frequently exemplify a broader ideology known as nationalism. Conceptions of national identity involve an intricate interplay between cultural, socioeconomic, political and linguistic forces. In his eminent work Imagined Communities ,

Anderson writes, “Nationalism has undergone a process of modulation and adaptation, according to different eras, political regimes, economies, and social structures” (1991, p.157). Nations are formed and collapse over time and through political, social, economic and cultural negotiations.

Identifications are adopted and shed. The face of “nation-ness” (Anderson, 1991) changes over time, and inhabitants imagine themselves in new and varied ways.

Bilingual minority majority students were aware of and made use of the categorizations of Jew and Palestinian. However, they did not seem to be inculcated with nation-state ideology.

Their heritage languages were tied to culture, ethnicity and, at times, religion, but nation-state rhetoric was starkly absent from their discourse. In contrast, nearly all monolingual students referenced nation-state jargon and found some expression of nation-state rhetoric through the use of Hebrew and/or Arabic. For monolingual majority students, Hebrew was perceived as the language of their country and tied to the ideological symbols associated with the Jewish State.

For monolingual minority students, with respect to Hebrew, students articulated both ideological and pragmatic nation-state inculcation. They indicated that whether they liked it or not, Hebrew was the language of their country and the only legitimate language of the State. Regarding

Arabic, students tied the language to Palestine and to symbols associated with their own, independent nation.

As was pointed out in the chapter on bilingual minority majority students, the lack of nation-state rhetoric in bilingual students’ discourse did not mean that they identified less with

Hebrew or Arabic than their monolingual counterparts. They simply tied their local languages to

243 ethnic/cultural identifications rather than national identifications. Whether this is a consequence of their bilingual/bicultural schooling or a combination of numerous educational forces requires further investigation beyond the scope of this study. Certainly, the absence of national rhetoric begs further questions regarding socialization processes in integrated bilingual settings.

In general, these differences in identity perceptions and nation-state articulations invite broader questions with respect to the consequences of segregated and integrated schooling. Do monolingual, monocultural educational frameworks foster a greater awareness of in-group diversity? Do bilingual, bicultural educational frameworks limit identity construction processes and thereby impose reified ethnopolitcal categorizations? Do bilingual, multiethnic educational frameworks facilitate the deconstruction of nation-state rhetoric by perpetuating binary ethnic identifications rather than national identifications? Does the absence of nation-state rhetoric better advance the notions of coexistence and conflict resolution in areas of intractable conflict?

While these considerations are beyond the breadth of this study, they are worthy of consideration if and when other comparative studies are conducted.

Alongside these questions emerges the need to acknowledge that English also has an effect on monolingual and bilingual educational frameworks including the discourses students have at their disposal. English emerged as a portal through which information, ideas and concepts were transmitted. For some participants, these aspects impacted their epistemological codes, beliefs, and behaviors. Moreover, to a degree, student discourse suggests that the processes of denationalization and localization of English may facilitate the uncovering of multiple identities “in all their awesome variety, multiplicity and complexity” (Berard, 2005, p.74). Berard further elaborates: “Politically salient categories are not always relevant in particular educational contexts, and even when they are, their relevance cannot properly be

244 understood without an appreciation for the multiplicity and diversity of identities which become relevant in particular contexts and courses of action” (2005, p.67).

Perhaps World English, with its sociolinguistic malleability and continuous encoding of local practices, can emancipate its speakers from presupposed, locally imposed categorizations and encourage them to reconstruct and reclaim identities. At the very least, it may offer the possibility of hybrid identities, where people’s various (sometimes conflicting) identifications can be equally recognized, blended and ultimately characterized by cohabitation and acceptance.

Nevertheless, to disregard the colonizing, hegemonic effects of English and ensuing identity dissonance would be unjustified. English language acquisition and accompanying identity negotiation processes sometimes stand in direct opposition with local or indigenous identities. As was evident throughout this study, students grappled with competing priorities and, at times, compromised local identities in favor of more prestigious, global aspirations. In the end, discourse suggests that students perceive of English as both emancipating and colonizing—depending on the speakers, the accompanying circumstance and the surrounding contexts.

* * *

The final topic I wish to address in the discussion section relates to students’ perceptions of the role of language in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives. As was previously mentioned, a central impetus motivating this study concerns the role of English in areas of intractable conflict in general and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. I wanted to

245 explore further whether English, as a language that is not directly connected to the Israeli

Palestinian (Hebrew-Arabic) conflict, could serve as a force for mediation and reconciliation.

Throughout the study, both directly and indirectly, students were asked to think about the role of English in planned, intentional encounters between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian

Israelis. Participants articulated diverse perceptions regarding the role of language in these conflict resolution and peace education initiatives. They identified factors supporting English as a means for reconciling conflict and factors supporting English as a means for propagating conflict. When English was deemed unfeasible or inappropriate, students also came up with some creative alternatives with regards to the employment of local languages. In this final section, I will first discuss students’ perceptions of the role of English in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives and then discuss articulations related to the role of local languages

(i.e. Hebrew and Arabic).

As was discussed throughout this study, participants indicated that they use English for a variety of purposes including some peace and coexistence initiatives. More specifically, students mentioned that they used English when participating in conflict resolution initiatives that took place outside of the local context. Some students had participated in peace programs, coexistence-oriented sports camps and exchange programs that focused on interethnic communication and understanding. Under the auspices of such initiatives, there were students who had traveled to the United States, Canada and more commonly, countries in Europe. During all of these exchanges, students indicated that they spoke English and that English was the preferable language. Generally speaking, when the location of the peace initiative was outside of

Israel/Palestine, students were more inclined to support the use of English. As was previously mentioned, they argued that English was an international language, more neutral than Hebrew or

246

Arabic, and less tied to the region’s ethno-political conflicts. Participants said that by speaking

English, the differences that identified each ethnic group were less obvious, and they could communicate with each other on the same level without either side having a linguistic or cultural advantage. It is worthwhile mentioning that students identified this condition of equality primarily when the encounters occurred outside of Israel or Palestine. As will be discussed shortly, English was not always perceived as the great “equalizer”, and students did not indicate that it was preferable in all circumstances.

A second point I wish to address with respect to English and conflict resolution initiatives relates to the issue of English and technology. English usage dominates cyberspace and while students did not explicitly discuss encounters between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis that take place online, they articulated a strong correlation between English and technology. They mentioned that they use English for the majority of their online communications including e- mail, instant messaging, chatrooms and a variety of virtual information portals. Given the dominance of English in online communication and technology, it can be inferred that virtual conflict resolution and peace education initiatives would likely transpire in English. Whether or not students support the use of English in such initiatives occurring in cyberspace is a question worthy of further exploration. Many online coexistence initiatives are in English by default— or because of the dominance of English software or because English happens to be the common linguistic denominator among participants. However, the rapid pace at which simultaneous translation and automatic interpretation mechanism are being developed may lessen the necessity for English. It would then be worthwhile knowing whether the use of mother tongue and simultaneous translation would have preference over English. Inevitably, something is lost in

247 translation. The question remains, in this circumstance, which is the lesser of the two compromises.

With respect to the role of local languages in conflict resolution initiatives, each school articulated a distinct perspective. Students from the monolingual majority school supported the use of both Hebrew and Arabic in peace education initiatives occurring in the local context. In fact, they were fairly adamant that in order for the encounters to be just and fair, both Arabic and

Hebrew needed to be employed. In contrast, as was previously mentioned, students from the monolingual minority school did not indicate that Arabic should be used in face-to-face encounters within the local context. In fact, they viewed Jewish Israelis using Arabic as something negative and undesirable. Knowledge and use of Arabic by a Jew symbolized further occupation and disempowerment. Moreover, any Jew knowing or wanting to know Arabic was likely learning it for the army or in order to be able to work for the Israeli intelligence. They were certainly not learning Arabic for peaceful or communicative reasons.

In contrast to both of these perspectives, students from the bilingual minority majority school generally favored mutual comprehension and the ability to communicate with each other over linguistic ideology. In other words, the best language to employ in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives occurring in Israel or Palestine was the language that the most people would understand. Students indicated that if people could understand each other, it made little difference if they communicated in Hebrew, Arabic, or English. Given this emphasis on mutual comprehension and students’ assessment that many Israelis—both Jewish and Palestinian— do not speak English well, study participants offered alternative options to the use of English. They suggested simultaneous translation, use of both Hebrew and Arabic and use of just one language

(the language that most people understood). At one point, they even discussed—albeit

248 somewhat in jest— the use of sign language. Students were less concerned with importing a

“neutral” or third language or with 50/50 bilingualism and were more concerned that individuals be able to understand each other. The choice was clearly one of pragmatics overriding politics and ideological principles.

The findings concerning the role of languages in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives suggest that location is a key factor when deciding which language or languages to use in the intergroup encounter. English is clearly not the only choice nor is it always the optimal choice, in particular when encounters occur within Israel or Palestine. Nevertheless, as a global language tied to power, prestige and social mobility, English provides additional benefits that all cohorts identified as invaluable. Moreover, in the international arena, students identified English as the most suitable language for fostering communication and understanding.

With respect to Arabic-Hebrew bilingualism and the use of Arabic in intergroup encounters, the findings from this study suggest that investing in bilingualism for L1 Hebrew speakers further services the majority population under the guise of servicing and bringing justice to the minority population. According to Delpit (1995), minority populations “want to ensure that the school provides their children with the discourse patterns, interactional styles, and spoken and written language codes that will allow them success in the larger society” (p.29).

Jewish Israeli students acquiring and using Arabic does not service the Arabic speaking minority population. In fact, as was previously mentioned, it may further disempower them. In the end, whether it is an Arabic-Hebrew integrated classroom or another type of coexistence encounter, justice and equality begin when initiatives ensure that minority populations are schooled in “the linguistic aspects of the culture of power” (Delpit, 1995, p.29). Other social justice ambitions or

249 conflict resolution objectives can follow only when all cohorts are privy to the same linguistic capital.

Summary & Conclusions

This discussion has sought to synthesize findings from the three educational settings researched in this study. In particular, I addressed findings and implications concerning language usage, language status and perceptions and attitudes towards language. With respect to language usage, discourse shows that in the expanding circle participants use English as an LWC and in both function and form, participants’ use of English adopted the linguistic and sociolinguistic characteristics of EIL. Study participants also regularly make use of the local languages of Hebrew and Arabic. L1 Hebrew speakers, as the majority language population, rarely use Arabic or achieve proficiency in the language. Nevertheless, they placed a high level of importance on the acquisition of Hebrew and Arabic by both Jewish Israelis and Palestinians

Israelis. In contrast, L1 Arabic speakers, as the minority language population, frequently use

Hebrew and achieve fluency in the language. However, they did not place a high level of importance on the acquisition of Arabic by Jewish Israelis. In fact, they indicated that by being the sole bilinguals or trilinguals, they were able to reclaim some of the symbolic power they are denied as a subordinate minority population.

With respect to language status, the most salient findings pertained to participants’ ongoing struggle between prioritizing heritage language maintenance and prioritizing proficiency in the languages that provide the greatest power and social mobility in their present social context. This study found that students identified some emancipatory/liberative tendencies accompanying the learning and acquisition of English. They mentioned being exposed to new

250 ideas, concepts and ideologies through English language learning and taking advantage of the malleability of English to reflect local and personal articulations. Nevertheless, across the board, students ultimately identified either Arabic or Hebrew as the most important languages for articulating cultural/ethnic traditions and peoplehood.

While the taxonomies of World Englishes and EIL and their accompanying viewpoints seek to address the ongoing struggles between cultural and practical priorities, alone they are not sufficient. The path to emancipatory practices involves the implementation of suitable educational policies along with critical didactic practices that bear in mind learners and their heritages. In the local context, this includes recognizing that L1 Arabic speakers must achieve trilingualism whereas their L1 Hebrew speaking peers can suffice with bilingualism (Hebrew-

English). This language acquisition imbalance contributes to a state of inequality that often further disadvantages L1 Arabic speakers. Ultimately language policies, funds, educational resources and teaching practices need to address the unique and additional linguistic hurdles posed to L1 Arabic speakers in Israel if inequality gaps are to be closed and heritage language attrition forestalled.

With respect to perceptions and attitudes towards language, in particular I addressed language learning, language and identity and the role of language in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives. The discussion of students’ perceptions of language learning focused on the role of motivation in English and local language acquisition. Participants indicated that they were highly motivated to learn English and desired the communicative and technological literacy that accompanies the acquisition of English. However, current pedagogical practices seem to fail to harness students’ motivations, and a move away from EFL methods and towards EIL methods may be in order. Such a transition would include an emphasis on students’ purposes for learning

251

English, the local and cultural background they bring to their learning experiences and the need for communicative competency between speakers of other languages.

The discussion of students’ perceptions of language and identity highlighted some of the differences that emerged between monolingual students and bilingual students. In all three contexts, students utilized binary rhetoric reinforcing one of two ethnic identifications—Jew or

Palestinian. However, in the monolingual schools this binary jargon did not appear to be all- encompassing, and students were able to acknowledge some of the diversity within each side of the binary. In contrast, participants from the bilingual minority majority school seemed to be flooded with monolithic notions of Jew or Palestinian and did not exhibit the rhetorical capacity to articulate diversity. On the other hand, unlike their monolingual peers, they did not seem to be inculcated with nation-state ideology, and their expressed identifications were ethnic, cultural and religious rather than national. Undoubtedly, nation-state rhetoric has limitations, in particular in relation to majority and minority populations and their capacity to live in harmony.

Certainly, the differences within each of the educational context, and the absence of recognition of in-group diversity along with the absence of national rhetoric begs further questions regarding socialization processes in monolingual and bilingual settings.

The discussion of students’ perceptions of the role of languages in conflict resolution and peace education initiatives made a clear distinction between intergroup encounters occurring in the international arena and intergroup encounters occurring in the local arena. Outside of Israel, most students indicated that English was the optimal choice for fostering communication, understanding and resolution. They perceived of English as the middle way and a means for minimizing the differences between ethnic groups. With respect to encounters occurring in

Israel/Palestine, each school population voiced a different perspective. Monolingual majority

252 students indicated that both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis needed to know and use each other’s languages. Monolingual minority students objected to the use of Arabic by Jewish

Israelis and opted for the use of English or Hebrew in intergroup encounters between Jewish

Israelis and Palestinian Israelis. Bilingual minority majority students prioritized practicality over ideology stating that the best language for intergroup encounters between Palestinian Israelis and

Jewish Israelis was the one that the most people would understand. Ultimately, no language was a full-proof panacea, and the choice to use one language over another was context and circumstance dependent.

* * *

This study began by acknowledging the double-edged predicament that accompanies the acquisition and use of English. While English in many parts of the world is undergoing processes of denationalization and reappropriation, English speakers of other languages— including those participating in this study—continue to wrestle with competing priorities. The acquisition and use of languages of power will never be void of sociolinguistic consequence including the need to balance ethnic commitments and professional/practical obligations.

However, in as much as possible—through policy, education and practice— the acquisition of a dominant or majority language should not come at the expense of heritage language maintenance. In part, we can promote linguistic justice by encouraging pedagogical measures that help ensure the acquisition of the language of power while recognizing indigenous/local languages as well as the local voice in World Englishes.

253

254

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS & FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

A great deal has been written about the connection between language and power (see for example Bourdieu, 1991; Delpit, 1995; Fairclough, 2001) and more specifically in conjunction with globalization and rapid dissemination, English and power (Lee & Norton, 2009; Pennycook,

2000). Fairclough (2001) identifies critical language awareness or “consciousness” as a first step towards emancipation from dominant social discourses that reproduce inequality and injustices.

One of the broader implications of this study was to uncover some of these expressions of power and disempowerment with the goal of identifying more emancipatory discourses and teaching practices. This is particular pressing in the field of English language learning where the merits of acquisition often overshadow or silence signs of oppression. How many times have we heard the phrase “I have to improve my English;” “I wish I knew English better;” “I can’t get ahead in school or in my work because I don’t know English.” These phrases are thrown around in the wider context of this study in part because English is “now solidly entrenched in Israel as the

‘first foreign language’” (Ministry of Education, 2001, p.9). Those who are not equipped with the linguistic capital accompanying English do obtain “something” when language acquisition occurs. The point of this study was to demonstrate that the parameters of that “something” are complex. They are accompanied by epistemological and cultural codes that have an effect on local languages, identities and practices. When we investigate these consequences, we become more aware of their effects.

As a practicing English language teacher, I am the first to acknowledge that in their current social contexts my students need English to get ahead, to have the choice to pursue whatever paths they may desire. It is not my job to decide for them, to take away their right to a

255 fair chance for academic and professional achievement. However, along with ensuring that my students are schooled in a language currently tied to power, my intention in this study was to raise consciousness— to show that what is happening in English is multifaceted— empowering and disempowering, colonizing and decolonizing. But in order for these factors to occur simultaneously, we must embark on language acquisition journeys with eyes wide open, stripped of the rose-colored innuendos that imply that English language acquisition is solely about wealth, power and advancement. It may very well bring about these benefits but when we fail to proceed critically, we run the risk of reproducing the very injustices we seek to ameliorate.

This study began as an investigation of English and English language learning in three diverse contexts in Jerusalem. However, study findings show that English cannot be artificially isolated from the languages of local consequence which—for participants in this study—were

Hebrew and Arabic. As such, the results of this study ultimately contribute to the discourse available concerning not only English but also Hebrew and Arabic. Moreover, the results span several fields or disciplines and generate considerations for the fields of (1) sociolinguistics, (2)

English as an International language, (3) English language education and (4) conflict resolution and peace education.

* * *

With respect to the field of sociolinguistics , this study contributes to discourse available concerning language and contextually constructed identities (Fishman, 1999a). More specifically, findings shed light on the identity construction processes that occur in English language instructional contexts through dialogical encounters and language usage. Students

256 identified English as culturally malleable and suggested that the language facilitated the construction of additional salient categorization beyond what is marked and prescribed by Arabic and Hebrew.

Nevertheless, English language function in the Israeli context remains tied to inner circle categorizations, including and especially the United States and the United Kingdom.

Additionally, students tended to identify English speakers as educated, elite and wealthy— adopting and perpetuating a linguistic hierarchy that placed English and its speakers on a pedestal. For some participants, by acquiring and using English they adopted and internalized these categorizations, and they contributed to the construction of positive self-perceptions. For other participants, English proficiency represented an unreachable goal, and they did not identify with the language. Still other participants achieved high levels of proficiency in English but were unable to successfully negotiate competing identifications thereby remaining “stuck” between various ethno-linguistic worlds.

It is unclear what conditions contribute to the successful blending of competing identifications—including those constructed through the acquisition of a global language. From this study we can hypothesize that pedagogical practices promoting the denationalization and subsequent reappropriation of English may foster emancipatory tendencies and enable individuals to resist and claim various identities. Moreover, helping students to be aware of the increasing number of English speakers from outer circle and expanding circle countries may help them to let go of dominant discourse categorizations associated with English and to identify and conceptualize themselves as speakers of World English. Undoubtedly, more awareness and acknowledgment is needed with respect to the identity struggles that sometimes accompany the teaching and learning of English.

257

* * *

With respect to the field of English as an International Language or World Englishes , this study contributes to the discourse available concerning EIL in areas of intractable conflict where English is not one of the languages directly associated with the conflict. As was mentioned in the review of literature, until now extensive research has not been conducted on the role of English or EIL as an intermediary force between groups in conflict. Moreover, the framework of English as an International language is an ever expanding field that has not been applied extensively to the Middle East in general or to Israel/Palestine in particular.

This study has shown that English in the region has an ambiguous status, and its diffusion shares sociolinguistic characteristics associated with both English as a foreign language and

English as an International language. Participants’ usage, perceptions and attitudes towards

English increasingly bear resemblance to constructs associated with EIL. This includes using

English as a LWC in expanding circle countries and ascribing, to varying degrees, denationalized or transnationalized identifications to English speakers.

On the other hand, in many cases English remained tied to inner circle identifications and the United States in particular. This association compromised the bridging properties of English and had a direct effect on the role of the language in mediating between Jewish Israelis and

Palestinian Israelis. When connected to the United States, English and its speakers became allies with Israel and the Israeli enterprise. This correlation was perceived as a force for propagating conflict rather than ameliorating it. Discourse from this study suggests that in the Israeli context, we are perhaps moving towards the appropriation of English as an International Language

258 alongside foreign language function but this shift is unfolding and much reconstitution of constructs is needed. Ultimately, EIL may offer the possibility of an alternative discourse, one that is emancipated from the innuendos associated with Hebrew and Arabic but still capable of giving voice to local cultures and practices.

* * *

With respect to the field of English language teaching , this study contributes to the discourse available concerning successful and effective approaches to language education. In particular, this involves rethinking pedagogical practices to better suit learners’ purposes for learning English and to harness the instrumental motivation propelling so many learners today.

Such a shift still places an emphasis on proficiency, what Mckay (2002) refers to as intelligibility. Additionally however, such approaches recognize and employ critical pedagogies that honor local as well as classroom specific constructs. Mckay (2002) further elaborates:

“given the diversity of local cultures of learning, it is unrealistic to imagine that one method will meet the needs of all learners. Rather, teachers must be given the right and the responsibility to employ methods that are culturally sensitive and productive” (p.129). In the framework of this study, in particular this translated to a need for communicative competency with speakers of other languages, technological literacy made available through the use of English, and sufficient proficiency in English to access the extensive amount of information currently available in

English.

Although these goals and purposes emerged out of contexts specific to this study, I would argue that they are applicable to other English language learning frameworks where English

259 functions primarily as an international language. This study suggests that teachers, educators, curriculum writers and language policy makers would do well to reevaluate pedagogical practices taking into consideration students’ purposes for English language learning as well as the forces driving their need to acquire English. In part, this involves a shift away from EFL methods and a shift towards EIL methods. Such a shift in teaching methods constitutes an emphasis away from native speaker target models and towards LWC target models.

Additionally, EIL teaching methods focus on communicative competency while simultaneously acknowledging local learners’ purposes for acquiring English. Finally, such methods recognize that students’ worldviews and epistemological codes are being heavily influenced by globalization and technology.

The consequences of information technology cannot be fully known, but there is no doubt that many students’ understanding of the world is being shaped in part, by English via Facebook,

Wikipedia , online news resources, blogs, and the infinite media sources at their disposal. While all teaching involves the transfer of values and opinions, English language teachers would do well to pay attention to the vast amount of information in English being imparted to their students through technology, the media and global communication and to build programs and curricula accordingly.

Curricula and teaching practices that reflect locally appropriate pedagogy as well as teaching objectives that recognize and acknowledge learners’ motivations for acquiring English will undoubtedly be more successful and effective in the long run. Moreover, while instrumentality remains a key factor in language acquisition in general and English language acquisition in particular, this instrumentality must be accompanied by emancipatory practices if

260 we are to exemplify any remnant of the social change so often hoped for in educational initiatives.

* * *

Finally, in the field of conflict resolution and peace education , this study contributes to the discourse available concerning the role of English in areas of intractable conflict in general and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. This study has shown that in certain circumstances, specifically in intergroup encounters occurring outside of the local context where

English functions primarily as an International language, students perceived of English as offering the possibility of an alternative discourse, one that was emancipated from the presuppositions and identity markers tied to Hebrew and Arabic. At the same time, in intergroup encounters occurring within the local context, this study suggests that English was not always perceived as the optimal choice. In certain circumstances within the Israeli context, English was perceived as affiliated with the US/Israeli alliance and therefore an extension of the Israeli occupation. Moreover, English was perceived as an outside or foreign entity introducing an additional linguistic barrier between Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinians rather than bringing the groups closer together.

This study demonstrates the need to contextualize English and to consider both historical, colonial legacy as well as current political alliances before proceeding with its usage in intergroup encounters. Additionally, this study highlights the need to avoid blanketed declarations of neutrality or lingua franca status but instead to proceed cautiously and critically.

Certainly, the use of English in intergroup encounters between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian

261

Israelis should not be discarded as a viable alternative to local languages, but each encounter should be accessed according to its specific local and contextual factors.

This context specific evaluation also applies to the use of Hebrew and Arabic in intergroup encounters. Generally speaking, this study has shown that the use of the majority language in intergroup encounters may be empowering rather than disempowering for minority language speakers. In other words, intergroup encounters being carried out solely in Hebrew should not automatically be defined as perpetuating inequality and disempowerment. This study has shown that L1 Arabic speakers felt they exerted power by demonstrating fluency in the majority language. Moreover, by being the sole bilinguals or trilinguals, they maintained the upper hand in a social context where this is generally not the case.

Additionally, this study suggests that the use of majority-minority bilingualism (Hebrew-

Arabic) in intergroup encounters between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis, may further benefit the majority population while concurrently further disempowering the minority population. This disempowerment is two-fold. Firstly, Palestinian Israelis do not benefit from

Jewish Israelis using and learning Arabic. In fact, in long term intergroup encounters this weak bilingualism may mean that L1 Arabic speakers are less well schooled in their heritage language and in the language of power— i.e. Hebrew. Secondly, L1 Arabic speaking students articulated strong emotions that indicated that they felt further disempowered and occupied when Jewish

Israelis spoke Arabic. Jewish Israelis speaking their language symbolized an attempt to further occupy and take over.

This is certainly not the first example of well-intended liberal initiatives backfiring in favor of the majority population at the expense of minority populations (see for example Delpit,

1995). However, until all are fluent and schooled in the language of power, it seems that

262 majority speakers’ acquisition of the minority language may be a superfluous nicety. This is not to say that Jewish Israelis should not learn or acquire Arabic. However, their language learning and usage should not come at the expense of others. Moreover, L1 Arabic speakers should be given the right to organize and implement intergroup encounters in the language(s) they deem appropriate. Leadership by bilingual minority language representatives—or gatekeepers—may help diminish the sometimes unforeseen reproductions of inequalities and injustice.

Finally, in my opinion, it is imperative to qualify the conclusions stated above with a caveat. Majority speakers, regardless of the language, need to remain attune to their status as majorities and the power imbalances present when one group constitutes L1 speakers and the other group constitutes L2 or L3 speakers. This is not to disregard the empowering tendencies articulated by minority language speakers when they make use of the majority language but to acknowledge that certain practices or affirmative action interventions may need to be put into place to ensure that minority and majority voices are being heard equally in intergroup encounters transpiring in the majority language. In the simplest of terms, L1 Hebrew speakers need to silence themselves; to create space for the less dominant voice that may be less fluent and/or less resounding.

Ultimately, this study supports the notion that any language can serve as a means for propagating or reconciling conflict depending on the context-specific circumstances. When implementing measures that seek to ameliorate conflict and advance peace, we must not overemphasize or essentialize the role of language but as well to proceed critically, every step of the way.

* * *

263

There are several limitations of this research endeavor that need to be acknowledged and elaborated on further. This study constitutes a small, qualitative investigation of English language learners in an area of the world characterized by sustained, intractable conflict. There are multiple context specific variables which are arguably unique to this study and therefore limit the scope of the findings and conclusions.

The first limitation I wish to address relates to the schools and the student populations attending the schools. I intentionally chose three, state run, non-religious schools in an attempt to minimize differences between the school populations. Nevertheless, in selecting these schools, to a certain extent I defined the populations I would be investigating. Primarily, this has to do with political inclinations and socioeconomic status. Regarding the former, all three schools can be defined as leaning towards the left of the political spectrum. While the bilingual minority majority school is, by definition, a coexistence initiative, the other two schools also promote or host intergroup encounter initiatives as was mentioned by several participants in their interviews.

When the school climate advocates tolerance and coexistence, on some level students are socialized accordingly. Undoubtedly, these socialization processes colored participants’ responses and perspectives as well as their outlook on Arab-Jewish relations in general and the role of language in the Israeli Palestinian conflict in particular.

With respect to socioeconomic status, most participants were from middle or upper class families and one or both parents were educated. Participants indicated that they lived in more affluent parts of Jerusalem and had access to certain privileges that accompany higher economic status such as traveling abroad or taking private English lessons. Certainly, much can be learned about interplay between language and power among upper middle class populations. However, it

264 is important to acknowledge that the directions and questions explored in this study might have reaped different responses if asked to students of lower socioeconomic status. Moreover, as

Delpit (1995) notes in her discussion of differences in middle-class and working-class speech to children, if this study were to be replicated among less affluent populations, I might well need to rephrase the triggers and questions asked to reflect more appropriate socioeconomic and cultural speech patterns.

The second limitation I wish to address can be understood as an extension of socioeconomic and cultural speech patterns. More specifically, this refers to misunderstandings that may or may not have transpired because my cultural and linguistic background differs significantly from that of the study participants. I am a Jewish American who moved to Israel in

2002. While I have been exposed to both Israeli Jewish and Israeli Palestinian culture, I am not a full participant in either of these cultural groups. Moreover, questions that I presumed to be straightforward and clear were not always received with lucidity and clarity. Certainly, the opportunities for misunderstanding or unexpected understanding were abundant and pertained to both linguistic and cultural differences. I dealt with these instances of disjunction by rephrasing, translating or simply following the interviewees’ lead by working under the assumption that they were prioritizing the points they deemed most relevant even if they veered from my intended direction. Ultimately, statements lost in translation or cultural differences are inevitable.

However, by videotaping, recording, transcribing, analyzing and repeatedly revisiting my data sources, I tried to ensure that I had amble opportunities to reexamine discourse and to reconsider findings and conclusions. I am confident that this methodical work helped to minimize gaps and misunderstandings.

265

The final limitation I wish to address relates to the point of entry for this study, namely

English. This study began as an investigation into English and English language learners. As the study proceeded, it became increasingly clear that issues regarding English could not be artificially separated from issues regarding the local languages of Arabic and Hebrew.

Nevertheless, findings related to Arabic and Hebrew were constructed against the back-draft of

English and in relation to English. Students’ articulations with respect to Arabic and Hebrew might have differed significantly if they had been approached through a different point of entry.

Indeed, the saliency of findings related to Hebrew and Arabic was an unexpected outcome of this inquiry into English language learning. I contend that this is a positive indication of rigorous qualitative research unfolding inductively and without a predetermined agenda. Additionally, such findings and conclusions point to the need for further research devoted exclusively to the role and interplay of Hebrew and Arabic in the region.

Despite the above-mentioned limitations, the discourse collected from each school provided a rich base for comparing and contrasting cross cultural similarities and differences. To a degree, these conclusions may be generalized to other English language learners in the Israeli context and English language learners in areas of the world suffering from intractable conflict.

In depth, applied linguistic investigations provide a window into particular phenomena.

This study adds to the information available concerning the interplay between English, Arabic and Hebrew in the Israeli context and the role of English in areas of intractable conflict where

English is not one of the languages directly associated with the conflict. Nevertheless, to suggest that the findings and conclusions of this study can be generalized beyond the frame of the particular window of this study would be misguided. We can suggest, conjecture and even subsequently replicate components of this study, but the findings and conclusions remain

266 specific to the individuals, sites, and contexts under study (Creswell, 2009). Ultimately, the aim of this study, and of qualitative inquiries in general, is to uncover particular meanings and understandings, rather than to verify truth or predict outcomes (Myers, 2009). Additionally, the study of linguistic behavior in naturally-occurring contexts provides an unfiltered view of the multiple consequences accompanying languages in action.

These consequences enable us to better draw conclusions about notions of power and disempowerment in multilingual societies characterized by conflict. Additionally, when we are aware of expressions of inequality perpetuated through language, we are better equipped to begin the slow and painstaking work of dismantling injustice and taking steps towards emancipation and equality. Even a small contribution to such lofty aspirations is, in my opinion, a worthwhile sociolinguistic endeavor.

267

REFERENCES

Abu-Saad, I. (2006). State educational policy and curriculum: The case of Palestinian Arabs in Israel. International Education Journal , 7(5), 709-720.

Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice . London: Addison-Wesley.

Amara, M. (2003). Recent foreign language education policies in Palestine. Language Problems & Language Planning, 27 (3), 217-232.

Amara, M. & Al-Rahman Mar’i (2002). Language education policy: The Arab minority in Israel. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Anders, T.F. & Morrison, J. (2001). Interviewing children and adolescents: Skills and strategies for effective DSM-IV diagnosis . New York: The Guilford Press.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identities in talk. London: Sage Publications.

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). New York: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. & Jones, S.P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education . Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Baumgardner, R.J. (2009). Teaching world Englishes. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes (pp.661-679). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Bekerman, Z. (2003). Never free of suspicion. Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies , 3(2), 136-147.

Bekerman, Z. (2005). Complex contexts and ideologies: Bilingual education in conflict-ridden areas. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4 (1), 1-20

Bekerman, Z & Horenczyk, G. (2004). Arab-Jewish bilingual coeducation in Israel: A long-term approach to intergroup conflict resolution. Journal of Social Issues , 60 (2). 389-404.

Benesch, S. (2012). Considering emotions in critical English language teaching: Theories and praxis . New York: Routledge

268

Berard, T.J. (2005). On multiple identities and educational contexts: Remarks on the study of inequalities and discrimination. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education , 4(1), 67- 76.

Billig, M. (2001). Discursive, rhetorical and ideological messages. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp.210-221). London: Sage.

Blass, N. (2010). Israel’s education system: A domestic perspective. Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel . Retrieved from http://taubcenter.org.il/tauborgilwp/wp- content/uploads/E2009_Report_Education_System_Domestic_Perspective_Chapter.pdf

Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research . London: Sage.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel and A.H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp.487-510). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture . London: Sage.

Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development . Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Brutt-Griffler, J. & Davies, C. (Eds.). (2006). English and ethnicity . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism. (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Canagarajah, A.S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly 27 (4), 601-626.

Canagarajah, A.S. (2004). Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical learning. In B. Norton, & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 116- 137). New York: Cambridge University Press

Canagarajah, A.S. (2006). Constructing a diaspora identity in English: The case of Sri Lankan Tamils. In J. Brutt-Griffler & C. Evans-Davies (Eds.), English and ethnicity (pp.191- 213). New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Cenoz, J. (2005). English in bilingual programs in the Basque Country. International Journal of Sociology of Language . 171 , 41-56.

269

Cohen-Castro, A. (2010). Immigration to Israel: 2010 . Demographics Sector, International Immigration and Emigration. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www1.cbs.gov.il/www/hodaot2011n/21_11_045e.pdf

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). London, UK: Hodder Education Publishers

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press

Crystal, D. (2010). Evolving English: One language, many voices: An illustrated history of the English language. London: British Library Publishing

Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth. Working Papers on Bilingualism . 9, 1-43.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Demo, D. (2001). Discourse analysis for language teachers . Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (Eric No. EDOFL0107)

Deutsch, M. (2006). Introduction . In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman & E.C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.), (pp.1-20). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Deutsch, N. (2007). An analysis of the English curriculum. The ETNI Rag (4) . Retrieved from http://www.etni.org.il/etnirag/issue4/nellie_deutsch.htm

Dewaele, J.M. (2011). Reflections on the emotional and psychological aspects of foreign language learning. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 22 (1), 23-42.

Dhillon, P. (2009). Colonial/postcolonial critique: The challenge from World Englishes. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes (pp.529-544). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Dissanayake, W. (2009). Cultural studies and discursive constructions of World Englishes. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes (pp.545-566). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Dixon, J., Durrheim, K. & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: a reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist . 60 (7). 697-711.

270

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal , 78 (3), 273-284. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/330107

Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp.589-630). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. In Z. Dörnyei (Ed.), Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning (pp.3-32). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Ellinger, B. (2000). The relationship between ethnolinguistic identity and English language achievement for native Russian speakers and native Hebrew speakers in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21 (4), 292-307.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.

Feuerverger, G. (2001). Oasis of dreams: Teaching and learning peace in a Jewish-Palestinian village in Israel . New York: Routledge.

Feuerverger, G. (2007). The pedagogy of peace: Language awareness in the Neve Shalom/Wahat Al-Salam elementary school. In O. Garcia & C. Baker (Eds.), Bilingual education: an introductory reader (pp.237-256). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. (1999). Introduction. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp.3-5). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fishman, J. (1999a). Sociolinguistics. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp.152-163). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fishman, J. & Garcia, O. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of language and ethnic identity: Disciplinary and regional perspectives (Volume 1) (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fitts, S. (2006). Reconstructing the status quo: linguistic interaction in a dual-language school. Bilingual Research Journa l, 29 (2), 337-365.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.361-376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

271

Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.), (pp.645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Forbes, H.D. (2004). Ethnic conflict and the contact hypothesis. In Y.T. Lee, C. McCauley, F. Moghaddam & S. Worchel (Eds.). The psychology of ethnic and cultural conflict (pp.69- 88). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Garcia, O. (1997). Bilingual education. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp.405-420). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning . Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers

Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds), The handbook of bilingualism (pp.547-576). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups . Guildford: University of Surrey. Retrieved from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html

Giles, H. & Byrne, J. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3(1), 17-41.

Giles, H. & Johnson, P. (1987). Ethnolinguistic theory: a social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 68 , 69-99.

Giles, H. & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication accommodation theory. In B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp.325-344). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Griessler, M. (2001). The effects of third language learning on second language proficiency: an Austrian example. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 4 (1). 50-60.

Gumperz, J. & Gumperz, J. (1982) Introduction: Language and the communications of social identity. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp.1-21). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, J.K. & Eggington, W. (Eds). (2000). The sociopolitics of English language teaching . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hall, S. (2001). Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp.72-81). London: Sage

272

Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies , 20 , 29-70.

Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography . New York: Pearson Longman ESL.

Honna, N. (2009). East Asian Englishes. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes (pp.114-129). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Jabareen, A. (n.d.). Language policy and the status of Arabic in Israel. Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education. Retrieved from http://www.qsm.ac.il/mrakez/asdarat/jamiea/9/3-- Ali%20Jabareen.pdf

Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: a resource book for students. London: Routledge.

Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1). 157-181.

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kachru, B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Kachru, B., Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C. (2009). Introduction. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes (pp.1-16). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Kachru, B., Kachru, Y. & Sridhar, S.N. (Eds). (2008). Language in South Asia . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kimmerling, B. & Migdal, J. (2003). The Palestinian people: A history . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Krueger, R. (1998). Developing questions for focus groups . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 30-52). New York: Cambridge University Press

Lambert, W.E. (1980). The social psychology of language. In H. Giles, W.P. Robinson & P.M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives . Oxford: Pergamon.

273

Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, E. & Norton, B. (2009). The English language, multilingualism, and the politics of location. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 12 (3), 277-290.

Liebkind, K. (1999). Social psychology. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp.140-151). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lindholm-Leary, K.J. (2001). Dual language education . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned . (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lysandrou, P. & Lysandrou, Y. (2003). Global English and proregression: understanding English language spread in the contemporary era. Economy and Society . 32 (2), 207-233.

Mackey, A. & Gass, S.M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

MacPherson, S. (2005). Negotiating language contact and identity change in developing Tibetan/English bilingualism. TESOL Quarterly . 39 (4), 585-607.

Maoz, I (2000). Evaluation of Jewish-Arab coexistence programs funded by the Abraham Fund. Retrieved from http://www.abrahamfund.org/main/siteNew/?page=116&action=sidLink&stId=175

Maoz, I. & Ellis, D. (2001). Going to ground: Argument in Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian encounter groups. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 34 (4), 399-419.

McKay, S.L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McKay, S.L. (2003). The cultural basis of teaching English as an International Language. TESOL Quarterly . 13 (4), Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp

Millrood, R. (2002). Teaching heterogeneous classes. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 128-136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ministry of Education (2001). English curriculum for all grades: Principles and standards for learning English as a foreign language in Israeli schools . Jerusalem: State of Israel Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Immigrant Absorption (2005). Education, 4 th Edition . Publications Department, State of Israel Ministry of Immigrant Absorption. Retrieved from

274

http://www.moia.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/9FBC4448-CB15-4309-BA82- 96DC681E7A11/0/education_en.pdf

Morris, B. (1987). The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1949 . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mydans, S. (2007, April 9). Across cultures, English is the word. The New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht- englede.1.5198685.html?pagewanted=all

Myers, M. (2000). Qualitative research and the generalizability question: standing firm with Proteus. The Qualitative Report . 4(3/4). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/myers.html

Nagda, B.A. & Derr A.S. (2004). Intergroup dialogue: Embracing difference and conflict, engendering community. In W. Stephan & W.P. Vogt (Eds.), Education programs for improving intergroup relations: Theory, practice and research (pp.133-151). New York: Teachers College Press.

Nasser, I. & Abu-Nimer, M. (2007). Peace education in a bilingual and biethnic school for Palestinians and Jews in Israel: Lessons and challenges. In Z. Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives (pp.107-120). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Nelde, P.H. (1997). Language conflict. In F. Coulmas (Ed). The handbook of sociolinguistics . (pp.285-300). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Nevo, N. & Olshtain, E. (2007) Introduction: The Hebrew language in the era of globalization. In N. Nevo & E. Olshtain (Eds.), The Hebrew language in the era of globalization (pp.7- 15). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change . London: Pearson Education.

Norton, B. & Kamal, F. (2003). The imagined communities of English language learners in a Pakistani school. Journal of Language, Identity and Education , 2 (4), 301-317.

Norton, B. & McKinney, C. (2011). An identity approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp.73-93). New York: Routledge.

Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (Eds). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning . New York: Cambridge University Press

Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 9-31.

275

Olshtain, E. & Nissim-Amitai, F. (2004). Being trilingual or multilingual—Is there a price to pay? In C. Hoffman, & J. Ytsma (Eds.), Trilingualism in family, school and community (pp.30-50). North Somerset, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Oppenheim, A.N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement (New ed.). London & New York: Printer Publishers.

Oren, M. (2002). Six days of war: June 1967 and the making of the modern Middle East. New York: Random House.

Ovando, C. & McLaren, P. (2000). The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education: Students and teachers caught in the cross fire. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pavlenko, A. (2006). Emotions and multilingualism . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (2004). Introduction: New theoretical approaches to the study of negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackedge (Eds.). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp.1-33). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pavlenko, A. & Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.155-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pennycook, A. (2000). The social politics and the cultural politics of language classrooms. In J.K. Hall & W. Eggington (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English language teaching (pp.89- 103). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology , 49, 65-85.

Pettigrew, T.F. & Tropp, L.R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta- analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives (pp.93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Phan Le Ha (2005). Toward a critical notion of appropriation of English as an international language. In P. Robertson, P. Dash & J. Jung (Eds.), English language learning in the Asian context . (2nd ed.), (pp.202-211). British Virgin Islands: The Asian EFL Journal Press.

276

Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Romaine, S. (2010). Identity and multilingualism. In K. Potowski & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingual youth: Spanish in English-speaking societies . Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Rubenfeld, S., Clement, R., Vinograd, J., Lussier, D., Amireault, V., Auger, R., & Lebrun, M. (2007). Becoming a cultural intermediary: A further social corollary of second-language learning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26 (2), 182-203.

Saiegh-Haddad, E., Levin, I., Hende, N. & Ziv, M. (2011). The linguistic affiliation constraint and phoneme recognition in diglossic Arabic. Journal of Child Language . 38 , 297-315.

Schiffman, H. (1998). Diglossia as a sociolinguistic situation. In F. Coulmas (Ed.). The handbook of sociolinguistics . (pp.205-216). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59 (4), 339-341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Segev, T. (2007). 1967: Israel, the war, and the year that transformed the Middle East. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Shehadeh, H. (2008). The status of Arabic in Israel. Modern Discussion . Retrieved from http://www.ahewar.org/eng/show.art.asp?aid=604 .

Shiffer, V. (1998). The Haredi educational system: Allocation, regulation and control. The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies, 4 (7)

Shimon, T. & Peerless, S. (2007). “TaL Am”: Teaching Hebrew as a communicative-heritage language. In N. Nevo & E. Olshtain (Eds.), The Hebrew language in the era of globalization (pp.72-95). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.

Shohamy, E. (2007). Reinterpreting globalization in multilingual contexts. International Multilingual Research Journal. 1(2) 127-133.

Shulman, J.L. & Clement, R. (2008). Expressing prejudice through the linguistic intergroup bias: Second language confidence and identity among minority group members. Diversité Urbaine , 109-130. Retrieved from http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/019564ar

Siegel, J. (2003). Social context. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. (pp.178-223). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Smooha, S. (2001). The model of ethnic democracy. Flensburg, Germany: European Centre for Minority Issues.

277

Smooha, S. (2005). Index of Arab-Jewish relations in Israel 2004 . Haifa, Israel: The Jewish- Arab Center, the University of Haifa.

Spolsky, B. & Shohamy, E. (1999). Language in Israeli society and education. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 137, 93-114.

Strevens, P. (1992). English as an international language: Directions in the 1990’s. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.), (pp.27-47). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Suresh (2009, Aug. 12). English,Tamil: Linguistic capital. Retrieved from http://englishtamil.blogspot.com/2009/08/english-tamil-linguistic-capital.html

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information , 13, 65-93.

Tankersley, D. (2001). Bombs or bilingual programmes?: Dual-language immersion, transformative education and community building in Macedonia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 4(2), 107-124.

Toribio, A.J. (2006). Linguistic displays of identity among Dominicans in national and diasporic settings. In J. Brutt-Griffler & C. Davies (Eds.), English and ethnicity (pp.131-155). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tracy, K. (2001). Discourse analysis in communication. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.725-749). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Uhlmann, A. (2011). Policy implications of Arabic instruction in Israeli Jewish Schools. Human Organization: Journal of the Society for Applied Anthropology. 70 (1).

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.

Walcott, H. (2001). Writing up qualitative research. California: Sage Publications.

Wenger, E.(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wu, J, & Bilash, O. (2003). Bilingual Education in Practice, a multifunctional model of minority language programs in Western Canada. In S. Puttangurda & A. Richardson (Eds.), Canadian multicultural experience: myths and realities . Edmonton, Canada: ICRN Press.

Xu, X. (2008). Influence of instrumental motivation on EFL learners in China and its implication on TEFL instructional design. Educational Communications and Technology . University of Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/xu/index.htm

278

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal , 86 (1), 54-66.

Zuckermann, G. (2003). Language contact and lexical enrichment in Israeli Hebrew . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan

אמארה מ, (. 2005 .) מודל הדו- לשוניות של יד ביד . יד ביד : המרכז לחינוך יהודי ערבי בישראל ר"ע( ). ).

זק .מ, ( 2006 ). תפקיד השפה במצבי קונפליקט . דן אבנון ( עורך ) , שפת אזרח בישראל . הוצאת ספרים ע" "ש י ל מאגנס

שטרית ס, . ( 2004 .) המאבק המזרחי בישראל ( -1948 2003 ). עם עובד

279

APPENDICES

Appendix (I): Interview Questionnaire

ا \ Religion ا / Age أ وت ? ?Where were you born ا : او : :City: Country

أي ات ف ? ?What languages do you know أي ت ث ? What languages would you like to learn in the future? أي ت ن ? What language or languages do you speak at home? أ و أك ? ?Where was your father born أ وت أ ?Where was your mother born What is your mother’s first language? What is your father’s first language? ه ام ا اك ? ه ام ا ? What languages does your mother speak? What languages does your father speak? أي ت ث واك ? أي ت ث أ ? Your mother’s education level (please circle) Your father’s education level (please circle) High school High school Professional degree Professional degree First degree (BA) First degree (BA) Second degree (MA) Second degree (MA) Third degree (PhD) Third degree (PhD) اى ا اك : (أ اة) اى ا اك : (أ اة) ي ي أول أول دآرا ( ) دآرا ( ) Your mother’s profession Your father’s profession ه واك ? ه أ ? آ ار ي دو , أ آ ر أن If you could choose any country to live in what country would you choose and why? ? Did you take part in an interview or focus group with Julia? (please circle) ه اآ ت ؟ أم آ ءا اآ ? ( أ اة ) Interview: yes / no Focus group: yes/no اآ اآ : \ : \

280

דת / Religion גיל / Age האם אתה מחשיב את עצמך כאדם דתי ? האם תגדיר Do you consider yourself a religious person את עצמך כאדם דתי? היכן נולדת? ?Where were you born ארץ : עיר : :City: Country אילו שפות אתה יודע? ?What languages do you know אילו שפות תרצה ללמוד בעתיד? What languages would you like to learn in the future? איזו שפה/ שפות מדברים אצלך בבית? What language or languages do you speak at home? היכן נולד אביך ? ?Where was your father born היכן נולדה אימך ? ?Where was your mother born

What is your mother’s first language? What is your father’s first language? מהי שפת האם של אביך? מהי שפת האם של אימך? What languages does your mother speak? What languages does your father speak? אילו שפות אביך דובר? אילו שפות אימך דוברת? Your mother’s education level (please circle) Your father’s education level (please circle) High school High school Professional degree Professional degree First degree (BA) First degree (BA) Second degree (MA) Second degree (MA) Third degree (PhD) Third degree (PhD) רמת ההשכלה של אביך: (הקיף) רמת ההשכלה של אימך: (היקף) השכלה תיכונית השכלה תיכונית תואר מקצועי תואר מקצועי תואר ראשון תואר ראשון תואר שני תואר שני דוקטור ( תואר שלישי) דוקטור ( תואר שלישי) Your mother’s profession Your father’s profession מהו משלח היד ( המקצוע ) של אביך? מהו משלח היד ( המקצוע ) של אימך?

אם היית יכול לבחור לחיות במדינה אחרת , היכן היית If you could choose any country to live in what בוחר לחיות ומדוע? ?country would you choose and why

Did you take part in an interview or focus group with Julia? (please circle) האם לקחת חלק בראיון או קבוצת מיקוד עם ג' וליה ? ( היקף) Interview: yes / no Focus group: yes/no קבוצת מיקוד : כן / לא ראיון : כן / לא

281

Appendix (II): Semi-Structured Interview Questions

• General Questions Age / Gender # of years studied English Do you speak English at home or with relatives? Have you ever traveled to an English speaking country? • Students’ attitudes and opinions towards English Do you think learning English is important? Why or why not. Do you like learning English? Why or why not? What don’t you like about learning English? Do you think English is different from other languages? When and where do use English? When and where do hear English? Where might you use English is the future? Can you think of a situation where it might be better to use your first language instead of English? Can you think of a situation where it might be better to use English instead of your first language? What language is more important, your mother tongue or English? If the prime minister came to your school and said “from now on, you and all your friends are going to study only in English” how do you think you would feel? Do you think this would be a positive decision? Is it important to your parents that you study English? Why or why not? • What identifications and categorizations do the students associate with English? An English speaker is______? What kinds of people know English? Do you think there are customs and cultural traditions connected to English? Explain If yes, what is your opinion of these customs and traditions? Mustafah, an Arab shop owner in the old city, meets a lot of English speakers. What do you think Mustafah thinks about the English speakers that come into his shop? Dani, a Jewish shop owner in Jerusalem meets a lot of English speakers. What do you think Dani thinks about the English speakers that come into his shop? Do you think Mustafah and Dan have different opinions about English speakers? • Given the context of intractable conflict, what roles do students associate with English What do you think an Arab Israeli feels when he/she speaks English with a Jewish Israeli? What do you think a Jewish Israeli feels when he/she speaks English with an Arab Israeli? If you were to have an Arab friend/ a Jewish friend, what language do you think you would use? Do you think English contributes to settling disputes? Do you think that the Israeli Palestinian conflict would be easier to solve if Israelis and Palestinians spoke English to each other? A Jewish and an Arab doctor are having an argument about how to best treat a patient. Do you think it would be helpful if they spoke in English? • English language learning and identity construction How would you describe yourself? / How do you define yourself? Do you think who you are is connected to English or English language learning? / Do you feel you have changed as a result of learning of English? Do you feel that learning English has exposed you to new ideas, cultures or things? Explain Are there things you can say or do in English that you can’t say or do in Hebrew / Arabic?

282

Appendix (III): Focus Group Activities

Focus Group Activity #1

English-- An International Language?

Malati Tarang is a high school student from New Delhi, India. She is one of a hundred million Indians who speak English as a first language 3. From a young age, Malati’s parents spoke to her only in English. They wanted to make sure that Malati would know English very well. Her parents believed that knowing English would help Malati succeed in the future. Today, Malati is very thankful that her parents made her learn English. “I have an easier time in school than some of the other students” says Malati “and if I want to look for something on the internet or read a newspaper, I have a lot of different choices.”

India is a very large country with over 50 different languages. Malati believes that “English is the language that keeps the country together. I am from New Delhi. If I travel to a different city in India, I know that I can speak English there and everyone will understand me. I think English is an international language.” Ravi Shankar, another high school student from India, thinks differently. “I also grew up speaking English” says Ravi “but it is not my language or my culture. We speak English, because for over a hundred years, the British ruled 4 India. But the official language 5 of India is Hindi, and that is what I think everyone should speak.”

In fact, today in India both Hindi and English are official languages and India has the second largest English speaking population in the world after the United States. Research on English around the world says that English has official or special status in at least seventy-five countries and one out of every four people on earth speak some level of English.

For some, these facts prove that English is an international language. This means that a great number of people speak English. It also means that non-native English speakers now outnumber native ones. Finally, it means that English is no longer connected to a single culture or nation.

Malati believes that Indians have created their own form of English and that the English she uses and speaks reflects her culture and traditions. But other Indians disagree. They feel that English will always be a symbol of British and American culture-- a language that controls the media, technology and communication. The debate continues.

3 First Language- the language you learned at home with your family when you were small שלטו = Ruled 4 5 Official Language- the language that is used in official documents, spoken on the radio and on television

283

Comprehension Questions:

(1) Why did Malati’s parents want her to know English?

(2) How does Malati feel about her parents’ decision to speak to her in English?

(3) Malati and Ravi have different opinions about English. What does each of them think about English as an International Language? Malati’s Opinion Ravi’s Opinion

(4) According to Ravi, why do Indians speak English?

(5) Malati believes that “English is the language that keeps the country together.” Write what this sentence means in your own words.

(6) According to the text, what is the meaning of an international language?

(7) The last sentence of the text is “the debate continues.” What debate is the text referring to?

Opinion Questions

(1) The title of the text is “English-- an International Language?” Why do you think there is a question mark at the end of the title?

(2) Malati believes that Indians have created their own form of English that reflects their cultures and traditions. Do you think that Israeli culture can be expressed through English? Why or why not?

(3) If the prime minister came to your school and said “from now on, English is going to be the official language in Israel and you are going to study only in English” how do you think you would feel? Do you think this would be a positive decision? Explain your answer.

284

Focus Group Activity #2

Peace Camp International

(bridging differences through English -- an international language)

• Can you speak English? • Are you interested in learning about different cultures and customs? • Would you like to meet friends from around the world?

If you answered YES to the above questions, then you should think about joining us at the next Peace Camp International in Newport, Vermont .

What is Peace Camp International?

Set in tranquil Newport, Vermont, Peace Camp International is designed to train the next generation of youth leaders and to prepare them to successfully meet the challenges of adulthood and global leadership.

Worlds away from daily scenes of war and bloodshed, Peace Camp International is a neutral, supportive setting where young people from both sides of major world conflicts meet their enemies face-to-face. Here they confront their hatreds, prejudices and fea rs and deal with issues that add to the conflicts back at home.

In the past, Peace Camp International has had participants from over 30 countries in the world including Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Jordan, Israel, Pakistan and Palestine.

285

Daily Peace Camp International Activities

In addition to daily activities like swimming, sports and arts & crafts, Peace Camp International participants take part in daily discussions led by professional facilitators. The goal of these discussions is to create a safe environment where young people from different nationalities and religions can express their views and experiences. Participants are also given an opportunity to learn valuable listening and communication skills that allow participants to develop understanding for others.

Why English?

All camp activities are carried out in English. Peace Camp International is built on a philosophy that English, as an international language, is a neutral language that bridges cultural divides. Peace Camp International believes that English is no longer connected to a single culture or nation. Through this language, Peace Camp International encourages the values of peace, coexistence, equality and mutual respect. At the end of the summer, all participants can speak “the language of peace.”

What do past participants have to say about Peace Camp International

"Camp felt like home. It felt comfortable. . . We lived with Jordanians, Egyptians, Israelis, Americans… We all spoke English and we forgot about our nationalities. We talked and we were just friends.”-- Bhanu

"One of the first things you learn at Peace Camp is to listen. You have discussions about a conflict but you also learn to live together and respect people who have different views and come from different backgrounds." - Raya

"Before camp, I didn’t think situations could be changed by talking, but now I think it’s possible. When everyone speaks English, differences are less obvious. You just concentrate on seeing somebody as a human being and as a potential friend” -- Maayan

How to Apply

If you are interested in learning more about Peace Camp International, click on the link below and get ready to experience the journey of a lifetime.

I want to join Peace Camp and make a difference! www.peaceinternational.org 6

6 Adapted from www.seedsofpeace.org & www.ptpi.org

286

Questions

(1) Peace Camp International claims that it is set “in a neutral setting.” Do you think a location in the United States can be considered neutral ? Why or why not? Explain your answer.

(2) One of the Peace camp participants, Maayan, says that “when everyone speaks English, differences are less obvious.” Do you agree or disagree with Maayan?

(3) Peace Camp International believes that English can be a bridging language between cultures and religions? Do you think that English can be a bridging language? Why or why not?

(4) Do you think that the Israeli Palestinian conflict would be easier to solve if Israelis and Palestinians spoke English to each other? Explain.

(5) Do you think you would like to attend a camp like “Peace Camp International”? Explain your answer.

(6) According to the text “at the end of the summer, all participants speak the language of peace.” In your opinion, what kinds of words or phrases make up a “language of peace”. List them in English or in your native language. ______

287

Focus Group Activity #3

Opening: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this discussion. I am going to be asking you questions about English. All of your responses will be anonymous. Your answers will not be shared with your teacher or are not connected to your grade in English.

Questions: (1) Describe the three times English has been most useful to you? Try to give specific examples.

(2) Name five countries where you think you would need to use English

(3) Describe a situation where you needed English more than your first language.

(4) Students will be presented with five pictures depicting five different people. They will be asked what they think about each of the people and whether they are native English speakers or know English.

(5a) Imagine you have just met a student named Alan. Alan recently moved to Israel from the United States. Even though Alan speaks Hebrew very well he insists on speaking English with you. How do you think you would feel?

(5b) Imagine you have just met a student named Alan. Alan recently moved to Israel from the United States. Even though Alan speaks Arabic very well he insists on speaking English with you. How do you think you would feel?

(6a) How do you feel about the following statement: “English should replace Hebrew as the official language at your school”

(6b) How do you feel about the following statement: “English should replace Arabic as the official language at your school”

(7) What is your opinion of the following statement: “The official languages of Israel are Hebrew and Arabic. English is not an official language in Israel and is not connected to the Israeli Palestinian conflict”

(8) What language do you think should be used in a face to face conversation between Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis?

(9) How do you feel about the use of English in meetings between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians?

(10) Students will be presented with three signs depicting the names of three doctors. They will be asked to decide which is the best doctor and why. Dr. Noam Klein Dr. Hussam Abu Nimer Dr. Bradley Smith

In an Israeli Jewish doctor who Is an Israeli Palestinian doctor Is a British doctor who moved speaks Hebrew and English who speaks Arabic and English to Israel and speaks only English

Closing:

288

העצמה ואי- העצמה : מחקר -בין תרבותי על תלמידי אנגלית בבתי ספר ממלכתיים -חד לשוניים ודו- לשוניים בישראל

חיבור לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור לפילוסופיה

מאת

'ג וליה שלאם סלמן

הוגש לסנט האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים

דצמבר , 2011

עבודה זו נעשתה בהדרכתם של : :

פרופ ' עלית אולשטיין ו ר"ד צבי בקרמן

תקציר

העבודה המדוברת היא מחקר איכותני בראיית עומק של לומדי אנגלית בשלושה בתי- ספר ממלכתיים ( לא דתיים ) בחסות משרד החינוך הפועלים בירושלים ; אחד מבתי- הספר מוגדר כבית- ספר חד- לשוני של הרוב ( עברית- אנגלית ) , ) השני מוגדר כבית- ספר חד- לשוני של מיעוט ( ערבית- אנגלית ) ואילו השלישי מוגדר כבית- ספר דו- לשוני של רוב ומיעוט גם יחד ( ערבית- עברית- אנגלית ). המחקר בודק את התפיסות של התלמידים ביחס לשפה האנגלית וללימוד השפה האנגלית . בנוסף לכך , היות שההקשר הסוציו- לינגואיסטי של המחקר הזה מאופיין על- ידי קשרי הגומלין בין עברית , ערבית ואנגלית , המחקר מציג גם שיח הנוגע לערבית ולעברית . בסופו של דבר , המחקר התפת ח לכדי ניתוח לא רק של השפה האנגלית בקרב תלמידים דוברים עברית ותלמידים דוברי ערבית , אלא גם לבחינה של הפונקציות ושל ההשלכות של קיומן של השפות המקומיות ביחס לשפה האנגלית . המשתתפים במחקר ייחסו משמעות ורלוונטיות לכל שלוש השפות , וקשרי הגומלין ביניהן נבחנים באורח נרחב . .

המחקר כולל חמישה פרקים . הפרק הראשון מציג סקירה של ספרות המחקר הרלוונטית לעבודה . הפרק השני מסביר את השיטות ששימשו במחקר – בעיקר תצפיות מקדימות , ראיונות עומק ( איכותניים , מובנים באורח חלקי ) וכן מפגשים של קבוצות מיקוד . הפרק השלישי כולל ניתוח עומק של ממצאי המחקר . כל בית- ספר מוצג ומנותח באורח עצמאי . בפרק ה רביעי , שכותרתו " דיון " , אני מציגה ניתוח השוואתי של אחדות מהנקודות המובאות בסעיף " ממצאים וניתוח " ( פרק שלישי ) , ואני מרחיבה באשר להשלכותיהן . בפרק החמישי והאחרון של העבודה , אני מציגה את מסקנו ת המחקר ומתייחס ת להשלכותיו ארוכות הטווח , וכן למגבלותיו . להלן התקציר המורחב המציג את עיקרי הפרקים בעבודה . .

הפרק הראשון של העבודה מציג סקירה של השיקולים התאורטיים שביסוד המחקר . נוכח אופיו הבין- תחומי של פרויקט המחקר , הסקירה נוגעת במספר תחומים ודיסציפלינות . אני פותחת בדיון בת אוריה החברתית הקונסטרוקטיביסטית ; זווית- הראייה האפסיטמולוגית שהיא המסגרת להבנה שלנו את המושגים המרכזיים שהמחקר מתייחס אליהם , במיוחד בשאלות של שפה וזהות . .

לאחר מכן אני מתייחסת למודלים של לימוד שפה ומביאה סקירה קצרה של מודלים לחינוך דו- לשוני ככל שהם נוגעים למחקר זה . ספציפית , אני דנה במודלים של חינוך בשפה זרה שבדרך- כלל מכונים מודלים דו- לשוניים חלשים . אני גם דנה בתכניות שפה דו- כיווניות דואליות , הן באורח כללי והן בהתייחס להקשר המקומי של יוזמות דו- לשוניות ערבית- עברית . בהמשך , מתייחסת הסקירה התאורטית שלי לתחום החד ש יחסית , הנמצא בהתרחבות , של English as a Global Language ( אנגלית כשפה גלובלית ) או English as an International Language ( אנגלית כשפה בינלאומית ) , EIL , אחת המסגרות התאורטיות המרכזיות התומכות במחקר זה . .

הפרדיגמה התאורטית האחרונה שאני בוחנת נוגעת לתוצאות הנובעות מהשפה ומלימוד השפה . אני מתייחסת במיוחד לאחדים מהגורמים המשפיעים על התוצאות של לימוד שפה , כולל הסטטוס הנחזה של השפה , הון לשוני , קונפליקט לשוני , מוטיבציה וכן דו- לשוניות ותלת- לשוניות . כמו כן , אני עוסקת בהרחבה בלימוד שפה ותהליכי בנייה של זהות – – תוצאה מורכבת ורבת- פנים של לימוד שפה . באופן ספציפי יותר , אני בוחנת תהליכים של בניית זהות ולימוד של שפה זרה וכן תהליכים של בניית זהות ואנגלית כשפה בינלאומית ( EIL ). ).

בנוסף לכך אני כוללת התייחסות להשלכות פדגוגיות מסוימות שעולות כשזהות ותהליכים של בניית זהות מודגשים בתכניות ללימוד שפה . ה סעיף האחרון של ה פרק מתאר את הסביבה . ראשית אני מתייחסת להיבטים של מסגרת המקרו של ההקשר , כולל תיאור קצר של ההקשר הלאומי- פוליטי . לאחר מכן אני מתארת את השפות בחברה הישראלית – תוך התמקדות בעברית , ערבית ואנגלית . כמו כן , אני מספקת תיאור של מערכת החינוך בישראל ה כולל הסבר מפורט יותר של לימוד השפה האנגלית בהקשר הישראלי . פרק זה נחתם במידע- רקע על עצמי , החוקרת – מה שוולקוט ( Walcott, 2002 ) מכנה בשם קולו של המחבר . .

הפרק השני של התזה מציג מתודולוגיות המשמשות במחקר זה . ספציפית , המחקר הזה עשה שימוש בשלוש שיטות איכותניות : תצפיות אתנוגרפיות מקדימות ; ראיונות עומק מובנים באורח חלקי ; ומפגשים של קבוצות מיקוד . במשך תקופה של ארבעה חודשים , ערכים תצפיות מקדימות כדי להתוודע להקשרי הכיתה שחקרתי – מה שאופנהיים ( Oppenheim, 1992 ) מכנה " exploratory pilot work ” . לאחר מכן ע רכתי את הראיונות ואת קבוצות המיקוד . ערכתי סך כולל של 35 ראיונות ו- 12 קבוצות מיקוד . כל הראיונות מתבססות על שאלות מובנות באורח חלקי והוקלטו באמצעות מכשיר הקלטה דיגיטלי . מפגשי קבוצות המיקוד התבססו על שילוב של הנחיות ביחס לנושא , שאלות לדיון , שאלות שדרשו מהמשתת פים לכתוב ולהגיב לטריגר וכן פעילויות קבוצתיות ( Krueger, 1998 ). קבוצות המיקוד הוקלטו בווידאו וברשמקול . כל הנתונים תומללו באורח חלקי או מלא ולאחר מכן קודדו על פי נושאים ותת- נושאים . .

אלא אם כן צוין אחרת , הראיונות וקבוצות המיקוד התנהלו באנגלית . לצורך הראיונות וקבוצות המיקוד שהתנהלו עם תלמידים מבית- הספר החד- לשוני של המיעוט , התלווה אלי מתרגם מערבית ובעת הצורך תרגם מערבית לאנגלית ומאנגלית לערבית . בראיונות שנערכו עם יתר התלמידים , בשעת הצורך תרגמתי לעברית שאלות והערות שהתלמידים ציינו שהם לא הבינו . .

מרבית העבודה מוצג ת בפרק ה שלישי במסגרתו אציג את הממצאים ואת הניתוח . פרק זה מחולק לשלושה סעיפים , כשכל סעיף מתייחס לאחד מבתי- הספר שהם מושאי המחקר . הסעיף הראשון עוסק בבית- הספר החד- לשוני של הרוב ( עברית- אנגלית) ; הסעיף השני עוסק בבית- הספר החד- לשוני של המיעוט ( ערבית- אנגלית) ; והסעיף השלישי עוסק בבית- הספר הדו- לשוני של הרוב והמיעוט כאחד . להלן ארחיב באשר לתוצאות העיקריות מכל בית- ספר . .

בית- הספר החד- לשוני של הרוב ( עברית- אנגלית ) )

הממצאים הנוגעים לבית- הספר החד- לשוני של הרוב מאורגנים סביב השפה . אני דנה באורח מיוחד בממצאים הנוגעים לעברית , לערבית ולאנגלית , וכן למגוון של תוצאות סוציו- לינגואיסטיות המתלוות לשפות הללו במישור המעשי . בנוסף , אני מתמקדת ספציפית בממצאים הנוגעים לשימוש בשפה , לסטטוס השפה ולתפיסות וגישות ביחס לשלוש השפות הללו . .

באשר לשימוש בשפה , הרי שמשתתפים במחקר הנמנים על הרוב החד- לש וני מתפקדים בהקשרים שבהם השפה העברית שולטת . הם משתמשים בעברית בחיי היום- יום שלהם ולרוב התקשורת המקומית . הם אינם משתמשים בערבית לצרכי תקשורת . יחד עם זאת , המשתתפים כן זיהו את השפה כחלק מהנוף הלשוני של ישראל מן הבחינה האתנית וההיסטורית . אנגלית , לעומת זאת , נתפסה בסופו של דבר כשפה מהחוץ , אבל כשפה העיקרית לתקשורת בזירה הבינלאומית ובקרב תיירים ומבקרים בישראל עצמה . .

באשר למעמד של השפות , השיח של התלמידים שיקף יחס דו- ערכי . מהבחינה הפסיכולוגית והרגשית , לעברית היה הסטטוס הגבוה ביותר . בנוסף לכך , בזירה המקומית עברית נת פסה כשפה החשובה ביותר . תלמידים מסוימים ייחסו חשיבות גם לערבית ואפילו אמרו שבישראל יש לערבית סטטוס גבוה יותר מאשר לאנגלית . יחד עם זאת , בסופו של דבר , האינסטרומנטליות נטתה לגבור . הדבר התבטא בכך שלאנגלית ניתן הסטטוס הגבוה ביותר בזירה הבינלאומית , בעוד שלעברית נ יתן הסטטוס הגבוה ביותר בזירה המקומית ואילו ערבית נדחקה לשוליים . .

באשר לתפיסות וליחס כלפי עברית , ערבית ואנגלית , התגלו מהלכים לשוניים מורכבים . התלמידים ראו בעברית השפה שמשקפת את זהותם ואת הלאום שלהם . הם תפסו את השפה הערבית ככלי לשוני חשוב בעיקר בשל השירות הצב אי אבל גם בשל המיקום הגאופוליטי של ישראל ולאור ההרכב הדמוגרפי שלה . המשתתפים גם תפסו את השפה האנגלית ככלי לשוני חיוני הן בגלל הידע המועבר באמצעות רכישת השפה והן בשל ההשפעה הגלובלית שלה . התכונה הבינלאומית הזאת תמכה בניכוס מחדש מצד התלמידים של זהויות שהושגו ב אמצעות רכישת השפה האנגלית כיוון שהם לא קשרו עוד בין השפה ובין ארץ או תרבות מסוימת . אך על פי כן , כשהם התייחסו לתהליכי המשא ומתן האישיים שלהם בכל הקשור לזהותם , התלמידים נטו לזהות בין השפה האנגלית ובין ארצות- הברית . ככזו , רק בנסיבות מוגדרות נתפסה השפה האנגלית כאמצעי ליישב סכסוכים . במצבים אחרים , השפה סומנה כשלוחה של ארצות- הברית ולכן נתפסה קרוב לוודאי כקשורה לקולוניאליזם ולסכסוך מתמשך . .

לבסוף , השפה האנגלית לא נתפסה ככלי- קיבול טבעי אלא ככלי סוציו- לינגואיסטי רב- עצמה שהתלמידים חשקו בו וסברו שהוא בעל ערך . לתפיסות של התלמידים באשר לשפה האנגלית הייתה השפעה על השפות המקומיות , כך שהשפה הערבית , ולעתים גם השפה העברית , נדחקו לשוליים כשהאנגלית מזינה שאיפות בהווה ולעתיד . .

בית- ספר חד- לשוני של המיעוט ( ערבית- אנגלית ) )

גם הממצאים הקשורים לבית- הספר החד- לשוני של המיעוט ( ערבית- אנגלית ) מאורגנים סביב השפה והם דנים בעברית , בערבית ובאנגלית . כמו בבית- הספר החד- לשוני של הרוב , בנוגע לכל שפה אני מתמקדת בממצאים הקשורים לשימוש בשפה , לסטטוס של השפה ולתפיסות ולגישות ביחס לכל שפה . .

בישראל , תלמידים חד- לשוניים בני מעוטים – כמו דוברי- ערבית מוסלמים ונוצרים מסוג L1 – מהווים מיעוט אתני ולשוני . בעוד שבסביבת הבית ובית- הספר הם עושים שימוש בעיקר בערבית , הם דיברו על כך שהם זקוקים לעברית לזירה הציבורית המקומית ולאנגלית לזירות הבינלאומיות והווירטואליות . תלמידים מסוימים אמרו שהם משתמשים באנגלית ב זירה הציבורית המקומית , ובכך עוקפים את השפה העברית ואת ההקשרים האידאולוגיים הנלווים לשפה . תלמידים אחרים השלימו עם השימוש בעברית בהקשר המקומי ואפילו התענגו על הכוח וההשפעה שמיוחסים לשימוש בעברית . לבסוף , השיח תומך בעובדה שדוברי ערבית מסוג L1 צריכים לדעת ערבית , עברית ואנגלית ולהשתמש בהן . התלמידים הללו נאבקים בדרישות לשוניות המתחרות זו בזו , ועליהם למצוא איזון בין תחזוקה של L1 , דרישות לשוניות מקומיות וצרכים לשוניים גלובליים . .

באשר לסטטוס של השפות , הרי שהשיח של התלמידים שיקף מגוון נקודות- השקפה . מבחינה תרבותית ורגשי ת , ת התלמידים בדרך- כלל הצמידו את הסטטוס הגבוה ביותר לערבית . יחד עם זאת , המשתתפים היו מודעים באורח חד לכוח וליוקרה המלווה את השפה העברית בזירה המקומית ולכוח וליוקרה של השפה האנגלית בזירה הבינלאומית . ככזה , הסטטוס של השפות לא היה היררכי באורח מובהק אלא היה תלוי בשאלה איזו מהות לשונית מתועדפת בסולם העדיפויות . בכל הנוגע לזהות אתנית ולחובות תרבותיות , השפה הערבית זכתה לסטטוס הגבוה ביותר . יחד עם זאת , כמו במצבים רבים שמעורבים בהם מיעוטים אתניים , לעתים קרובות לתלמידים היה צורך לתת עדיפות לשפות שיעניקו להם את האינסטרומנטליות הרבה ביותר ואת הכוח הרב ביותר . .

באשר לתפיסות ולגישות כלפי השפה העברית , השפה הערבית והשפה האנגלית , המשתתפים הביעו נקודות- מבט שלעתים קרובות מיוחסות למיעוטים אתניים- לשוניים . במלים אחרות , הם מיקדו את ה- L1 שלהם , במקרה הזה – – השפה הערבית , לספירה ה אישית- משפחתית , בעוד ששפת הרוב שלטה בהקשר החברתי הרחב יותר . בעיני תלמידים -חד לשוניים בני המיעוט , השפה הערבית נתפסה כשפה הקשורה לזהות האתנית ולקשרים רגשיים ואישיים . יחד עם זאת , מעבר לקישורים האישיים הללו , למשתתפים היה מעט בלבד לומר על השפה הערבית . השפה העברית , לעומת זאת , עוררה קשת של נקודות- ראייה . תלמידים אחדים אחזו בתפיסות שליליות ביחס לעברית . ואף על פי כן , בסופו של דבר הם נטו בדרך- כלל לקבל את השפה העברית כחלק עיקרי של האקלים הלשוני בישראל וכן ככלי הכרחי להצלחה מקומית . תלמידים אחרים ניכסו מחדש את העברית , תוך שהם מאמצים תפיסות חיוביות יותר כלפי השפה ובונים מחדש את התפיסות שלהם כך שהן תכלולנה כוח והשפעה כשהם מתקשרים עם דוברי עברית . .

המשתתפים גם תפסו את השפה האנגלית ככלי לשוני חיוני על אף שלימוד השפה והשגת גישה רציפה לשפה לא היו תמיד בגדר האפשרי . טווח המיומנויות באנגלית בקרב המשתתפים היה רחב מאוד . אותם תלמידים שרכשו מיומנות גבוהה באנגלית כללו ניכוס של היבטים של השפה האנגלית כחלק מהזהות המובנית שלהם . לעתים , הניכוס הזה גרם לצרימה בין ההזדהות שלהם כפלסטינים ובין ההזדהות שלהם כדוברי אנגלית . תלמידים הביעו את האפשרות שה ם עלולים להיתפס בידי פלסטינים אחרים או בידי ישראלים- פלסטינים כמי שאינם בדיוק פלסטינים אותנטיים . .

בסופו של דבר , בעוד שרוב המשתתפים ציינו את השפה האנגלית כבחירת ביניים סבירה כשהם מבקשים לגשר בין ישראלים יהודים ובין פלסטינים יהודים , השפה האנגלית לא נתפסת כניטרלית באורח אינהרנטי . יתרה מכך , יחסי הגומלין בין השפה הערבית , השפה האנגלית והשפה העברית תומכת באקלים סוציו- לינגואיסטי עשיר ומורכב – כזה שבו ההתחייבויות הלשוניות נבחנות מחדש כל העת וכתוצאה מכך גם מאורגנות מחדש . .

בית- הספר הדו- לשוני של הרוב והמיעוט כאחד

כמ ו בשני הסעיפים הקודמים , ממצאים הנוגעים לבית- הספר הדו- לשוני של הרוב והמיעוט כאחד ( ערבית- עברית- אנגלית ) מאורגנים סביב לשפה ועוסקים בממצאים הקשורים לעברית , לערבית ולאנגלית . כמו בשני בתי- הספר האחרים , בנוגע לכל שפה אני מתמקדת ספציפית בממצאים הקשורים לשימוש בשפה , לסטטוס של השפה ולתפיסות ולגישות ביחס לכל שפה . .

התלמידים הדו- לשוניים בני הרוב ובני המיעוט זיהו את עצמם כתלת- לשוניים , והם נוטלים חלק במסגרות חינוכיות , חברתיות ואישיות שעושות שימוש בעברית , בערבית ובאנגלית . על אף שהם אינם משתמשים בשפות הללו באופן שווה , הם הכירו בנוכחותן ובערכן של שלוש השפות . בזירה הגלובלית , התלמידים ציינו שהם משתמשים בעיקר באנגלית . יתרה מכך , בגלל סדר- היום הייחודי של בית- הספר הדו- לשוני ובגלל הפרסום הרב שבית- הספר זכה לו , התלמידים ציינו שיש להם אפשרויות רבות לנסוע לחוץ- לארץ ולבוא בקשר עם דוברי ם של שפות אחרות . התלמידים אמנם ציינו שבמפגשים כאלו הם משתמשים באנגלית וגם היו גלויים באשר ליתרונות שבשימוש באנגלית , בזירה המקומית הם חוזרים לעשות שימוש בעברית ובערבית . השימוש בעברית שולט בזירה הציבורית המקומית וכן במגעים בין יהודים ישראלים ופלסטינים ישראלי .ם .ם

באשר לסטטוס של השפות , הרי שהתלמידים מבית- הספר הדו- לשוני של הרוב והמיעוט כאחד הביעו יחס דו- ערכי . השיח מראה כי הן דוברי עברית מסוג L1 והן דוברי ערבית מסוג L1 מתאמצים למצוא איזון בין עדיפויות לשוניות רגשיות- אישיות ובין עדיפויות לשוניות של תועלת . תלמידים יה ודים ישראלים נטו על פי רוב לתת עדיפות רגשית ואישית לעברי אבל ייחסו לאנגלית את הסטטוס הגבוה ביותר בזירה הגלובלית . הם גם הזכירו שערבית היא שפה חשובה באזור , אבל הכורח האידאולוגי הזה לא תורגם לעצמה או ליוקרה . דוברי ערבית מסוג L1 התנדנדו בין מתן

עדיפות לשפת המו רשת שלהם , מתן עדיפות לשפה המקומית העיקרית ומתן סטטוס גבוה לשפה הגלובלית – כלומר לאנגלית . לבסוף , הסטטוס של שפה לא היה מוחלט אלא נמצא תלוי בנסיבות ובהקשר . .

באשר לתפיסות ולגישות ביחס לעברית , לערבית ולאנגלית , הרי שדוברי עברית מסוג L1 ודוברי ערבית מסוג L1 הביעו נקודות מבט שונות אלו לעומת אלו . יהודים ישראלים ציינו שהם תופסים את השפה העברית כשפה הקשורה להזדהות האישית והאתנית שלהם . בניגוד למקביליהם בבית- הספר החד- לשוני של הרוב , הם לא קשרו את השפה העברית לרטוריקה של מדינת- הלאום , אלא פשוט ציינו את קיומו של קשר א ישי או משפחתי לשפה . באשר לשפה הערבית , התלמידים היו כנים באשר לכך שעל אף שהם מאמינים שהשפה הערבית היא בעלת משמעות מהבחינה הסמלית , הם אינם רואים בשפה ככזו הקשורה ליוקרה או להשפעה סוציו- כלכלית . .

תלמידים פלסטינים- ישראלים לא ראו בעברית כשפתם . יחד עם זאת , הם ייחס ו ערך לרכישת השפה העברית ולשימוש בה וזיהו אותה כקריטית להצלחה בישראל . באשר לערבית , הם זיהו אותה כשפה הקשורה לתרבותם ולזהות האתנית שלהם . יתרה מכך , השפה הערבית נתפסה כמסמן ראשי של זהות ולעתים תרמה לדיסוננס בין הזיהוי של המשתתפים כישראלים ובין הזיהוי שלהם כפל סטינים . גם השפה האנגלית נתפסה כמסמן של זהות ולעתים תלמידים ציינו שגם אנגלית היא מקור לחוסר הרמוניה . כמו תלמידים מבית- הספר החד- לשוני של המיעוט , המשתתפים אמרו ששליטה ושימוש באנגלית יכולות להיראות בעיני פלסטינים אחרים או בעיני פלסטינים ישראלים כסמל לכך שאינך פלסטיני באורח מלא ואותנטי . .

באשר לאנגלית , הרי שכל המשתתפים מבית- הספר הדו-לשוני לרוב ולמיעוט כאחד ציינו שהם רואים בשפה האנגלית כלי חשוב להצלחתם בעתיד . הם דיווחו שהם נהנים ללמוד אנגלית ושרכישת השפה והשימוש בה חשפו אותם לרעיונות ולמושגים חדשים . העקרונות הפדגוג יים המיושמים בבית- הספר הדו- לשוני נראים כתואמים יותר את תפיסת -ה EIL , תוך הדגשה של מיומנות תקשורת ואוריינות מחשב . נדמה שהמעבר הדידקטי הזה מ- EFL -ל EIL תרם למוטיבציה של התלמידים ולשליטה שלהם בשפה . .

כמו התלמידים מבתי- הספר החד- לשוניים , התלמידים מבית- הספר הדו- לשוני של הרוב והמיעוט כאחד נטו לתמוך בתפיסות נטולות- לאום של דוברי- אנגלית ולקשור בין השפה ובין מגוון תרבויות . במובן הזה , במידה מסוימת , אנגלית נתפסה כדרך- ביניים וכאמצעי לעודד פתרון ושלום . יחד עם זאת , התלמידים גם ציינו את הקשרים החזקים בין ארצות- הברית ובין יש ראל והצביעו על כך שאנגלית אינה כוח בינלאומי ניטרלי אלא קשר ישיר לסכסוך המתמשך ולכיבוש . .

לבסוף , תלמידים בבית- הספר הדו- לשוני של הרוב והמיעוט כאחד היו פרגמטיים ביותר באשר לשימוש בשפה , לסטטוס שלה ולתפיסות ביחס אליה . הם לומדים בהקשר לימודי שמשוקעים בו אידאלים וא ידאולוגיה . יחד עם זאת , על פי רוב בחירותיהם הלשוניות שיקפו גישה תועלתנית לשפות והפרגמטיקה גברה על עקרונות פוליטיים ואידאולוגיים . .

הפרק הרביעי של המחקר מציג את הדיון . הפרק מביא סינתזה של ממצאים משלוש הסביבות החינוכיות שנבדקו במחקר . יתרה מכך , כמו בניתוח של כל בית- ספר בנפרד , התייחסתי לממצאים ולהשלכות הנוגעות לשימוש בשפה , לסטטוס של השפה ולתפיסות וגישות ביחס לשפה . .

באשר לשימוש בשפה , הרי שהשיח מראה שבהקשר הגלובלי המשתתפים משתמשים באנגלית כשפת התקשורת הרחבה יותר ( LWC ). הן בפונקציה והן בצורה , השימוש של המשתתפים באנגלית מורה על אימוץ של המאפיינים הלשוניים והסוציו- לינגואיסטיים של EIL . המשתתפים במחקר גם עושים שימוש תדיר בשפות המקומיות , בעברית ובערבית . דוברי עברית מסוג L1 , כאוכלוסיית הרוב , לעתים רחוקות בלבד עושים שימוש בערבית או מגיעים לשליטה בשפה . יחד עם זאת , הם מיי חסים חשיבות רבה לרכישת עברית וערבית על- ידי יהודים ישראלים ופלסטינים ישראל כאחד . לעומת זאת , דוברי ערבית מסוג L1 , כאוכלוסייתה של שפת המיעוט , משתמשים בעברית לעתים קרובות ומגיעים לשליטה בשפה . יחד עם זאת , הם לא ייחסו חשיבות רבה לרכישת השפה הערבית על- ידי יהודים ישראלים . למעשה , הם ציינו שמכוח היותם הדו- לשוניים או התלת- לשוניים היחידים , הם יכולים להשיב לעצמם מעט מהעצמה הסמלית שנשללה מהם כמיעוט הכפוף לרוב . .

באשר לסטטוס של השפה , הממצאים הבולטים ביותר התייחסו למאבק הנמשך של המשתתפים בין מתן עדיפות לתחזוקתה של שפת המורשת ובין מתן עדיפות לשליטה בשפות שמעניקות כוח וניידות חברתית במידה הרבה ביותר בהקשר החברתי הנוכחי שלהם . מחקר זה גילה שתלמידים זיהו נטיות משחררות מסוימות המתלוות ללימוד אנגלית ורכישתה . הם ציינו שהם נחשפים לרעיונות חדשים ולאידאולוגיות חדשות באמצעות לימוד השפה האנגלית . כן הם ציינו את העובדה שהם משתמשים בגמישותה של האנגלית כדי לשקף מבעים מקומיים ואישיים . יחד עם זאת , לכל רוחב המפה , התלמידים בסופו של דבר זיהו את השפה הערבית או את השפה העברית כשפות החשובות ביותר לצורך הבעה של מסורות תרבותיות- אתניות ושל השתייכות לעם . .

בעוד שהטקסונומיות של מיני האנגלית של העולם ושל EIL ונקודות- הראות הנלוות להן מבקשות להתייחס למאבקים הנמשכים בין עדיפויות תרבויות ופרקטיות , אין די בהן בלבד . הדרך לנוהגים משחררים כוללת יישום של סוגי מדיניות חינוכית יחד עם גישות דידקטיות ביקורתיות שלוקחות בחש בון את הלומדים ואת המורשות שלהם . בהקשר המקומי , הדבר כולל הכרה בכך שדוברי ערבית מסוג L1 חייבים להגיע לתלת- לשוניות בעוד שבני- גילם דוברי העברית מסוג L1 יכולים להסתפק בדו- לשוניות ( עברית- אנגלית ). חוסר האיזון הזה בהקשר של רכישת שפה מעמיד את דוברי הערבית מסוג L1 בעמדה של נחיתות נוספת . בסופו של דבר , מדיניות בנושא השפה , תקציבים , משאבים חינוכיים ודרכי הוראה צריכים להתייחס למשוכות הלשוניות הייחודיות והנוספות הניצבות בפני דוברי ערבית מסוג L1 בישראל , כדי שהפערים יגושרו , -אי השוויון ייפתר והשחיקה בשפת המורשת תיבלם . .

באשר ל תפיסות ולגישות ביחס לשפה , הרי שהתייחסתי במיוחד ללימוד השפה , לשפה ולזהות ולתפקיד השפה בפתרון הסכסוך וביוזמות שלום . הדיון בתפיסות של התלמידים ביחס ללימוד השפה התמקד על תפקיד המוטיבציה ברכישת

השפה אנגלית וכן ברכישת השפה המקומית . המשתתפים ציינו שיש להם מוטיבצי ה גבוהה ללמוד אנגלית ושהם מעוניינים באוריינות התקשורתית והטכנולוגית הנלווית לרכישת השפה האנגלית . יחד עם זאת , נדמה שהגישות הפדגוגיות הנוכחיות אינן מצליחות לרתום את המוטיבציה של התלמידים ויתכן שיש מקום להתרחקות משיטות של EFL לעבר שיטות של EIL . מעבר כזה עשוי לכלול דגש על המטרות של התלמידים בלימוד אנגלית , על הרקע המקומי והתרבותי שהם מביאים אל חוויית הלימוד שלהם ועל הצורך במיומנות תקשורת בין דוברים של שפות אחרות . .

דיון בתפיסות של תלמידים ביחס לשפה ולזהות הדגיש אחדים מן ההבדלים שעלו בין התלמידים החד- לשוניים והתלמ ידים הדו- לשוניים . בכל שלושת ההקשרים , התלמידים השתמשו ברטוריקה בינרית והדגישו את אחת משתי ההזדהויות – יהודי או פלסטיני . יחד עם זאת , בבתי- הספר החד- לשוניים לא נראה שהז' רגון הבינרי הזה מכסה את כל המציאות והתלמידים היו מסוגלים להכיר במידה של מגוון בתוך כל אחד מ צדדיה של המשוואה הבינרית . לעומת זאת , משתתפים מבית- הספר הדו- לשוני של הרוב והמיעוט כאחד נראו כמי שמוצפים בתפיסות מונוליתיות של יהודי ופלסטיני והם לא גילו את היכולת הרטורית להביע שונות ומגוון . מצד אחר , בניגוד למקביליהם החד- לשוניים , הם לא נראו כמי שהוטבעה בהן אידאולוגיה של מדינת לאום וההזדהויות שהם בטאו היו אתניות , תרבותיות ודתיות ולא לאומיות . אין ספק שלרטוריקה של מדינת לאום יש מגבלות , במיוחד ביחס לאוכלוסיות הרוב והמיעוט וליכולתן לחיות בהרמוניה . ההבדלים בתוך כל אחד מההקשרים החינוכיים והיעדר זיהוי של מגוון בתוך הקבוצה יחד עם היעדר רטוריקה לאומית בהחלט דורשת להעלות שאלות נוספות באשר לתהליכי הסוציאליזציה בסביבות חד- לשוניות ודו- לשוניות . .

הדיון באשר לתפיסות של התלמידים לגבי תפקיד השפות בפתרון הסכסוך וביוזמות חינוכיות לשלום הבדילו באורח ברור בין מפגשים בין- קבוצתיים המת רחשים בזירה בינלאומית ובין מפגשים בין- קבוצתיים המתרחשים בזירה המקומית . מחוץ לישראל , רוב התלמידים ציינו שאנגלית הייתה הבחירה האופטימלית כדי לטפח תקשורת , הבנה ופתרון . הם ראו באנגלית כדרך הביניים וכאמצעי להפחית למינימום את ההבדלים בין הקבוצות האתניות . ביחס למפגשים המתרחשים בישראל/ פלסטין , הרי שכל אוכלוסייה של בית- ספר מסוים הביעה נקודת- ראות אחרת . תלמידים -חד לשוניים מקבוצת הרוב ציינו שהן היהודים הישראלים והן הפלסטינים הישראלים צריכים להכיר ולהשתמש אלו בשפתם של אלו . תלמידים חד- לשוניים מבני המיעוט התנגדו לשימוש ב ערבית מצד יהודים ישראלים ובחרו לעשות שימוש באנגלית או בעברית במפגשים בין- קבוצתיים בין יהודים ישראלים ובין פלסטינים ישראלים . תלמידים מבית- הספר הדו- לשוני של המיעוט והרוב כאחד העדיפו את ההיבט הפרקטי על פני האידאולוגיה ואמרו שהשפה הטובה ביותר למפגשים בין- קבוצת יים בין פלסטינים ישראלים ויהודים ישראלים היא אותה שפה שתובן על- ידי מספר רב ביותר אל משתתפים . בסופו של דבר , שום שפה אינה תרופת פלא מובטחת והבחירה להשתמש בשפה מסוימת על פני אחרת תלויה בהקשר ובנסיבות . .

הפרק ה חמישי והאחרון של התזה מציג את המסקנות , את ההשלכות מ רחיקות הלכת ואת המגבלות של עבודה זו . המחקר הזה החל כבחינה של השפה האנגלית ושל לימוד האנגלית בשלושה הקשרים שונים בירושלים . יחד עם זאת , תוצאות המחקר הראו שאי- אפשר לבודד את השפה האנגלית באורח מלאכותי מן השפות בעלות החשיבות המקומית , שעבור המשתתפים במחקר הזה הי ו השפה העברית והשפה הערבית . היות שכך , תוצאות המחקר תרמו בסופו של דבר לשיח הזמין הנוגע לכל שלוש השפות . בנוסף לכך , התוצאות מקיפות מספר דיסציפלינות ומניבות שיקולים רלוונטיים גם בתחום הסוציו- לינגואיסטיקה , בתחום ה- EIL , בתחום הוראת האנגלית וגם בתחום הוראת פתרון סכסוכים . .

באשר לתחום הסוציו- לינגואיסטיקה , הרי שמחקר זה תורם לשיח הנוגע לתהליכי המשא ומתן באשר לשפה ולזהות . בנוגע לתחום ה- EIL , אנגלית כשפה בין- לאומית , הרי שהמחקר תורם לשיח הקיים הנוגע ל- EIL באזורים של סכסוכים סבוכים שבהם השפה האנגלית אינה אחת השפות הקשורות ב אורח ישיר לסכסוך . ביחס להוראת השפה האנגלית , המחקר מעלה הצעות לשינויים פדגוגיים במדינות שבהן אנגלית היא עדיין שפה זרה אך עשויה לתפקד כשפה בין- לאומית . לבסוף , בכל הנוגע לפתרון סכסוכים ולחינוך לשלום , המחקר מדגיש את הצורך במבט ביקורתי יותר כאשר שוקלים איזו שפה לבחור למפגשים בין יהודים ופלסטינים . המסקנות רלוונטיות גם לשימוש באנגלית כשפה שנתפסת -כ lingua franca ניטרלית וכן לשימוש בדו- לשוניות עברית- ערבית כדרך הנתפסת כסימטרית . .

לבסוף , המחקר ביקש להעלות את המודעות באשר לקודים של עוצמה שנוצרים ומתחדשים באמצעות רכישת השפ ה האנגלית והשימוש בה . בנוסף לכך , מחקר זה הוסיף לשיח הקיים הנוגע בקודים של עצמה ולשפות הרלוונטיות במישור המקומי – ערבית ועברית . לסיכום , אנו יכולים לשאוף לקדם שחרור וצדק לשוני על- ידי מתן עידוד לאמצעים פדגוגיים המסייעים להבטיח את רכישת שפות העצמה ובה בעת לחזק את השפות הילידיות- המקומיות וכן קולות מקומיים של סוגי אנגלית ברחבי העולם . .