1 Teaching Language and Culture Through Online Ethnographic Explorations Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Re

Teaching Language and Culture Through Online Ethnographic Explorations

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Hope Marshall Wilson

Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures

The Ohio State University

2019

Dissertation Committee

Ludmila Isurin, Advisor

Leslie Moore

Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

Copyrighted by

Hope Marshall Wilson

2019

Abstract

Becoming a competent speaker of a language requires learning how culture and language interact with one another. Language, broadly speaking, can be used to help project a desired identity. A competent L2 user can use language to bring about desired social effects, just as an L1 speaker can. For example, a competent L2 speaker of English should be able to use politeness to avoid disrupting commercial transactions; they should be able to recognize and use sarcasm to align with others; they should be able to vary their speech according to the level of formality of a given setting.

Generally speaking, however, these aspects of linguistic competence are not taught in the language classroom. Instead, it is generally assumed that this knowledge will be acquired when a language user is immersed in the target-language context. Yet this is a problematic assumption for a number of reasons: first, prior studies have indicated that time spent in the target culture is not necessarily tied to higher sociolinguistic competence; and second, quite often, only a privileged minority have access to the target culture.

This dissertation tests an educational intervention designed to teach Russian L2 learners about culturally-situated aspects of language in a way that is broadly accessible.

Students of Russian were taken through an online program that taught them about the intersection of culture and language; this program also trained them in ethnographic ii methods. After this, the participants carried out small-scale ethnographic explorations of an online Russian-using speech community. At various points, quantitative and qualitative measurements of their intercultural competence and sociolinguistic competence were taken.

Participation in this program was correlated with an increase in intercultural competence and sociolinguistic competence. Qualitative data showed that participants saw particularly strong development in certain aspects of their competence, while other areas lagged behind. However, while these results indicate that it is possible to design an educational program that allows students to learn about language and culture online, this program is not and likely cannot be a widely-accessible one: given that participants needed extensive guidance and help throughout their participation in this project, this program likely will always need an instructor to assist the students, and so it likely cannot be scaled beyond the classroom.

iii

Dedication

To everyone who tries to do good in the world

Acknowledgments

If it were allowed, this acknowledgments section would be longer than the dissertation itself. This, then, is a very short list of the people to whom I am impossibly, indelibly indebted. First and foremost, I need to thank my advisor, Ludmila Isurin, who took me on when I was still shaky on my feet and uncertain of my path and gave me a grounding in the field and the academy. Thanks also go to my committee for their feedback and for much more than that: they go to Leslie Moore, the ultimate role model for a woman in academia, who is generous with her time and energy but who won’t take guff from anyone; and to Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, whose intellectual, theoretical, and methodological rigor have inspired me to constantly challenge myself and my writing. I want to thank Brian Joseph, too, who started me in the program and gave me the grounding to be a linguist. Larysa Stepanova trained me to be a good teacher and provided constant challenge that drove me to improve myself. And Predrag Matejic and

Pasha Johnson taught me about the academy beyond academia.

Thanks are due, too, to the staff and organizers of the Summer Language Institute at University of Pittsburgh. In particular, Gina Peirce and Katie Mankunyan made this whole dissertation possible: without them, I’d never have been able to collect the data I needed.

I also want to acknowledge my absolutely stellar coworkers at Duolingo, who have been cheering me on while I’ve been finishing this dissertation.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t thank all my participants. You truly were the backbone of this study: you were curious, dedicated, hardworking, and inspiring. Thank you all a thousand times for giving me your time and your intellectual energy. And thank you all for your dedication to making the world better.

And finally, I want to thank the people who have kept me steady and sane through this whole process. To Ana and Becca, who kept me grounded; to Rachel and James and

Ryan, who helped me figure out my place in academia; to Kate, who shared her knowledge and her resources and her time; and to Camila, my best friend in the word.

Mom: you showed me the power of words and of humor. Dad: you have always been my inspiration, always, and showed me how to temper my ego with compassion. And to my sister, Chase: thank you for showing me how to grow up; thank you for teaching me how to be a person; thank you for laughing at my jokes, and for giving me jokes to laugh at; and thank you for putting up with me.

Vita

Education

2009 B.A., Russian Haverford College

2013 M.A., Slavic Studies University of Arizona

Work Experience

2013–2018 Graduate Teaching Associate/Graduate Fellow The Ohio State University

2019–present Learning Scientist Duolingo

Publications

Isurin, L. & Wilson, H. (Forthcoming.) First language attrition in bilingual immigrants: Attitude, identity, and emotion. In: G. Schiewer, J. Altarriba, & B.C. Ng (Eds.). Handbook on Language and Emotion. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgments ...... v Vita ...... vii List of Tables ...... xii List of Figures ...... xiii Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 1. Culture and Culture Pedagogy ...... 8 Introduction ...... 8 1.1. Defining “culture” ...... 9 1.1.1. Big-C and little-c ...... 10 1.1.2. Modernist approaches to culture ...... 12 1.1.3. Postmodern approaches to culture ...... 13 1.1.4. Language and culture ...... 15 1.2. Theoretical approaches to culture pedagogy ...... 18 1.2.1. Perspectives, Practices, and Products ...... 19 1.2.2. The “third space” ...... 21 1.2.3. Critical cultural awareness ...... 22 1.2.4. Paradigms of nationality ...... 23 1.3 Intercultural competence ...... 24 1.3.1. Assessing intercultural competence: General recommendations ...... 33 1.3.2. Assessing intercultural competence: Direct evidence ...... 34 1.3.3. Assessing intercultural competence: Indirect evidence ...... 35 1.4. Training ICC ...... 38 1.5. Conclusion ...... 40 Chapter 2. Operationalizing languaculture: Sociolinguistic awareness and pragmatic knowledge ...... 41 Introduction ...... 41 viii

2.1. Interactional competence in the L2 ...... 42 2.1.1. Defining competence ...... 42 2.2. Pragmatic acquisition ...... 44 2.2.1. Studying pragmatic acquisition: Targets of learning ...... 45 2.2.3. Studying pragmatic acquisition: Theoretical frameworks ...... 49 2.2.2. Studying pragmatic acquisition: Research methods ...... 52 2.3. Complicating L2 competence ...... 56 2.4. Conclusion ...... 58 Chapter 3. Cultural and sociolinguistic learning in four contexts ...... 60 Introduction ...... 60 3.1. The classroom context (“AH”) ...... 61 3.1.1. Language learning in the classroom ...... 62 3.1.2. Culture learning in the classroom ...... 65 3.2. The abroad context (“SA”) ...... 70 3.2.1. Language learning abroad ...... 71 3.2.2. Culture learning abroad ...... 76 3.3. The domestic immersion context (“IM”) ...... 85 3.3.1. Intensive language learning ...... 87 3.3.2. Intensive culture learning ...... 90 3.4. The online context ...... 90 3.4.1. Language learning online ...... 91 3.4.2. Culture learning online ...... 95 3.5. Conclusion ...... 99 Chapter 4. Theoretical framework and methods ...... 101 4.1. Theoretical framework ...... 101 4.1.1. Learning ...... 101 4.1.2. Culture and intercultural competence ...... 105 4.1.3. Sociolinguistic competence ...... 118 4.1.4. Pedagogy ...... 120 4.2. Methods...... 120 4.2.1. Phase 1: The Summer Language Institute ...... 121 4.2.2. Phase 2: The Ohio State University ...... 130

4.3. Data collection ...... 135 4.3.1. Questionnaires ...... 136 4.3.2. Interviews ...... 139 4.3.3. Course data ...... 141 4.4. Summary ...... 141 Chapter 5. Results: Overview ...... 144 Introduction ...... 144 5.1. Phase 1: Summer Language Institute ...... 144 5.1.1. Patterns of participation ...... 145 5.1.2. Sociolinguistic results ...... 146 5.1.3. Intercultural competence ...... 151 5.1.4. Summary ...... 155 5.2. Phase 2: Classroom study ...... 156 5.2.1. Intercultural competence ...... 156 5.2.2. Sociolinguistic competence ...... 158 5.2.3. Analysis...... 158 5.4. Summary ...... 160 Chapter 6. Results: Summer program: Case Study ...... 161 Introduction ...... 161 6.1. Background ...... 161 6.2. Intercultural and sociolinguistic competence ...... 165 6.3. Sarah’s patterns of participation ...... 187 6.4. Sarah’s outcomes ...... 188 6.5. Contrasting Sarah with other participants ...... 198 6.6. Sarah: Summary ...... 199 Chapter 7: Discussion and conclusion ...... 200 Introduction ...... 200 7.1. Results of participation ...... 201 7.1.1. Intercultural competence ...... 201 8.1.2. Sociolinguistic competence ...... 206 7.2. Engagement ...... 208 7.3. Accessibility ...... 213

7.4. Conclusion and future directions ...... 218 Bibliography ...... 220 Appendix A. Demographic Questionnaire ...... 255 Appendix B. Intercultural Questionnaire ...... 257 Appendix C. Sociolinguistic Questionnaire ...... 259 Appendix D. Interview Schedules ...... 261 Appendix E. Online course: Phase 1 ...... 264 Appendix F: Online Course: Phase 2 ...... 281

List of Tables

Table 1: Procedure for Phase 1 ...... 142 Table 2: Procedure for Phase 2 ...... 143 Table 3: Phase 1 participants’ research projects ...... 146 Table 4: Phase 1 participants’ scores on sociolinguistic survey ...... 147 Table 5: Summary of individual participants’ intercultural competence scores ...... 151 Table 6: Detailed breakdown of Phase 1 participants’ ICC ...... 152 Table 7: Detailed breakdown of Phase 2 participants’ intercultural competence ...... 157 Table 8: Detailed breakdown of Phase 2 participants’ sociolinguistic competence ...... 158 Table 9: Sarah’s intercultural competence and sociocultural competence ...... 164

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett 1986) ...... 28 Figure 2: The Intercultural Competence Model (Byram 1997) ...... 29 Figure 3: Deardorff's Pyramid Model of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff 2006) .... 30 Figure 4: Deardorff's Process Model of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff 2006) ...... 31 Figure 5. “The Multifaceted Nature of Language Learning and Teaching” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016)...... 102 Figure 6: A model of sociolinguistic competence ...... 119 Figure 7: Screenshot from landing page for online course ...... 126 Figure 8: Screenshot from Unit 1 ...... 127 Figure 9: Screenshot from Unit 2 ...... 128 Figure 10: Screenshot from Unit 3 ...... 129 Figure 11: Screenshot from Unit 4 ...... 130 Figure 12: Sample questions from cultural questionnaire ...... 137 Figure 13: Phase 1 participants’ scores on sociolinguistic survey ...... 148 Figure 14: Phase 1 participants’ scores on intercultural survey ...... 153

xiii

Introduction

Who should learn foreign languages, and why? Is language study an economically- motivated activity, for those who want to expand their employment opportunities? Is it a humanistic endeavor for the future leaders of the world, who must build empathy so that they might govern with justice and compassion? Is it limited to the economic elite, who are able to pay thousands of dollars for every level they advance on a language proficiency scales? Or is it for everyone?

These questions were hanging over this dissertation through my process of writing — as, indeed, they have been hanging over me since I began studying and teaching language. In 2017–2018, the administration of The Ohio State University was in the process of revising its general education requirements. Part of this debate involved discussing whether to keep or eliminate the foreign-language requirement for its undergraduate students; the proposal was to substitute in a general global citizenship requirement, which a language class could fulfill. For the university, then, foreign language classes are intended to give students some aspect of global-mindedness, some connection to and understanding of the world around them.

This perspective is not held by everyone. Historically, in language and culture departments, language classes were often seen as workshops for the mechanical teaching 1 of skills; this stood in contrast to upper-level classes on literature and history, which were tied to the humanistic education of the spirit and the opening of the mind to other people and other cultures (Kramsch, 2007). Yet the university, implicitly, expected that language learning would lead to the growth of those very interpersonal and global-citizenship skills that were theoretically reserved for the dedicated culture courses. The ideologies of foreign-language departments, who often separated global citizenship from the acquisition of skills seemed to clash with the ideologies of the universities, who desired broader outcomes from these language classes than simply language ability. Both of these motivations, in turn, were in tension with ideologies of the students themselves, who often dreamed that language study would lead to international social networks and robust career prospects.

So should the language classroom teach a humanistic curriculum? And should the humanistic curriculum be located in the classroom? The fact is that the type of higher education that has been modeled after the classical system, intended to enlighten the spirit and ennoble the mind and shape the individual into a global citizen, is limited largely to those who are fortunate in life. Not everyone is able to go to college; they might be limited by economic circumstance, physical circumstance, or questions of mobility.

Language learning on its own is often accessible; it can happen online for those who seek out opportunities for interaction, or can happen via free language-learning programs. But often, the focus in these sorts of programs is about the mechanistic acquisition of skills.

Should the humanistic aspect of language education not be made available to people

2 regardless of their circumstances, just like the skill-acquisition aspect of language learning is?

These are the twin themes that drove this study. I was concerned with uniting the humanistic aspect of language learning with the mechanistic — using skill-building to likewise build global citizenship. I was also concerned with ensuring that this joint language-culture program would not be designed in such a way that it could only enrich the traditional language classroom. In order to improve the lives of those who study language, language learning should have elements of humanism. It should build the ability to be a global citizen and help people understand how they relate to others; it should not simply teach the learner how to utter a well-formed sentence. Moreover, language-learning programs should also do this for everyone, not only those who can afford to pay tuition.

I saw culture-teaching as the best way to bring humanism into language learning.

Culture, as I will explain in more depth later, does not consist merely of learning about cultural artifacts such as art and literature; in this definition, teaching culture means teaching understanding of oneself and understanding of others. Yet methods for teaching this sort of culture in the classroom are still relatively underdeveloped. The most promising research in this area consisted of studies that showed that having students carry out ethnographic research abroad was beneficial; these students deepened their awareness of the target language and grew more culturally aware (Jackson 2006, 2008). Based on this, I came to believe that ethnographic training would be an excellent way to increase cultural understanding amongst language learners.

However, these programs for increasing cultural knowledge were only for those who went abroad. Because the learners in these studies needed access to a target- language speech community to do an ethnography, they needed to actually be in those communities to carry it out. Yet if we accept that direct geographical contact is needed for cultural learning, that excludes huge parts of the language-learning population. After all, only a small minority of students are able to actually travel to areas where their target language is spoken. I saw it as crucial to ensure that this cultural training would be available also to those who could not travel. Moreover, courses that are intended to increase individuals’ global-mindedness are generally taught at the university level, with only limited resources being made available to those who cannot afford university registration. However, I saw it also as very important to ensure that this would be open to all learners, not only those who were associated with the university. To ensure that mobility was not a factor that limited cultural learning, and to increase the possibility that this culture-learning course might be massively scalable, I decided to make it into an online program.

From my past experience with online learning, I knew that students taking online courses often only partially complete assignments or give only partial effort. Research has shown that this is particularly true for massively-scaled courses that are free to access; students often drop out in large numbers (Jordan, 2014). Consequently, I knew that part of this study would also necessitate looking into how learner engagement affected learning, so that the final cultural-learning course would foster as much learning as possible.

This dissertation describes my attempts to make this culture-learning course, and goes into detail regarding the benefits of this course and the ways that it can be refined.

The dissertation is structured as follows.

First, Chapter 1 summarizes the literature on culture and cultural pedagogy. I focus first on discussing the ways in which culture has historically been defined.

Subsequently, I discuss several different models of intercultural competence (ICC), a construct that has been used to assess an individual’s ability to effectively interact with members of other cultures. In particular, I discuss the model proposed by Deardorff

(2006), which decomposes intercultural competence into a number of different subcomponents, which allows for a more nuanced assessment of individuals’ ICC.

Finally, I also discuss ways in which culture has been taught, focusing particularly on how it has been integrated with language courses.

In Chapter 2, I look at the work that has been done on L2 learners’ acquisition of sociolinguistic1 knowledge. In particular, I discuss the language-culture interface — the ways in which knowledge of sociolinguistics is similar to cultural knowledge, and the ways in which an individual with deep cultural knowledge can apply sociolinguistic knowledge to bring about particular social effects among their interlocutors. I also summarize the dominant theories on how sociolinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge can be learned by L2 learners.

1 In this dissertation, I use the terms sociolinguistic knowledge and pragmatic knowledge relatively interchangeably. 5

Chapter 3 focuses on the effects of context upon L2 learners. Specifically, I look at four language- and culture-learning contexts: the classroom context, the domestic immersion context, the study abroad context, and the online context. I focus especially on the work that has been done comparing these contexts to one another, and look also at what little work that has been done that focuses on the role of context in culture-learning.

In Chapter 4, I describe my theoretical framework and methodology. First, I lay out the theories of intercultural competence I draw upon in my work; then, afterwards, I describe the ways in which I am theorizing L2 sociolinguistic competence. Then I describe the two phases of my study: the first phase of the study was conducted with students in a summer intensive program and involved extensive qualitative data collection for close analysis, while the second phase of the study involved a larger group of classroom students with primarily quantitative data being collected. Finally, I describe my precise measurement tools used for data collection.

Chapter 5 features a general report of my results. I present an overview of the results from each phase of this study, showing that participation in this program is associated with growth in both sociolinguistic competence and intercultural competence.

The chapter relies primarily upon quantitative results to make this case, with qualitative data from interviews and assignments used to support these arguments.

Afterwards, Chapter 6 provides a case study of one specific participant, Sarah. I go into particular depth on how her engagement with this online program seemed to shape her cultural thinking and her sociolinguistic competence. This chapter analyzes all facets of her intercultural competence and sociolinguistic competence as defined by the

6 models being used in this dissertation. It also looks at how her engagement seemed to shape her learning during her participation in the project.

Finally, Chapter 7 serves as the discussion and conclusion. A general summary of the results of this dissertation is laid out, and each research question is addressed.

Limitations of the study are also given. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of potential future directions.

Chapter 1. Culture and Culture Pedagogy

Introduction

Pedagogical frameworks for language teaching have put understanding of and engagement with culture front and center. The National Standards, ACTFL’s guidelines on foreign language teaching, emphasize culture and culture-related concepts as being crucial learning outcomes for students of foreign languages. Yet despite this discussion of the importance of culture in the language classroom, there is still a great deal of ambiguity regarding what culture even is, and even more regarding how best to teach it.

Researchers and teachers disagree about the nature of cultural competence, about the interaction between language and cultural knowledge, and about the best ways to build students’ cultural competence.

In this chapter, I lay out the various ways in which culture has been defined, focusing on how these differing definitions that have complicated the act of teaching and researching culture. After this, I discuss culture pedagogy and some of the theories that underlie teaching approaches, with particular focus on language-based cultural pedagogy.

Finally, I discuss methodologies of culture teaching, focusing particularly on computer- mediated communication (CMC) and ethnographic approaches to culture teaching.

Throughout all of this, I particularly focus on the role of language in culture and cultural learning: I believe that language is a resource for forming and performing cultural

8 identity, as well as a product of individuals’ personal cultural backgrounds, and therefore absolutely central in teaching culture. Therefore, alongside culture as a general term, I discuss culture as realized in languaculture, a term that describes linguistic resources that are culturally significant.

1.1. Defining “culture”

The term “culture” is used widely in contexts ranging from language research and language courses to official government reports and legislation to the popular media.

Discussions abound regarding “the culture wars,” “cultural divides,” about the importance of cultural sensitivity. Yet there seem to be as many definitions of “culture” as there are conversations about it. Even scholars engaged in cultural research often have varying meanings for what culture is. According to one analysis, the field has often treated the definition of culture quite narrowly (Wuthnow, Hunter, Bergesen, &

Kurzweil, 2012, p. 4):

Culture is that residual realm left over after all forms of observable human behavior have been removed. It consists of the inner, invisible thought life of human beings either as individuals or in some difficult-to-imagine collective sense, as in notions of ‘collective purpose’, ‘shared values’, and ‘intersubjective realities’. What people actually do, how they behave, the institutions they construct [...] however, are not a part of culture.

Yet other scholars define culture very broadly. Hannerz (1992) defines culture as being, quite simply, meaning. Clearly, even the simple meaning of the word “culture” can differ wildly from context to context, which has complicated research into culture and its pedagogy.

There are certain elements of “culture” which are more easily and more consistently defined in the literature. The following briefly surveys the various ideas related to culture that feed into the differing perspectives on culture in order to arrive at a working definition that will be used in this study going forward.

1.1.1. Big-C and little-c

When discussing culture, a separation is often made between what is described as big-C

Culture and little-c culture (Kramsch, 2013).

Big-C Culture consists of products of cultural activity. It is the body of art, literature, film, theater, and music that are considered part of a significant cultural heritage. Kramsch (2013) ties the teaching of this strand of Culture to nationalism: the establishment of a core canon of artistic works was part of the enterprise of nation- building during the 19th century. Therefore, the practice of teaching about these great works of art in the national canon is often linked to the practice of building the nation through promotion of a cultural patrimony. Generally, the teaching of art, music, and literature is not foregrounded in language courses. While language textbooks do feature and reference these works of cultural significance, deep analysis of Culture is typically reserved for dedicated courses, which are taught either in the target language to upper- level language students or taught in the students’ L1 as general education or cultural studies courses (see section 2.3.1 for more details).

Lower-level language courses tend, instead, to focus on what is termed little-c culture. This strand of culture instead looks at culture as a process: it consists of a group’s

10 habits, outlooks, traditions, food, practices, and so on. Kramsch ties the centrality of this type of culture in the language classroom to the communicative movement of the 1980s, which promoted teaching competence in the everyday life of a community. Language — especially the functional aspects of language, such as pragmatics and sociolinguistics — is part of the set of practices of a particular community. Kramsch has criticisms of how this culture-language interface ends up being taught, however, because often, instructors end up supposing a one-to-one mapping of language and culture: this results in complexity of cultural practices being reduced to stereotyped behaviors that are tied to the standard language for ease of teaching.

The culture that actually ends up being taught is, by and large, a reified vision of culture. This is true even for courses that attempt to teach little-c culture, which at least in theory ought to be conceptualized as a dynamic and localized set of practices. In a language class, the language variety being taught is generally the standard literary language. This standard language is typically linked to particular national boundaries, with the dominant culture generally being seen as the homeland of the language and with other countries rarely mentioned in any significant way. Multiculturalism and diversity are sometimes addressed or represented in textbooks and books, but typically in a way that sets these multicultural discourses outside of the mainstream, with the dominant culture being presented as the norm. Practices are often presented as uniform and consistent throughout the culture (Kramsch, Howell, Warner, & Wellmon, 2007). A survey of Russian textbooks underlines how consistently this is the case: titles like Live from Russia demonstrate the centrality of the Russian state in the conception of Russian

11 culture, while other textbooks feature storylines set in Russia (e.g., Nachalo, Golosa).

Russia, as it is presented, is depicted as being exotic and surprising to the Americans who go there. The individuals depicted in these books and presented as model speakers of the language are almost-uniformly white, ethnically Russian, and middle-class native speakers of the language; they show stereotypically Russian traits such as deference towards elders and respect for the arts (Marya Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004). Textbooks of Russian replicate stereotypes about Russianness and rarely, if ever, challenge the simplistic mapping of Russian language onto Russian culture, Russian national boundaries, and Russian ethnicity; moreover, they reinforce the position of Russian as different and exotic to American eyes.

While the teaching of big-C Culture is important in the understanding of how culture is presented in postsecondary education, this project focuses on the teaching of little-c culture. From this point on in this dissertation, when culture is discussed, I will be referring to little-c culture except when specified otherwise.

1.1.2. Modernist approaches to culture

Historically, in the modernist view, culture has generally been seen as something unified; it was seen as being tied to geography, territorialized and nationalized. These assumptions were, at one time, logical. When culture was first being theorized, populations were relatively immobile and boundaries are relatively fixed; additionally, many theorists had a vested interest in promoting ideas of nation-states, which were supported by reifying certain characteristics and using them to construct the ideas of 12 bounded cultures, fixed in space, tied to language and ethnicity (Haugen, 1966).

Therefore, a “modernist” view of culture refers to this cultural perspective, which views culture as being geographically bounded and independently constituted. It is the perspective that culture is a noun (Appadurai, 1996); this perspective views culture as a definable thing, a set of traits, characteristics, and habits possessed by a particular group of people.

A variety of factors, including the mass migrations of the 20th and 21st centuries and the rise of networked communication technologies, have eroded old ideas of culture.

Territories are now often inhabited by those originally from other physical locations; interactions often happen in non-face-to-face contexts. These facts alone show that the idea of territorially-bounded culture was overly simplistic even in times of low human mobility, and that it is especially irrelevant in the current day, given how people live now.

Consequently, many theorists have taken a postmodernist approach to culture.

1.1.3. Postmodern approaches to culture

Postmodernism is, in essence, a way of thinking about things that questions the basic assumptions of modernism. In contrast to modernism, which viewed basic concepts as stable and definable, postmodernism emphasizes destabilizing traditional definitions and viewpoints. Modernism valued positivism; postmodernism instead focuses on studying complexities and acknowledging the relativistic nature of knowledge (Rosenau, 1991).

There are a few different ways that culture has been conceptualized using a postmodern epistemology. One theory of culture comes from Holliday (1999), in which 13 he describes two different perspectives on culture: that of “large cultures” and that of

“small cultures.” A small culture perspective views culture as centered on small groups who have a common set of norms: they are cohesive social groupings. Small cultures can essentially include any grouping: classrooms, households, and the escalator on the

London Underground are all given as examples of small cultures. Each of these groupings has its own set of common behaviors. Essentially, these small cultures are similar to Lave and Wenger’s Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1999).

Large cultures, meanwhile, are nations or ethnic groups. While small cultures are real, large cultures are similar to the imagined communities described by Anderson

(2006). They are, in essence, the products of ideologies held by individuals and the small cultures they participate in: individuals and groups create discourses about their large

(imagined) culture and about the nation as part of their process of defining themselves and others. Large cultures, therefore, do not truly exist: studying large cultures means studying the discourses produced by individuals whose group practices lead them to discussions of nation and/or ethnicity.

This approach to culture is paralleled by other approaches to understanding, modeling, and teaching culture. For example, an “ecological approach” to culture recognizes human behavior as a highly complex and chaotic system, with human behavior and the factors that influence it highly unpredictable (Larsen-Freeman &

Cameron, 2008). An ecological approach, like the small cultures approach, calls for a focus on individual actions and fine-grained analysis.

As indicated above, the modernist viewpoint on culture is typically the one presented in the classroom. Reified characteristics are taught as the basic principles necessary to understanding the “target culture.” Recently, scholars have called for a more postmodernist and transnational approach to language and culture teaching, with curriculum designed to lead students to question these simplistic and reductionist presentations of culture and instead move towards a more nuanced view of culture. These calls are loudest in the field of English as a foreign/second language (e.g., Canagarajah,

1999), though they are also present with regards to foreign language education as a whole

(Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004; Pennycook, 1990). Some foreign language programs have attempted to align their curricula with these calls: Georgetown’s German program, for example, has abandoned the nation-centered culture curriculum in favor of a curriculum that focuses on training language students in genres and multiliteracies

(“Curriculum Overview: General structure,” n.d.) However, such radical shifts in curricular goals are highly uncommon; most language and culture programs retain their old paradigms, shifting only in the implementation of pedagogy rather than radically reorienting themselves theoretically.

1.1.4. Language and culture

There are differing viewpoints regarding the role that culture plays in shaping language and the role that language plays in shaping culture. Debates over the relationship of language and culture have been argued vociferously since the very beginnings of the field of linguistics, since Saussure’s division of langue from parole in the early 20th century. 15

The cognitive revolution of the 1960s and the scholars who grew out of that tradition framed language as a purely mental process, a biological phenomenon located within the brain. In their view, language was a phenomenon distinct from culture, as argued stridently by scholars such as Steven Pinker (Pinker, 2000). In contrast, scholars like Dell

Hymes who came out of the linguistic-anthropological tradition saw language use and culture as being intensely intertwined, even seeing the investigation of language as a means for investigating culture (Hymes, 1972).

What does it mean, though, for language and culture to be intertwined? There are a number of different viewpoints on what this might entail. There is a Whorfian tradition of language and cognition which posits that linguistic forms can contribute to particular patterns of thought: this research tradition examines, for example, how categorization of concepts such as color (Athanasopoulos, 2009), emotion (Stepanova & Coley, 2002), or metaphors (Boroditsky, 2001) can influence patterns of thought. These patterns of thought, by influencing the members of a particular language group, in turn influence the patterns of behavior within that language group, which can become reified as cultural tendencies. Yet anti-Whorfians have argued against this perspective on language and culture by pointing to the fact that it is possible to express different content in different contexts using the same language; by this simple fact, it is clear that culture and language can be separated from one another, because if language were culture-bound, then this should not be possible.

Risager (2006) has suggested a way of thinking about the language-culture nexus that resolves this seeming ambiguity. She separates out three different dimensions in

16 which language can intersect with culture. The first dimension is the way that people imagine language as a “system”; essentially, this is the dimension in which ideas of (for example) French language are associated with French culture. Essentially, it is the narratives of what constitutes a language and what constitutes a culture. Since these are simply narratives, she does not consider the system dimension of culture crucial to actually defining whether language and culture are separable.

Next, the author identifies a social dimension of the language-culture nexus: the fundamental question in this dimension is whether a language is inextricably bound to a culture at the level of a particular society. Since a language can be spoken outside of a culture, she says that they are not linked. She also discusses a psychological dimension of the language-culture nexus: the central question of this dimension involves whether an individual’s language can ever be separated from their personal cultural background.

Since an individual’s language learning and language use depend heavily upon their context and the people around them, it is not possible to separate culture from language at a psychological level. Therefore, Risager (2006) concludes that language and culture are inseparable at the individual level, but separable at the cultural level.

Other scholars, such as Agar (1994), have discussed the ways in which language exists as a cultural resource that can be utilized by individuals in their attempts to negotiate a cultural identity. Agar coined the term languaculture to describe the entity created by this intertwining of language and culture. Risager (2007) subdivided languaculture into three different dimensions where language and culture intersect: the poetic dimension, the identity dimension, and the semantic and pragmatic dimension. The

17 poetic dimension consists of the meaning created by such areas as a language’s sound systems, rhymes, genres, metaphors, and the like. The identity dimension is essentially the social meaning of language: it consists of the social variation of the language and the meaning that particular linguistic uses have. The semantic/pragmatic dimension consists of the constancy and variation in the semantic and pragmatic aspects of a given language, as well as awareness of where and when distinctions are compulsory and when meanings are more open to negotiation.

Language, therefore, is not synonymous with culture at a social level. Different cultures can make use of the same linguistic code, and a single culture can make use of multiple codes. However, on the psychological level, individuals’ language knowledge and language use are tied up with their cultural histories. Likewise, their knowledge of the language as a languacultural resource allows them to function as a social actor.

Therefore, a knowledge of and awareness of language are part of cultural competence, although it is often excluded from models of intercultural competence (Spitzberg &

Changnon, 2009; see also section 2.3).

1.2. Theoretical approaches to culture pedagogy

These varying views on culture come, of course, with a variety of perspectives on how culture can be taught and how culture can be learned.

Following are several theoretical perspectives on the teaching of culture and the teaching of languaculture. This section does not, however, provide an exhaustive

18 overview of perspectives on culture pedagogy. Rather, I discuss the theories and approaches that are relevant for my own theoretical framework (2.2.3–2.2.4) and that are particularly influential in the broader field (2.2.1). Likewise, it is not an exhaustive overview of theories of languacultural learning, but instead theories relevant to my own work.

1.2.1. Perspectives, Practices, and Products

Broad theories guide the integration of culture into language teaching. The proficiency movement in the 1980s prompted the development of ACTFL’s Standards for foreign language teaching (Omaggio Hadley, 2001). These standards attempted to provide a clear but flexible framework for foreign language teaching, one that provided guidance without necessarily prescribing a certain methodology as superior to any other. Essentially, the standards directed instructors to develop students’ skills in the so-called “five Cs”:

Communications, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities. Of these five components, three of them are directly related to the development of cultural skills:

Cultures, Connections, and Comparisons (Byrd, Hlas, Watzke, & Valencia, 2011;

Peterson & Coltrane, 2003). The descriptions of these standards are as follows (The

National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015):

CULTURES: Interact with cultural competence and understanding Relating Cultural Practices to Perspectives: Learners use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the cultures studied. Relating Cultural Products to Perspectives: Learners use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the relationship between the products and perspectives of the cultures studied. CONNECTIONS: Connect with other disciplines and acquire information and diverse perspectives in order to use the language to function in academic and career-related situations.

Making Connections: Learners build, reinforce, and expand their knowledge of other disciplines while using the language to develop critical thinking and to solve problems creatively. Acquiring Information and Diverse Perspectives: Learners access and evaluate information and diverse perspectives that are available through the language and its cultures. COMPARISONS: Develop insight into the nature of language and culture in order to interact with cultural competence Language Comparisons: Learners use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the nature of language through comparisons of the language studied and their own. Cultural Comparisons: Learners use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own.

The standard of Cultures is further broken down in to three components: Perspectives,

Practices, and Products. Products consists of what a society has created, be it art, literature, rituals, folk-tales, films, and so on. Practices are the patterns of behavior of a particular society, as well as understandings of the judgments and evaluations attached to those patterns of behavior. Perspectives consists of the ideas, attitudes, and modes of thought that underlie the patterns of behavior and the process of creating cultural products.

The National Standards provided guidelines on the shape that foreign language education should take. However, like the other frameworks described above, it does not provide concrete recommendations on actual pedagogical techniques to communicate these values; the standards are guidelines rather than instructions. Even so, research has shown that the Standards have supported culture teaching and learning in language classrooms: after the introduction of the Standards, the percentage of instructors implementing culture in their language classes increased, and this culture pedagogy often utilized the National Standards guidelines (Byrd et al., 2011; Moore, 1996).

1.2.2. The “third space”

One cultural approach is that of “hybrid” or “third space” culture. This approach to culture conceptualizes people as often existing in an in-between space, one that is not fully of one culture or the other, and one marked by ambiguity and ambivalence (Bhabha,

2012). According to this theory, language learners, bilinguals, multilinguals, and other intercultural speakers are not exactly members of either their L1 or their L2; rather, they occupy a third space, distinct from either of the other two groups. In the words of

Grosjean (1989), they are not two monolinguals in a single body; instead, the knowledge of multiple languages and the participation in multiple cultures shapes them in ways that are distinct from the effects of a culture on monolinguals. This “third space” viewpoint has been utilized in applied linguistics by scholars such as Gutiérrez, Baquedano‐López, and Tejeda (1999), who linked it to the Vygotskian Zone of Proximal Development

(Vygotsky, 1978), and by Kramsch (1995), who envisioned it as a place of ambiguity occupied by learners of foreign languages as they negotiated cultural norms unlike those of their own native cultures.

Kramsch, however, later rejected the term third space in light of the fact that the phrase implied stasis and stability, while in truth the negotiation of culture is highly dynamic — it is, in her words, a process rather than a product (Kramsch & Gerhards,

2012). This is in line with the current trend in cultural studies, which generally takes a postmodernist approach to culture. Nevertheless, the central tenet of this theory — that language users do not simply flip between two cultural identities, but hybridize and

21 transform elements of each — is still highly influential and continues to shape thinking about cultural identities and ways of teaching culture.

1.2.3. Critical cultural awareness

Michael Byram, a scholar who has done a great deal of work on culture pedagogy, focuses particularly on the importance of awareness and the role of criticality in culture teaching. To this end, he discusses the importance of “critical cultural awareness.”

Byram defines critical cultural awareness as “an ability to evaluate critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in our own and other cultures and countries” (Byram, 1997, p. 53); it, therefore, requires certain qualities and skills. Someone practicing critical cultural awareness must have conscious knowledge of criteria that can be used to evaluate cultures and the skill set necessary to apply that knowledge. They must have knowledge of the perspectives, practices, and products (see section 2.2.1) of the culture(s) they belong to, as well as those of other cultures; they must have self-awareness; they must also be able to utilize critical thought.

Byram sees critical cultural awareness as central in the development of cultural knowledge. Moreover, he sees the development of critical cultural awareness as the most fundamentally “educational” part of language and cultural education: skills and knowledge can be acquired anywhere, but critical education is something that grows out of the tradition of Bildung, humanistic education that develops a person’s identity and social awareness. From his point of view, therefore, cultural pedagogy — and, indeed,

22 language pedagogy — should focus on the development of critical awareness (Byram,

2012).

1.2.4. Paradigms of nationality

Risager (2007) discusses the role of nationalism in culture teaching, describing how a reified view of culture promotes national thinking, while a more flexible view of culture promotes intercultural viewpoints. In accordance with this theory, she identifies two extremes in the presentation of national thinking in culture teaching. Culture classrooms, in her analysis, fall between these two extremes, with most culture teaching historically tending towards drawing on the national paradigm.

The national paradigm. The national paradigm, as described by Risager, is based upon the linking of culture and language to a particular nation. A nationally organized curriculum follows the following principles (Risager, 2007, p. 191):

(1) The sole aim is a national standard norm of native-language use and a standardised languaculture. (2) The teacher is a native speaker and uses the standard norm. (3) Teaching is only in the target language and its standard norm. (4) Subjects and discourses concentrate on cultural and social relations (incl. literature) in the country or one of the countries where the language is spoken as the first language, and then only ‘the majority culture’. (5) The subjects are contextualised nationally (e.g. ‘this phenomenon is French’). (6) Teaching is only in one of the target-language countries. (7) Student contacts outside the classroom are only with people who speak the language as a first language.

Risager condemns this national paradigm as being a relic of Romantic Nationalism and the enterprise of nation-building. She encourages, instead, the use of a transnational paradigm in culture and language teaching.

The transnational paradigm. The transnational paradigm, in contrast to the national paradigm, takes a flexible, diverse, and nuanced view of culture. It questions the link between the nation and the “target culture,” encourages students to think critically about the narratives of nationality and monoculturalism that have historically featured in the classroom, and encourages diverse voices. The principles of the transnational curriculum are as follows (Risager, 2007, p. 194):

(1) The sole aim is not a national standard norm of native-language use and room is found for more inclusive language norms and various languacultures. (2) The teacher does not need to be a native speaker in the standard language, so long as he/she has a high level of competence. (3) Teaching is not only in the target language but, if necessary/possible, also in other languages, e.g. the students’ first language. (4) Subjects and discourses can be of any type whatsoever, as long as work is mainly done in the target language – assuming that the choice of subject can also be justified from a pedagogical point of view. (5) The subjects are contextualised nationally only if this is necessary (e.g. conditions relating to the French national education system), and are otherwise sought to be contextualized transnationally (locally/globally, see below), e.g. ‘this phenomenon is characteristic for towns on the coast of Brittany’ or ‘we also find this phenomenon elsewhere in the world’. (6) Teaching does not have to take place in the country or countries in which the language is spoken as a first language, but can take place anywhere in the world if this can also be justified from a pedagogical point of view. (7) Students can have contact with other people anywhere in the world, as long as this takes place mainly in the target language.

This theoretical perspective on culture curricula has not yet been widely implemented.

However, it provides a compelling alternative to the more traditional type of culture curriculum.

1.3 Intercultural competence

As is clear from the discussion above, knowledge of culture is not synonymous with knowing facts about a culture. Cross-cultural communication is not facilitated by simple 24 awareness of one another’s cultural products. Rather, cross-cultural communication is facilitated by a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This group of competencies is generally referred to as “intercultural competence” (ICC).

There is no real agreement in the literature regarding what ICC is (Deardorff,

2009). Deardorff gives a very general definition that sums up the essence of the concept in the literature: intercultural competence is “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Deardorff, 2006, pp. 247–248). Therefore, ICC is a concept that is relevant from both an emic and etic perspective. “Effective” is an emic concept: a person speaks “effectively” if they accomplish their goals in a particular communicative exchange. “Appropriate,” meanwhile, is an etic concept: a person is speaking appropriately if they are judged by their listeners to have spoken in a way that does not violate the rules and norms of the culture they are communicating with. Therefore, this definition covers both the speaker’s (or speakers’) and the listener’s (or listeners’) perspectives (Fantini, 2009).

Yet the definition, while useful in a general sense, leaves much ambiguous. For example, what exactly is “appropriateness”? There are differing sets of norms for different individuals, after all, with individuals from other cultures being judged on a separate set of criteria from cultural insiders (Iino, 2006). “Effectiveness” is also ambiguous: speakers can have a wide variety of communicative goals, but there is no clarity to how completely this range of goals must be fulfilled for the criteria of

“effectiveness” to be met. “Intercultural situations” is also an ambiguous term: what

25 makes a situation intercultural? Does it involve communicating across language barriers, or is it enough to communicate across various communities? Finally, to utterly pull apart the definition, there is a great deal of ambiguity to what is meant by “intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes,” with a wide variety of scholars treating these concepts quite differently. All of this ambiguity is what leads to the lack of consensus in the literature of the true meaning of intercultural competence.

Much of the research to date has focused in on the question of the “intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” mentioned in Deardorff’s definition, often trying to develop unified models to demonstrate how these qualities feed into ICC as a whole.

Typically, there is no attempt to examine whether the communication is truly effective or appropriate. Rather, the focus is on skills and attributes which have been tied, either empirically or logically, to intercultural competence. Yet these skills and attributes vary widely from article to article and from definition to definition, with a review of the literature finding well over a hundred different proposed components of ICC (Spitzberg

& Changnon, 2009). This diversity of views has also contributed to a diversity of models of ICC, with Spitzberg and Changnon identifying and discussing 22 separate models that had been developed in the three decades from the 1980s up to the publishing of the article.

Some of these models are more widespread than others, and some are more or less applicable to the field of international education. Following is a brief survey of a few models that have been or might be applied to international education: they are developmentally-focused, are relatively holistic rather than focusing in on one aspect of

26 intercultural development, and do not presuppose long-term or permanent residence in the target culture.

Perhaps the most-cited model is Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural

Sensitivity (DMIS) (Bennett, 1986). This model is technically one of intercultural sensitivity rather than intercultural competence; intercultural sensitivity is another concept which is rather nebulous, and treated differently by different scholars, sometimes used synonymously with ICC and sometimes identified as a subcomponent of it.

Intercultural sensitivity, generally, consists of awareness of and acceptance of other cultures. However, a number of scholars have used this model as a predictor of intercultural competence or measured intercultural sensitivity as a stand-in for intercultural competence (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). In this model, ICC is essentially treated as an outcome of advanced development: “In summary, adaptation to difference as a stage of development of intercultural sensitivity is the ability to act ethnorelatively” (Bennett, 1986, p. 186).

In the DMIS, Bennett posits that there are six stages of intercultural sensitivity, or receptivity to other cultures. These six stages are denial, in which an individual denies or is unaware that other cultures might differ from their own; defense, in which an individual attempts to protect their cultural viewpoint by denigrating the other culture or claiming superiority of their own culture; minimization, in which cultural differences are minimized in comparison to cultural similarities; acceptance, in which difference is acknowledged and respected; adaptation, in which an individual has gained the skills and attitudes necessary to interact with others in an appropriate, sensitive manner; and

27 integration, in which an individual shifts and alters their own identity to integrate aspects of the other culture. The first three stages are described as an “ethnocentric” stance, while the latter three are an “ethnorelative” stance. The more experience an individual has with a culture, the DMIS predicts, the more they will move towards an ethnorelative orientation to other cultures. This model is represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett 1986)

Another model comes from Byram (1997). This model is primarily concerned with the development of an intercultural identity, meaning the ability to be a mediator between cultures. According to Byram, for this to happen, an individual must have certain savoirs — i.e., certain types of competence. They must have knowledge about both cultures (“savoir”), the ability to interpret and explain events across cultures (“savoir comprende”), skills related to learning and knowledge acquisition (“savoir faire”), the ability to critically examine others’ perspectives and thoughts (“savoir s’engager”), and attitudes of curiosity and openness (“savoire être”). All of these interact with the broader realm of communicative competence as per Canale and Swain (1983): they are listed

28 alongside sociolinguistic competence, linguistic competence, and discourse competence as necessary for competent speech (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: The Intercultural Competence Model (Byram 1997)

Another model is the one developed by Deardorff (2004, 2006). One version of the model, which is generally descriptive, takes the form of a pyramid, with certain

29 attributes building off of others (see Figure 3). As can be seen from this pyramid, attitudes of respect, curiosity, and openness are the foundation of the pyramid; these attitudes lead to knowledge and skills such as cultural self-awareness, deep understanding of culture, sociolinguistic awareness, and analytic skills; from there, the learner undergoes a shift in internal outcomes, with a shift in the frame of reference that better allows them to take others’ perspectives and keep a nonjudgmental stance; from there, there will be external outcomes of successful intercultural communication.

Figure 3: Deardorff's Pyramid Model of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff 2006) 30

Deardorff also adapted this into a cyclical model. This model takes into account the fact learning is not a linear act with a fixed beginning or end. Rather, it sees the phases of learning as building upon one another, complementing one another, and sometimes being elided as different paths of learning are followed.

Figure 4: Deardorff's Process Model of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff 2006)

All models of ICC, obviously, have certain things in common, but they also have certain key differences. One difference is that only some of these models take into account any sort of foreign-language ability when modeling intercultural competence.

This is common across a number of conceptualizations of intercultural competence: for example, in Hunter, White, and Godbey's (2006) study, the experts consulted did not list second-language proficiency as one of the key components of ICC, while the experts in

Deardorff (2006) were divided over the issue. Accordingly, some of the models (Bennett, for example) do not include language ability as an element of intercultural communicative competence, while others (Byram, Deardorff) include it as being very important. Other differences also emerge: some of the models attempt to pare back the models only to key components or concepts – for example, the DMIS only has six stages

– while others attempt to engage with a large number of subcomponents of ICC (e.g.,

Deardorff). Each model has certain strengths and certain weaknesses, and each is more or less appropriate to certain contexts.

The present study will use Deardorff’s model to discuss and analyze ICC. This decision was made for several reasons. First, this model has some predictive power; it anticipates that growth in one aspect of intercultural competence will lead to growth in other aspects of communicative competence. This is something that can be assessed and evaluated. Second, this model is complex; it includes a variety of highly specific attributes which contribute to the growth of ICC. It also places a high value on language ability, particularly sociolinguistic ability, in the development of ICC; this is appropriate to this project, because I am studying the links between ICC and engagement with speech

32 culture. Finally, it conceptualizes learning as something continuous and cyclical, rather than something teleological and inevitable, the way that some other models do.

1.3.1. Assessing intercultural competence: General recommendations

How, then, can ICC be measured? After all, stakeholders and researchers alike want to be able to evaluate whether students or research participants are developing in their intercultural competence; businesses, meanwhile, want to evaluate potential employees for their intercultural abilities. Yet as discussed above, ICC is a nebulous, ambiguous concept that means many different things depending on its context of use. So, then, how to actually measure it?

Deardorff (2006) asked experts, drawn from a pool of officials who evaluated others’ intercultural competence as a part of their jobs, about how they approached the evaluation of ICC. While her consultants differed amongst themselves regarding the specifics of how they would assess ICC, there were certain commonalities amongst them in their recommendations for ICC assessment. She later developed that into a list of concrete recommendations for how to assess ICC development. She recommends the following (pp. 259-260):

(1) A concrete definition of ICC is needed before testing can begin. It needs to be specific to the goals of the measurement and what needs to be tested.

(2) Specific goals should be developed for the program.

(3) Measurable outcomes should be derived from these goals. 33

(4) These measurable aspects of ICC should be evaluated using a mixture of direct evidence and indirect evidence.

1.3.2. Assessing intercultural competence: Direct evidence

Direct evidence of ICC is, generally, anything that provides evidence of external outcomes. Deardorff (2011) suggests the following types of evidence:

(1) Learning contracts, in which learners agree with the instructor beforehand what is to be learned, how, and on what timeline.

(2) Portfolios, in which learners collect artifacts that demonstrate a growth over time in

ICC.

(3) Critical reflection, in which learners write papers describing how their perspectives have changed over time.

(4) Performance of learners in intercultural situation, assessed either through direct observation or through evaluation by host families/program directors/etc.

These types of evidence are, of course, all qualitative, and must be evaluated using qualitative methods.

In my research, I use a combination of methods (2) and (3). My participants’ assignments consist largely of critical reflections, written over time; thus, taken together, they constitute a sort of portfolio. As per Deardorff’s recommendations, I commit to a

34 concrete and measurable model of ICC for evaluation of this qualitative data: I use her model from her 2006 publication.

1.3.3. Assessing intercultural competence: Indirect evidence

Indirect evidence of ICC is based in learner self-assessment. It relies upon questionnaires and surveys, many of them standardized to be used consistently across multiple populations. There is a very large assortment of this type of evaluative tool:

Fantini (2009) discusses 44 separate means of assessment that measure either ICC or constructs relating to ICC, while Deardorff (2011) says that there are over a hundred different questionnaires and surveys that have been developed to evaluate ICC.

Part of the reason underlying this vast array of options is the ambiguity of ICC as a construct: it can mean different things to different people, and there is a great deal of room for disagreement. ICC can also be highly contextual, and so tools are often developed for very specific needs; for example, amongst the tools discussed by Fantini are specific surveys to assess readiness for work, psychological resilience, foreign language proficiency, distance between someone’s cultural orientation and the culture they will be entering, and a large number of other facets of ICC. The other reason for the diversity, however, and something that should instill a certain amount of caution in the user of these assessments, is that the assessment of ICC is a profitable business; tests are

35 often monetized and sold to businesses or organizations who wish to assess employees’ abilities to work with members of other cultures, often for considerable profit2.

The most widely-used quantitative assessment of ICC is the Intercultural

Development Inventory, or IDI (Hammer et al., 2003). This inventory was based off of the DMIS (Bennett, 1986) described above, in which individuals are assumed to move along a spectrum from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. The IDI is a standardized test that places respondents on that spectrum, classifying them into one of the six stages described by the DMIS. The underlying assumption of using this assessment to measure

ICC is that a deeper understanding of cultural complexity leads to a greater potential for intercultural competence.

This assessment has been used in a number of studies in the literature (e.g,

Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen, & Hubbard, 2006; Jackson, 2008; Pedersen, 2009).

However, the IDI has also been critiqued by a number of scholars for the apparent unidirectionality of its approach: it seems to assume that every individual will progress in a linear fashion through each of the posited stages of the DMIS. Additionally, there have been critiques of the relatively shallow nature of the model: given that the process of cultural adaptation is complex and lengthy, this model does not necessarily represent the nuanced experience of adjusting to other cultures (Perry & Southwell, 2011).

Another assessment is the ISS, the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (Chen &

Starosta, 2000). This measurement is based upon the same general principles as the

DMIS: intercultural sensitivity is linked to ICC. According to the authors, intercultural

2 See Sinicrope, Norris, and Watanabe (2007) for an overview of the costs of various tests of ICC. 36 sensitivity is the “affective aspect” of ICC (Chen & Starosta, 2000, p. 3), while the cognitive aspect of ICC consists of cultural awareness. Therefore, a measurement of sensitivity constitutes a measurement of one major aspect of ICC. The authors validated this measurement by correlating it to other measures of constructs related to ICC, such as perspective-taking, self-esteem, and intercultural effectiveness.

It must be noted, of course, that there are large gaps in what quantitative assessments of ICC can actually measure. In Deardorff’s article, she gives an overview of all the questions that the current methods of ICC assessment cannot sufficiently answer:

How do educators avoid oversimplification of intercultural competence and yet develop reliable methods with which to measure student outcomes of internationalization? How can educators avoid the inherent limits of assessment methods (such as those associated with tests, inventories, and self-report instruments)? How can assessment of intercultural competence be integrated throughout a student’s postsecondary experience? Should intercultural competence be assessed generally, or specifically? What constitutes core intercultural competence? Is identification of components of core intercultural competence too simplistic? What roles do personal traits, self- schema, emotions, and motives play in intercultural competence development and assessment? How can intercultural competence be assessed as a “social judgment” made by persons involved in the interaction? (Deardorff, 2011, pp. 76–77)

It must be noted that the current study does not innovate ways to answer these unaddressed questions. The conclusions I draw are constrained by the unrefined means of measurements of intercultural competence. I use multiple methods to try to both take replicable measurements and also understand the facets and nuances of my participants’ intercultural competence, but there is only so much that these multiple methods can do.

Therefore, I must state that I do not claim to provide a perfect or definitive picture of my participants’ intercultural growth; rather, I capture some facets of it.

1.4. Training ICC

Unsurprisingly, given what ICC consists of, it is an important construct in the sphere of international education. A fair number of scholars have written about means to develop and increase ICC of students, international employees, and other individuals for whom

ICC is an asset. These works take the form either of theoretical articles speculating about what might underlie the development of ICC or empirical studies that link particular educational activities to ICC.

Generally, it is agreed that while contact with other cultures is necessary for developing ICC, it is not sufficient (Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige, 2009). Rather, individuals must confront and engage with difference in order to develop it (Bennett,

2008). Difference must be examined and “negotiated,” with learners critically thinking about the relationship between their own cultures and the culture they are encountering

(Kinginger, 2010). Simply knowing facts about the other culture without actually engaging with it on a deep level is not enough for growth of ICC; there must be some level of challenge.

Yet at the same time, anxiety and stress do not seem always to have positive outcomes for intercultural development. Students abroad have been shown to go silent and disengage when confronted with emotional turmoil or stressful situations (Pellegrino

Aveni, 2005); at other times, they have been shown to fall back on positions of national superiority as a defense mechanism when confronted with difference of opinion (Dolby,

2004). Gudykunst (1995) described the process of developing ICC as a process of anxiety management, and Hammer, Wiseman, Rasmussen, and Bruschke (1998) created an entire 38 model of ICC growth as framed through the lens of anxiety management. It seems that stress is necessary on some level for ICC development, but not in quantities great enough to hinder learners’ willingness to engage with the target culture.

Critical thought also seems to be central in the development of ICC. Another theory involves the centrality of “critical cultural awareness” in the development of ICC

(Byram, 2012). Critical cultural awareness is an awareness of culture that, again, goes beyond simply knowing facts about a culture; it involves thinking about the humanity of other people and the philosophical underpinnings of cultural patterns. This awareness is central to “negotiating” (Kinginger, 2010) the difference between cultures: it allows individuals to understand the reasons for cultural diversity, and this awareness lets them develop in their cultural understanding.

There are a number of studies that have empirically examined how and when ICC is seen to develop. Many of these studies have looked at the study abroad context and the conditions that develop ICC on study abroad. For example, studies have compared participants’ level of intercultural development before and after study abroad; these studies generally find that the experience abroad contributes to ICC (P. H. Anderson et al., 2006).

These studies seem to support the theories listed earlier: that critical cultural awareness matters for development of ICC; that encountering difference is crucial; that cultural knowledge goes beyond simply knowing a list of facts. The dilemma, therefore, is understanding how to put students of cultures into situations where they will be forced to confront difference and develop cultural awareness. Study abroad is, of course, a clear

39 path to this, particularly study abroad where the curriculum is supplemented with educational programs that are designed to develop critical cultural awareness3. Yet cultural classes at the university level typically do not force any real encounter with difference, and nor do they pose any real cultural challenge to students.

This, of course, leaves us with a dilemma. The development of ICC is crucial. Yet study abroad is inaccessible to many populations, including the financially disadvantaged, individuals with physical disabilities, and individuals who have travel restrictions. So how to foster the growth of ICC for those people?

1.5. Conclusion

Culture has a somewhat ambiguous position in university pedagogy. Simply defining culture is a complex task, as there are a number of different dimensions to culture. One can define culture from a modernist perspective, seeing it as a product, or from a postmodernist perspective, seeing it as a process that is constantly being renewed and reformed. One can look at so-called little-c culture, which consists of the daily behaviors, traditions, foods, et cetera of a group of people; one can also look at big-C Culture, which consists of a national patrimony of great canonical works of art, literature, and film.

Ultimately, there are a number of promising routes for supporting cultural learning. Several of these intersect with learning the socially-situated aspects of language.

In the next chapters, I will discuss the acquisition of pragmatics and sociolinguistics — that area where language and culture intersect — and potential contexts for this learning.

3 These programs will be discussed in a subsequent chapter. 40

Chapter 2. Operationalizing languaculture: Sociolinguistic awareness and

pragmatic knowledge

Introduction

This chapter reviews the current literature on the acquisition of sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence.

Competence is a crucial construct for language learners. In essence, it is the learner’s ability to function as a social actor when speaking a non-native language.

Therefore, many language courses are built around the philosophy that students should become competent in their language. For example, the communicative method of language teaching aims to improve functional communicative competence, rather than focusing on aspects of language use such as grammatical accuracy (Littlewood &

William, 1981). One of important aspects of competence is understanding the socially- conditioned aspects of language use: an L2 user must understand the sociolinguistics of the language they are speaking.

2.1. Interactional competence in the L2

2.1.1. Defining competence

The term “competence” is one that has long been central in discussions of language – and one that has been defined in a large number of ways, many of them incompatible with one another (Taylor, 1988). Discussions of competence came to the fore with the writings of Noam Chomsky, who distinguished two aspects of communication: “competence” and

“performance” (Chomsky, 1965, p. 4). For Chomsky, “competence” is the ideal monolingual speaker-hearer’s knowledge of the language system; this system is a purely cognitive construct, an unchanging rule-based set of knowledge that provides the basis for linguistic production. “Performance,” meanwhile, consists of language in actual use

— the production of human language, with all its messiness and ungrammaticalities.

More socially-oriented linguists, beginning with Dell Hymes, have criticized this view of competence as incomplete. Hymes pointed out that Chomsky’s view of competence left no room for the sociocultural factors of language: language, after all, is not merely shaped by grammatical knowledge, but also by knowledge of what is appropriate to say and when (Hymes, 1972). Competence, in a Hymesian sense, is not simply the ability to produce well-formed utterances; it is also the ability to use language in a way that is socially and culturally appropriate.

Both views of competence have proven extremely influential in the field of L2 instruction. The Chomskyan view of competence — referred to hereafter as “grammatical competence” — fostered a view of language acquisition as an individual cognitive

42 process, where linguistic information is processed by the brain and turned into grammatical/linguistic knowledge (Firth & Wagner, 1997). Meanwhile, Hymes’ ideas of competence – hereafter “communicative competence” – gave birth to a second strand of

SLA research, in which social interaction was seen as central to language acquisition.

Each of these theoretical underpinnings and conceptions of language have been highly consequential for teaching methodology, for research, and for the composition of and trends in the field as a whole.

Both Hymes and Chomsky were primarily concerned with competence in one’s

L1. Later scholars extended the notion of competence to the L2, considering what competence means when speakers use a language of which they have only partial or incomplete knowledge. Several scholars focused instead upon how communicative competence might be acquired in a language other than the speaker’s native language.

Canale and Swain (1981) produced one particularly influential paper, in which the authors identified three primary areas of communicative competence: grammatical competence, which consists of grammatical knowledge and ability to create grammatically well-formed sentences in the L2; sociolinguistic competence, which consists of awareness of the rules of use of language and the sociocultural situations that govern the application of these rules; and strategic competence, which is the ability to manage the other two types of competence through communicative strategies, circumlocution, repair, and so on. Later, Canale (1983) added “discourse competence” to these strategies. “Discourse competence” is the ability to control and manage discourse in a culturally appropriate way. Thus, in Canale and Swain’s view, the acquisition of

Chomskyan competence – i.e., grammatical competence – was central to the ability to communicate, but so too was an understanding of the rules of use and the social rules that conditioned that use.

The body of research on the acquisition of grammatical competence is far larger than research into any of the other aspects of communicative competence (Kasper, 2001).

Meanwhile, discourse competence and strategic competence are unfortunately neglected in L2 research. However, the body of research into sociolinguistic competence – now more frequently referred to by the broader label “pragmatic competence,” a label which will be used from this point on – is rather sizeable and growing steadily, particularly in the last few decades.

2.2. Pragmatic acquisition

In 2002, Kasper and Rose published a volume that shaped the burgeoning field of acquisition of L2 pragmatics. Up to that point, much of the research into second-language pragmatics had consisted of what Bardovi-Harlig (1999) termed “interlanguage pragmatics” — studies that examine utterances by L2 users and contrast them against native speakers’ utterances in either L1 or L2. This approach, while fruitful for helping researchers answer questions about language transfer and about language universals, is fundamentally non-acquisitional: It looks at language cross-sectionally, generally only looking at one point in time. Therefore, studies of this type are unable to answer questions of how people learn about pragmatics, when, in what order features are acquired, and so on. 44

Consequently, Bardovi-Harlig called for another approach to the study of L2 pragmatics. This approach, which she deemed “acquisitional pragmatics,” was — true to name — acquisitional in nature. Studies in this paradigm do not simply contrast L2 users’ utterances against those of L1 users; rather, they examine how L2 users’ utterances change over time and how the pragmatic features of their speech either change or stay stable over time. Therefore, they are able to answer questions which studies that take a non-developmental approach cannot. Kasper and Rose (2002) echoed and magnified

Bardovi-Harlig’s call for acquisitional studies, and the past decade and a half has seen a considerable body of research emerge in response.

Studies of pragmatic acquisition can differ from one another along several different dimensions. First, studies of pragmatic acquisition can focus on a variety of targets of learning. They can also differ from one another in terms of their theoretical frameworks, and they can differ in the methodologies and measurement tools used.

2.2.1. Studying pragmatic acquisition: Targets of learning

There are a number of different pragmatic targets that have been studied in research into acquisitional pragmatics. The largest number of studies have focused on the acquisition of speech acts (Taguchi, 2015b, p. 5). It is worth noting, however, that speech acts are generally a complex linguistic phenomenon with complicated grammatical or lexical encoding; at times, it has been difficult to show any change in learners’ abilities to produce speech acts over a relatively brief period of time (Hassall, 2013). Other studies have therefore focused on targets that are easier to acquire. For example, address terms 45 have been studied (Belz & Kinginger, 2003; Dewaele, 2004b; Dykstra, 2012; Kinginger,

2008), as has acquisition of variation (Dewaele, 2004a; Kinginger, 2008). Studies of pragmatic acquisition that look at disparate features are often grouped together, or conclusions from these studies are sometimes generalized to the field as a whole; for example, a recent and very thorough state-of-the-field article generalized across the results of studies looking at a wide variety of targets (Taguchi, 2015b). It is, of course, necessary to do this: if studies were not compared to one another, this would lead to an untenable fragmentation of the field. Yet very often, the properties of a particular pragmatic target have major implications for its acquisition, with the pattern or rate of acquisition may be affected by just what it is that is being learned. This can sometimes lead to generalizations that do not necessarily hold for all similar targets. For example, the learners in Welch's (2009) study were asked to acquire syntactic downgraders during short-term study abroad, which they were unable to do; in contrast, Hassall (2013) found that address terms were acquirable during a short sojourn abroad. The length of acquisition interacted with the complexity of the target.

There is also another dimension to the nature of these pragmatic targets. Studies of pragmatic acquisition can also focus on two different levels of acquisition: the pragmalinguistic level and the sociopragmatic level (Jenny Thomas, 1983).

“Pragmalinguistics” consists of the mapping of pragmatic functions onto linguistic material. A failure to acquire some pragmalinguistic feature means that the L2 user did not learn the linguistic material, or assigned the wrong pragmatic value to it.

Thomas gives the example of the difference of pragmatic value between English “of

46 course” and Russian “konečno,” which are in principle denotationally identical.

However, if an English speaker answers “of course” to a question, it has a particular connotation of information already known; so if someone is asked “Is this restaurant good?” and they answer “Of course,” to the English-speaking ear, it sounds dismissive, as though they should have already known the answer to the question. In contrast, Russian

“konečno” has a connotational meaning of enthusiastic agreement; thus, a Russian speaker who is speaking English might answer a question using “of course,” meaning to communicate an enthusiastic affirmation, but it might come across brusque or dismissive instead. This would be a pragmalinguistic failure, a misunderstanding engendered by differing form-function meanings between two languages.

“Sociopragmatics,” on the other hand, consists of the interface between social values and pragmatic function. Belief systems are often reflected in language and speech culture; for example, politeness can be encoded in speech, but it is societal rules and expectations that encode when and with whom these forms are deployed. Cultures might differ in their beliefs about the appropriate guiding rules. For example, Russian encodes politeness in its terms of address, with pronoun forms and naming conventions both reflecting formality or informality. In Russian, it is generally inappropriate to have asymmetrical formality, even in instances of asymmetrical power relations; if one party uses the formal pronoun, the other does as well. There are instances of asymmetrical pronoun use, but these are highly socially marked (e.g., interactions in the military)

(Larina, 2003). Yet in American speech culture, asymmetrical formality is common: in the university classroom, students will typically refer to their professors or teachers by

47 title and last name, while the instructor uses the students’ first names or nicknames. Thus,

American students might carry over this asymmetrical speech culture to Russian and assume that there would be asymmetrical terms of address in the university classroom, where in truth formal address would be more likely for both professors and students.

Essentially all pragmatic acquisition involves leaning both sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic elements of the pragmatic feature. For example, students of Russian, as discussed above, must learn sociopragmatic aspects of these new address terms. They must also learn pragmalinguistic aspects of these address terms, such as the weight and significance of formal vy ‘you’ versus informal ty ‘you.’ There are also other elements to be learned, including grammatical agreement.

Researchers often do not separate out sociopragmatics from pragmalinguistics in their research designs. Instead, they collapse these two subtypes and focus on other aspects of pragmatic acquisition. For example, Kinginger (2008) investigated French learners’ acquisition of address forms; she evaluated the learners’ productions in terms of adherence to or deviance from native speaker norms, without investigating the actual nature of the deviance from these norms. Consequently, there is sometimes ambiguity in studies looking into pragmatic acquisition. When research participants produce a non- target-like utterance, it can be unclear what is underlying it. Is the failure grammatical?

Does it stem from a misunderstanding of the semantic and connotational properties of the feature itself? Or does it come out of a lack of understanding of the norms of the target culture?

2.2.3. Studying pragmatic acquisition: Theoretical frameworks

Second and foreign language classrooms vary in the degree to which they focus on the languacultural aspects of language learning. The poetic dimension of languaculture is generally restricted to literacy-focused curricula, which are typically aimed at more advanced learners, often those studying literature or poetry in their target language. In recent years, however, there have been a number of calls for increased attention to the semantic and pragmatic aspects of language use and to the identity aspects of language use even at the beginning levels of language learning (Felix-Brasdefer & Cohen, 2012;

Ishihara & Cohen, 2014). Pragmatics and semantics in particular has received a great deal of attention, being placed as one of the central competencies in most models of language competence (Canale & Swain, 1981; Hymes, 1972).

However, in spite of its importance in communicative competence, research into the teaching of languaculture lags behind research into linguistic/grammatical competence. Pragmatics is the best-studied aspect of languaculture, and yet even so research into the acquisition of pragmatics is relatively new. Kasper and Rose’s seminal volume on learning L2 pragmatics was published in 2002; in this volume, the authors summarized five theoretical frameworks that had been applied to studying the acquisition of pragmatics by second and foreign language learners (Kasper & Rose, 2002).

One framework they review is an acculturation framework (J. H. Schumann,

1986). This perspective, developed by Schumann, posits that language ability depends upon social and psychological integration of an individual into the target language group.

Although the model was originally designed to predict L2 gains overall, Schmidt's (1983) 49 study of an individual with a high degree of cultural affinity for the target culture but relatively low levels of target-language grammar acquisition, caused Schumann to revise the model to say that it only predicted pragmatic acquisition. However, research has not upheld this hypothesis, and the acculturation theory does not get much attention today.

Another framework is the cognitive processing framework; Kasper and Rose particularly focus on Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1992) and Bialystok’s

Two-Dimensional Model (Bialystok, 1994). The former is a general SLA theory that has been applied to pragmatics with good results; it states, in essence, that for L2 learning to occur, the feature to be learned must rise to the level of the individual learner’s attention.

The latter theory is specific to pragmatic learning, and postulates that, while the task of children learning pragmatics in their L1 is to acquire new features, the task of adults learning pragmatics in their L2 is to learn the mappings of form to meaning and establish attentional control over this mapping as they use the features. Essentially, Two-

Dimensional Model envisions pragmatic accuracy as processing cost.

Sociocultural theory (SCT) is another framework that Kasper and Rose discuss.

This theory comes out of the work of Lev Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 2012). In SCT, cognition is envisioned as something that is always mediated by external tool; one of the primary tools to mediate cognition is social interaction. Thus, cognition is a highly social activity.

In Vygotskian theory, interactions between novices and experts are a site where learning occurs, and so studying these interactions allows one to view the microgenesis of later patterns of knowledge. However, although social interaction is a primary location of

50 learning, it is not the only one; learners’ interactions with other mediating tools, such as textbooks or internet resources, can also be studied.

Another framework is the language socialization framework. Language socialization is a theoretical framework that grew out of linguistic anthropology; it examines how individuals are socialized into language and how they are socialized by means of language. It focuses particularly on understanding individual interactions as they fit into a larger social context. This framework was developed initially to examine

L1 acquisition, but has been applied quite fruitfully to L2 acquisition as well. Use of this framework typically entails longitudinal data collection and the use of qualitative methods, such as ethnography or discourse analysis.

Kasper and Rose also discuss the use of conversation analysis (CA) in studying

L2 pragmatics. CA is a framework that involves a close focus on interaction. Scholars who study L2 acquisition through a CA framework see interactional competence as the goal of the L2 users; they also see it as a process by which the users achieve those goals.

Research using CA requires the use of naturalistic data and performs an extremely fine- grained analysis of that data.

These approaches remain the dominant theoretical approaches that have been applied to pragmatic acquisition since Kasper and Rose’s (2002) work was published.

The approach to pragmatic acquisition that I take within this study is primarily sociocultural in nature: although I do not have participants engage directly in interaction with expert members of the target cultures, I have them observe and analyze the

51 sociolinguistic practices of these experts and describe imagined interactions with them.

This will be described in more depth in Chapter 4.

2.2.2. Studying pragmatic acquisition: Research methods

Unfortunately, studies into L2 pragmatics are generally marked by ambiguity, with participants’ motivations and thought processes opaque. Research methods, as they stand now, often are not designed to remove this ambiguity.

Studies on L2 pragmatics across all research methods draw on a similar set of data elicitation methods. The widest range of method exists for testing productive pragmatic abilities – the set of pragmatic skills that are accessed and used in spontaneous interaction

(Timpe-Laughlin, 2017). A separate and smaller set of methods exists to test receptive pragmatic skills, which are the skills that allow an L2 user to understand and interpret their interlocutor’s intentions. Finally, there is also a set of methods that test metapragmatic knowledge, which is an L2 user’s explicit knowledge about of the target- culture pragmatic norms.

Bardovi-Harlig (2013) developed a taxonomy of tasks examining productive knowledge that arranged them on a spectrum: on one end were the tasks that were the most naturalistic and least controlled, and on the other the tasks that were least naturalistic and most controlled. Amongst productive methods, there is always this trade- off. The more that interaction resembles what can be seen in the real world, the less control the researcher has over the scenarios and features that can be tested. On the other hand, the more control they do have, the less like authentic speech the data become. 52

Therefore, every study has to deal with this tension; every researcher must decide whether they care more about authenticity or controlling the data.

The most naturalistic data come from recordings of authentic conversations.

Researchers might audio- or video-record their participants’ interactions (e.g., Doehler &

Pochon-Berger, 2011) or have participants record themselves in their daily lives (e.g.,

Shively, 2011). What is gained in naturalism, however, is lost in control: a researcher working with authentic language data has a much harder time studying specific pragmatic targets or isolating particular social variables of interest. Therefore, while authentic conversations provide perhaps the most realistic portrait of what learners do, the range of questions that can be answered is limited by that lack of control.

Elicited conversations and role plays are modes of data collection that sacrifice some naturalism to gain some control. An elicited conversation pairs up two speakers, generally an L1 user and an L2 user, and asks them to perform a certain task, such as giving each other compliments. Role plays are (generally) oral tasks in which participants act out scenarios assigned to them by the researcher. They are essentially simulations of real communicative encounters. This methodology is semi-authentic, in that the data elicited come from real spontaneous (or semi-spontaneous) interaction, and the demands on the speakers’ cognitive resources are similar to those made by natural conversation.4

Additionally, researchers have more control over these interactions than they do over naturalistic ones. However, there are also drawbacks to role plays: participants often find

4 They are not, however, identical; it is likely that the lab setting causes a higher stress level, as does being observed by researchers. 53 them taxing and inauthentic, and they are highly subject to task effects (Cohen &

Olshtain, 1993; Félix-Brasdefer, 2008).

Still less authentic and still more controlled is the Discourse Completion Task

(DCT). In the DCT, a participant is prompted to provide how they would respond to a scenario, with an opening turn from their interlocutor potentially included as part of the prompt. The DCT can be administered either orally or in writing. In the oral DCT, text or recorded audio is presented to the participant, who then responds aloud. In a written modality, the participant writes down their response to a written scenario. They might respond freely, or they might be presented with multiple options to choose from. This task is highly controlled: a written DCT can even be administered in near-identical conditions. However, studies have shown that the written exchanges on DCTs tend to lack many features of authentic speech (Yuan, 2001). Additionally, the length of time that participants have to respond means that their on-line processes do not always need to be engaged; rather, participants can call upon explicit metapragmatic knowledge.

Metapragmatic knowledge is generally categorized as a separate domain of knowledge from productive knowledge. Metapragmatic knowledge is the explicit knowledge that an individual has about a language’s pragmatic system. In theory, metapragmatic knowledge is explicit, while productive skills draw upon implicit knowledge; however, as many scholars have noted, explicit and implicit knowledge of an

L2 can be difficult to differentiate (Ellis, 2005). Even in on-line production, a participant has some access to their explicit knowledge; the cognitive pressures of on-line production reduce their ability to use this knowledge, but do not completely eliminate it. In studies of

54 metalinguistic knowledge, conversely, sometimes participants cite their gut instincts rather than explicit knowledge on whether a feature is right or wrong. Therefore, there are no methodologies that truly call upon one domain to the exclusion of the other.

Nevertheless, there are some methodologies that are better-suited to eliciting metapragmatic knowledge. As mentioned above, the DCT can be used to elicit metapragmatic knowledge. Questionnaires can also allow participants to produce what they believe to be appropriate pragmatic forms, or can give them space to assess their own skills and knowledge. These sorts of tasks are often used in combination with methods that provide participants with opportunities to explain their choices, such as interviews, talk-aloud protocols, or retrospective interviews (Félix-Brasdefer, 2010).

Looking at each of these types of abilities has its own advantages and disadvantages. Studies that examine productive and receptive abilities show how learners actually will function in their interactions in the L2. However, data from productive and receptive studies can be ambiguous; because these data are generally taken from on-line tasks, it can be unclear whether non-target-like behavior actually stems from pragmatic issues or whether it comes from lexical/grammatical issues. Metapragmatic studies avoid this ambiguity, but at the cost of authentically reflecting performance. Additionally, metapragmatic knowledge helps to prevent negative L1 pragmatic transfer, but it does not seem to facilitate accurate pragmatic production (House, 1996). As such, an ideal study ought to combine these methods, so that certain tasks can balance out the weaknesses of others.

2.3. Complicating L2 competence

The models of communicative competence presented above provide, to greater or lesser degree, a fairly straightforward view of how L2 learners become competent speakers of their target language. In these models, there is a clear path to competence: a learner must acquire the norms of the target language and target culture and utilize them in order to act appropriately in the target language. Yet there has been scholarship that has challenged these points of view.

When a speaker is using a language not their own, they are also speaking across cultures: they possess a different set of assumptions and behavioral norms from their interlocutors. Consequently, in the vast majority of cases, using the L2 is not a simple matter of transferring the content of the L1 talk into another code. Rather, it involves engaging with the values and priorities of another culture, which is something that some language users resist. For example, in one study, American women studying abroad in

Japan expressed a dislike of some registers of Japanese women’s speech, explaining that this speech was overly self-effacing and therefore not in line with their own identities

(Siegal, 1994, 1996). In another example, students learning English in Australia rejected markers of the Australian variety of English, preferring American speech norms (Davis,

2007). Broader studies have shown that this not a universal phenomenon, but nor is it an isolated one: in a survey of Japanese learners of English, while some of the respondents expressed their alignment with English-language politeness culture, others expressed reservations about using English-like politeness, saying that it would pose a threat to their 56 cultural identity (LoCastro, 2001); another survey showed that a large number of respondents from several speech cultures viewed target-language speech norms critically

(Hinkel, 1996).

Essentially, the use of the L2 is not a neutral act: communicating competently, in the Hymesian sense, means utilizing the elements of speech that index particular identities and stances to speak “appropriately” — to speak in a way that seems correct to the hearer. This can mean deviating from the uses of indexical features considered appropriate by the speaker’s own culture. For the women in Siegal’s study, for example, the humble speech forms are felt to index an excessively subordinate stance, which is felt by those women to run counter to their own positions in society. Thus, to adopt the target-culture norms – to evince communicative competence as per the idealized model

— might constitute some sort of threat to the speaker’s identity or self-image.

This, then, raises a dilemma in looking at pragmatic competence. Is an L2 user who suppresses their own speech norms in favor of the target culture’s a superior speaker? If an American uses humble speech forms and fits into the target culture but feels discomfort with their personal identity, are they a more competent language user? In this study, I reject this idea. Instead, I take a very emic approach to sociolinguistic competence by de-emphasizing “appropriateness” and emphasizing efficacy: I see sociolinguistic competence as, essentially, someone’s abilities to achieve their social and practical goals. Therefore, if an L2 user feels confident with the identity they project and

57 do not encounter obstacles due to language knowledge in their interactions with others, I consider them competent.5

Communicative competence across cultures is a complicated issue that intersects with the identities and priorities of the speakers engaging with the target language.

Therefore, it intersects in complex ways with a different but related concept: that of intercultural competence, described in Chapter 1. Sociolinguistic competence and intercultural competence are intertangled with one another in a way that suggests that studying the two of them together would be quite fruitful. This is, therefore, what this study does: it looks at the two of them jointly, operating under the assumption that the acquisition of the one is related to the acquisition of the other.

2.4. Conclusion

This dissertation research centers on two types of communicative competence.

The first is sociolinguistic competence: the understanding of how linguistic norms can be and are used for social ends. The second is intercultural competence, a complex construct centering on the ability to understand and adapt to another culture’s norms of communication. The central interest of this project is whether a special distance-learning

5 This is, of course, a somewhat radical notion. In theory, it means that a blundering and ignorant individual with extraordinary low self-awareness could be considered a competent L2 user, so long as they do not sense the awkwardness that results from their un-target-like behaviors. However, I believe that this is, perhaps, the correct way to think about things. If a loud, aggressive, unsubtle American is able to carry out all necessary purchases, chat up locals, make friends with the desired people, and feel content in their skin in the L2 — all while being given a pass by the locals on making these blunders, as they are a foreigner who cannot know better — are they not just as competent as the American who is able to adapt to the local culture and blend in? The notion is somewhat horrifying, but everyone’s goals are individual. Someone confident and content and able to achieve their goals should be considered competent, even if they deviate strongly from the target culture’s norms. 58 project will support the development of these two types of communicative competence.

This project, and the rationale for it, will be further described in the coming chapters.

Chapter 3. Cultural and sociolinguistic learning in four contexts

Introduction

Learning is always contextualized. According to Collentine, “one of the most important variables that affects the nature and the extent to which learners acquire a second language (L2) is the context of learning” — whether language users acquire their language in the target community or elsewhere (Collentine, 2011, p. 218). Precisely why the context matters, however, is a matter of debate. Scholars coming from the sociocultural tradition might point to the social consequences of being in one situation versus another, while scholars from a cognitive background might contend that this difference comes from the degree of language exposure or suppression of the L1.

Nevertheless, there is wide agreement that learning context has a significant effect on patterns of language and cultural learning.

This chapter reviews the literature on culture and sociolinguistic learning, with particular emphasis on the effect of context on learning outcomes. The chapter is divided into four parts, organized around the four most prevalent contexts for language and culture learning: the classroom (AH) context; the abroad (SA) context; the immersion

(IM) context; and the online context. In each of these sections, I first review the literature on language learning, focusing particularly on sociolinguistic acquisition in that context; then I review the literature on cultural learning.

3.1. The classroom context (“AH”)

Many American students learn foreign languages at college. This classroom context, referred to hereafter as AH (short for “at-home”), is defined by certain characteristics that distinguish it from other contexts of learning. Additionally, certain generalizations can be made about how the outcomes of AH language study differ from the outcomes of language study in other contexts.

In the AH learning context, L2 learners study a language at the academic institution in which they are enrolled. AH students take courses that focus on teaching the use of the L2. Certain courses might be content-focused, with the L2 as a means of delivery for this information, but these types of courses are generally reserved for advanced students rather than being the instructional norm at all levels. The majority of students’ courses are generally taught in a language other than the L2; typically, this language is the (standard) language of the community in which the academic institution is located.

Contact hours with the L2 are lowest in the AH context. In a typical university context, students are engaging with the L2 only about 3–5 hours per week in class and only perhaps 2–4 hours outside of class (Freed, Segalowitz, & Dewey, 2004). However, students are often studying the L2 long-term, taking several years’ worth of language classes over the course of their studies.

3.1.1. Language learning in the classroom

The vast majority of pedagogically-focused SLA research examines language learning in the AH context. To summarize this full body of literature would be unwieldy; therefore, this literature review will be limited to a general overview of language learning scholarship, followed by a closer examination of studies that examine sociolinguistic and pragmatic acquisition.

Much of the research into language learning in the classroom has focused on uncovering the best teaching methods. Many debates have centered on questions such as whether implicit or explicit instruction leads to better learning outcomes (DeKeyser,

2008); whether feedback is conducive to language learning, and if so, what types of feedback are most effective (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Mackey, 2006); how classroom language learning differs from naturalistic language learning (Benson, 2011); whether the students’ L1 has a place in the classroom, or whether a language course should conducted only in the target language (Cummins, 2007); and whether there are age effects in instructed language learning (Muñoz, 2008). These studies have varied in their methods an even in their conceptualization of what “language learning” is; researchers have used constructs such as general proficiency, fluency, grammatical knowledge, listening ability, accent, and others to stand in for language learning.

Research into the acquisition of pragmatic and sociolinguistic knowledge is relatively recent. However, the past two decades have seen a rapid increase in the body of research on this learning target, so certain generalizations about pragmatic and sociolinguistic acquisition can now be made. 62

First, there is wide evidence that pragmatic knowledge can be acquired by L2 learners. Early studies in this field questioned whether this was possible at all. After all, adult learners already have full repertoires of pragmatic knowledge before they begin learning an L2, and sociolinguistic and pragmatic features are culturally charged; the hypothesis was, therefore, that pragmatics might not be acquirable the way that vocabulary and grammar are. Research, however, has robustly shown that language learners benefit from pragmatic instruction; those who have received instruction regularly outperform those who have not (Taguchi, 2011, 2015b). Additionally, there is evidence that explicit instruction of pragmatics is superior to implicit instruction, particularly when it comes to eliminating negative L1 transfer (House, 1996).

Evidence also indicates that L2 users often have better skills of pragmatic comprehension than they have of pragmatic production (Taguchi, 2015). Dewaele

(2004b) discusses how L2 users, when attempting to use appropriate pragmatic features, must worry not only about grammar and vocabulary choice, but also about social and contextual clues; this adds to the cognitive load of a language user attempting to be pragmatically appropriate. Therefore, even when L2 users have knowledge about the target pragmatic system, they are often unable to produce appropriate utterances in accordance with this knowledge due to issues of performance.

There is also evidence that sociopragmatic acquisition is slower than pragmalinguistic acquisition. To review, sociopragmatic knowledge is an individual’s knowledge of the social and cultural information that inform language choice; pragmalinguistic knowledge is knowledge of the actual linguistic material that is

63 necessary for a pragmatically appropriate utterance. In general,6 acquisition of sociopragmatics is slow: a number of studies have indicated that learners show extremely slow development of sociopragmatic sensitivity even as they acquire pragmalinguistic forms, indicating that understanding social and cultural differences lags behind acquisition of new linguistic material (Rose, 2009; Shardakova, 2005). Moreover, many of these studies were conducted in an in-country context, when students were exposed to a variety of pragmatic repertoires and social situations. The AH learning context situates its students in a single social setting — the classroom — which limits the sociolinguistic variation to which learners might be exposed. It is likely that this lack of exposure causes sociopragmatic acquisition to lag even further than it does in an in-country context.

However, it should be noted that exposure is not, in fact, the only path to gaining more sociopragmatic knowledge: in Liddicoat's (2006) study, students analyzed French authentic texts and used their analysis to gain metapragmatic knowledge about contexts of use for address terms. Through hypothesis testing and individual research, they were able to gain relatively sophisticated knowledge about the French sociopragmatic system; this, furthermore, was achieved at a very low level of proficiency. While students have less access to varied sociopragmatic repertoires in the classroom, this does not mean that they cannot be exposed to this information through alternative means.

6 This result is not universal: see, for example, Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin (2005) and Hassall (2006) for studies in which students struggled with the acquisition of pragmalinguistic forms as much as with the sociopragmatic concepts. However, there have been no studies in which acquisition of sociopragmatic concepts outpaces pragmalinguistic acquisition. It is clear that understanding social context is quite difficult for students. 64

Finally, there is a small body of research looking into the question of how L2 pragmatic use intersects with L2 users’ subjectivity. There is evidence that, in many cases, L2 users are not comfortable adhering to the pragmatic norms of the L2; this is reviewed in more detail in section 3.3.

3.1.2. Culture learning in the classroom

Culture has been taught in the AH context in one of two ways: either through explicit instruction in the learners’ primary language or as a part of target-language instruction.7

These two types of culture instruction often also teach culture in different ways.

Dedicated culture classrooms typically center their curricula on big-C Culture, using literary texts, films, and artwork as a means of providing insight into the culture and society that produced these artifacts. When culture is incorporated into the language classroom, the instruction generally focuses on conveying little-c culture, focusing on habits, beliefs, and practices (Risager, 2007).

These different approaches to curricula seem to grow out of a few underlying assumptions. Ideologies about “simple” versus “complex” language shape these curricula: literary texts are seen as being accessible only to those with a highly sophisticated language system, while everyday practices are generally seen as belonging

7 The term “culture classroom” will be used to refer to classes in which cultural learning is emphasized and language learning is secondary. “Language classroom” will be used to refer to classes whose primary goal is language learning, with cultural learning being seen as secondary. There is no true categorical difference between these types of classes: rather, they lie along a continuum, with the language and cultural elements of the class more or less emphasized. However, it is possible to make generalizations about the classes that lie on either end of the spectrum. 65 to a simpler sort of linguistic register. It grows, also, from a view that frames an understanding of everyday cultural practices as “the fifth competence” — essentially, as a set of skills to be acquired alongside reading, writing, speaking, and listening (e.g.,

Damen, 1987) — which is a perspective which led to culture being centered as an aspect of language competence in the Standards (see section 1.2).

This division between courses that teach Culture and language courses that incorporate culture has existed for some time, dating back even to the 19th century. The culture classroom has its roots humanistic tradition of ennobling the spirit (Bildung in the

German educational tradition upon which American higher education has drawn), while the language classroom and the culture taught within has been tied to a more skills-based, technical education (the comparatively devalued Ausbildung) (Kramsch et al., 2007). The attitudes that differentiate these two traditions of culture pedagogy are so persistent that, to this day, there is a literal division of labor in secondary education: culture courses are typically led by faculty members, while graduate students are more typically assigned to teach language courses.8

Pedagogical methods and goals differ between these two types of classrooms. As mentioned above, dedicated culture courses have their roots in the Bildung tradition: they are meant to enlighten the spirit and lead to greater self-knowledge and knowledge of the world. Accordingly, pedagogical methods in culture courses draw more on the literary tradition of critical thinking and critical writing, as well as literary analysis. Language

8 This pattern is, naturally, shaped by a number of different factors, including the size of the university, typical enrollments, and the size of the graduate-student class. Smaller institutions tend not to have this division, with faculty members instead serving s generalists. 66 courses, meanwhile, focus more on the building of skills. Pedagogical methods for culture in language courses, therefore, have drawn upon broader theories in second language acquisition; methods that have been promoted for teaching culture include the use of authentic materials (Kiliçkaya, 2004), the use and analysis of cultural products such as films and literature, presentations, visits to restaurants and ethnic enclaves

(Krasner, 1999), and a wide variety of other methods based in various theoretical perspectives on language acquisition (Dema & Moeller, 2012).

Certain trends have recently influenced the way that culture is taught both in the culture classroom and in the language classroom. There has been movement towards less positivistic and more post-positivistic, postmodernist views of culture in the classroom

(Byram, 2008). Views of culture as a product of a given population (the “large culture” viewpoint described in 1.1.3) have shifted somewhat towards views of culture as a process, a set of behaviors and attitudes and ongoing activity (the “small culture” viewpoint). There has been a corresponding shift in materials used for teaching culture away from teaching information about the target culture, prioritizing the accumulation of knowledge, and towards teaching skills of inquiry and critical thought (e.g., Holliday,

Hyde, & Kullman, 2010).

Yet the question remains whether classroom instruction, even classroom instruction informed by recent research, is sufficient for learners to develop strong skills of intercultural competence. Encountering and engaging with other cultures is central to most of the models of ICC: Byram’s savoir faire involves application of “procedural knowledge in real time” — essentially, actually talking to members of the target culture

— while Deardorff’s process model has an entire node dedicated to the application of

ICC outcomes. The culture and language classrooms rarely have learners engage directly with individuals coming from more than a few limited cultural contexts.

Crozet and Liddicoat (1999) argued that thought alone, rather than cultural encounters, could be sufficient for developing ICC. They argued that through deep engagement, students could develop their cultural knowledge and cultural abilities. The authors outlined five basic principles for teaching culture in the classroom. They advocated for explicit teaching of culture; for setting bilingual/multilingual speakers as the norm; for pushing conceptual and experiential learning, including teaching metaknowledge about languages and cultures; for implementing learner-centered classrooms; and for implementing language testing that incorporates intercultural competence. However, there have been few studies that have looked into the implementation of these recommendations.

Other interventions, however, have looked into teaching culture without direct cultural contact. In-class tools that have been explored for teaching ICC include critical discourse analysis used to destabilize national paradigms (Cole & Meadows, 2013); close study of proverbs, in which students are asked to evaluate proverbs in light of the cultural context that produced them (Hiller, 2010); and activities involving the OSEE (Observe,

State, Explain, and Explore) tool, which is a framework through which students observe and reflect on cultural processes in the target culture (Deardorff 2000, discussed in

Moeller & Nugent, 2014). These tools have been shown to facilitate cultural learning. It

68 is clear, therefore, that intellectual engagement without direct contact can foster development of some aspects of ICC.

Most studies looking at development of ICC in the classroom, however, have relied upon facilitating contact with other cultures. For example, one study involved students in a service-learning project working with individuals of diverse backgrounds; these students showed reduced ethnocentrism (Borden, 2007). Contact combined with critical reflection has been shown to be particularly effective, as in the case of studies that asked students to carry out ethnographic interviews with native speakers of Spanish — a process combining a conversation with critical reflection upon that conversation. These studies showed that these ethnographic interviews brought about positive effects on cultural attitudes (Bateman, 2002; Robinson‐Stuart & Nocon, 1996). Others have used networked communication to facilitate contact with members of other cultures; see section 3.4 for an overview of these studies.

Ultimately, models of ICC indicate that it is important for learners to encounter and engage with difference for cultural growth to happen. However, it seems that intellectual engagement with cultural differences and building cultural self-knowledge is as important, if not more important, than contact with individuals of other cultural backgrounds.

3.2. The abroad context (“SA”)

The study abroad (“SA”) context can be distinguished from other contexts of learning by using certain identifying characteristics. First, SA involves students undergoing a separation from the academic institution in which they are enrolled. In this way, SA is distinct from international studentship, in which students attend a foreign academic institution with the goal of achieving a degree from this institution; SA, rather, is relatively short-term, generally lasting one year or less, with most programs running between six weeks and one semester (“Open Doors 2016 Executive Summary,” 2016).

This separation always involves moving across national borders.9

There are two types of SA programs: language-focused and non-language- focused. The former type of SA program typically places students in a community where their target language is spoken widely. The goals of this sort of program typically include language development, intercultural development, and personal growth. Non-language- focused SA programs take place in communities that use the students’ L1. For example, a large number of American students travel to England and Australia for SA; others travel to English-language institutions embedded in non-English dominant communities. Like language-focused programs, the goals of this sort of program involves intercultural development and personal growth. Academic achievement is typically a secondary goal in both types of program; language, cultural, and/or personal development are given far

9 Study in another country is ultimately viewed quite differently from study at a different institution in the same country. This speaks to the dominance of what Risager defined as the “national paradigm” in study abroad (see Chapter 2): the unspoken attitude is that education becomes something different as soon as a national boundary is crossed. 70 more emphasis than the content knowledge that might be gained during the time spent at the foreign educational institution (Gore, 2005).

The following sections summarize the research that has been done on language and cultural development in the SA context.

3.2.1. Language learning abroad

There are numerous studies that examine language learning in a SA context. The first major study of language learning abroad was Carroll's (1967) investigation of foreign language majors’ performance on a foreign-language proficiency exam. This study found that the best predictor of improved foreign language ability was study abroad, with even a brief sojourn being enough to considerably increase sojourners’ skills. These results were thrown into question over the next few decades, however, as numerous studies showed that the SA context was highly complex, that sojourners’ experiences abroad differed wildly, and that language learning abroad was often quite variable.

These challenges to the idea of study abroad as an ideal learning venue, coupled with the growing desire of the proficiency movement to empirically examine whether language programs were producing capable language users (Liskin-Gasparro, 2003), led to a steady increase in investigations into study abroad between the 1990s and the 2000s.

This wave of study abroad literature was primarily concerned with investigating a relatively narrow set of questions: whether study abroad supported language learning; what program characteristics best supported language learning; and which types of sojourners learned best while abroad. The first question generally was answered, fairly 71 consistently, in the affirmative (e.g., Brecht, Davidson, & Ginsberg, 1995), but always with the caveat that some individuals learned better than others.

Research into the latter two questions has turned up results that are often ambiguous and counterintuitive. There is, to date, no complete consensus on what sort of program is best for language learning. For example, there is mixed evidence regarding the effect of program length and the amount of time spent abroad on language learning.

While some studies have found that a longer stay in the target country increases language learning outcomes (Félix-Brasdefer, 2004), others have found no effect of length of stay

(Dietrich, 1995; Matsumura, 2001). Likewise, common wisdom holds that homestays — residence in the home of a member of the target culture — is conducive to language learning (Saltagi, 2014). Yet evidence regarding the homestay advantage has been mixed.

One study found that, counter to expectations, students in homestays progressed less in their speaking ability than students in dormitories, though they gained more in reading ability; this finding was interpreted as evidence that students in a homestay found themselves isolated and ignored, turning instead to literacy activities to pass their time

(Rivers, 1998). This result led to subsequent qualitative and ethnographic examinations of the homestay experience; findings consistently revealed that the homestay situation was highly complex, with no two homestays being precisely the same. For example, a study looking into the experiences of students abroad in Russia discussed how some sojourners felt supported and engaged by their host families, while others felt silenced and belittled by their hosts or — in one case — physically endangered by them; the anxiety caused by these threats caused the sojourners to fall silent and disengage from

72 their hosts (Pellegrino Aveni, 2005). Ultimately, research has shown that there are no program characteristics that can be directly linked to greater language learning without the mediating influence of individual experiences and individual characteristics.

Yet even individual characteristics and behaviors have not been clearly linked to language learning. Freed and colleagues did find a correlation between the amount of time spent on language learning and linguistic gains (Freed et al., 2004), but other studies found no correlation between time-on-task and linguistic gains while on study abroad

(Ginsberg & Miller, 2000). Other studies have investigated the type of language interaction; for example, one found a stronger effect of informal interactive language contact than noninteractive contact (Yager, 1998). However, this research has not been very robust. Social network theory has been applied rather fruitfully: Isabelli-García

(2006) found a link between the size of sojourners’ social networks and their language learning, for example. Yet in general, the finding that language and social engagement increases language learning has been subject to variability.

Research has also explored the effects of individual differences on SA language outcomes. Likewise, the results have been fairly counterintuitive. Motivation has been shown to have an inconsistent effect on language gains abroad (Coleman, 1997; Freed,

1995), while language aptitude has not been shown to have an effect (Brecht et al., 1995).

Anxiety has shown to curtail language use abroad, though as discussed above, reduced language use can have rather unclear effects on learning abroad (Pellegrino Aveni, 2005).

There also seems to be a very complex interaction between identity factors and language learning abroad. Gender, for example, has been shown to shape the study

73 abroad experience. A study indicating that women did not make gains in oral proficiency equal to men’s gains after a sojourn abroad (Brecht et al., 1995) spurred an ethnographic exploration of the SA context in Russia (Polanyi, 1995). This study documented instances in which women were subject to sexual harassment and belittlement; even in cases where the women had a less turbulent experience, they were still excluded from spaces where certain genres of speech were performed, which limited their growth. This exclusion has been consistent across decades, from some of the earliest studies on SA (F. M. Schumann

& Schumann, 1977) to some of the most recent (Trentman, 2015). Race, likewise, has been shown to have an effect on the study abroad experience that can affect motivation and engagement (Talburt & Stewart, 1999). Age, too, can have an effect, with older individuals having markedly different experiences from younger individuals (Tan &

Kinginger, 2013). All of these factors can strongly shape the SA experience, so that individuals of different backgrounds might have markedly different experiences even within the same program; these varying experiences, in turn, can shape language development.

Within the SA literature, certain language-learning outcomes have been used quite widely as evidence of instructional efficacy, while other language-learning outcomes have been used considerably less. Many studies have tried to examine language development in terms of global proficiency, though the lack of sensitivity of proficiency measures has interfered with finding clear results (Freed, 1990). Fluency, particularly oral fluency, has also received some attention: given that students abroad spend much of their time in oral communication, it seems logical that oral fluency would see considerable

74 development. Fluency, unlike global proficiency, is improved fairly reliably after a sojourn abroad; a number of studies have shown that sojourners’ skills grow after time abroad (Freed et al., 2004; Serrano, Llanes, & Tragant, 2011). However, as with proficiency, there is variability in learning outcomes (e.g., Freed, 1995) that is still not accounted for.

Recently, there has been an increased interest in whether sojourners increase their understanding of pragmatic and sociolinguistic skills. Again, it seems intuitive that the

SA context would promote growth of pragmatic knowledge: since sojourners have access to a wider range of sociolinguistic contexts and engage in interaction with a broader range of speakers than they do in the AH context, it can be expected that their knowledge would grow more quickly than that of domestic students. While most AH studies of pragmatic acquisition are interventionist, many studies of pragmatic acquisition abroad are observational (e.g., Félix-Brasdefer & Hasler-Barker, 2015; Taguchi, 2014), and still others include both observational and intervention components to their studies (e.g.,

Alcón-Soler, 2015; Shively, 2011). Studies have examined students’ development of knowledge of speech acts (Barron, 2003; Cohen & Shively, 2007; Magnan & Back, 2007;

Maria Shardakova, 2005), address terms (Barron, 2003; Hassall, 2013; Kinginger &

Farrell, 2004), politeness registers (Marriott, 1995), and manipulation of sociolinguistic particles (Regan, 1995). Generally, these studies have found a “shaky” link between pragmatic learning and time spent abroad (Taguchi, 2015a, p. 16), with a high level of variability in their gains; some sojourners even become less nativelike over the course of their stays in the target culture.

On the whole, a sojourn abroad seems to be beneficial for language learning.

However, there is a great deal that is still ambiguous about the SA setting and its relationship to language learning. One of the questions that remains unanswered is what qualities of the SA context enhance language learning. Do students learn more because of the increased exposure to the target language? Does this learning occur because of something particular about the SA context? Is it vital that students have relatively unlimited access to interaction with native speakers, or is it the ability to observe the language context that is important? These questions are, of course, vital ones for program design: each possible answer has implications for the ideal mode of language learning.

3.2.2. Culture learning abroad

The assumption has long been that travel abroad can grow one’s cultural knowledge.

However, research over the past few decades has shown that this assumption is not necessarily valid: simple exposure to other cultures is not sufficient for learning (Liu,

2014). Intellectual engagement is also necessary. However, what constitutes cultural learning, what constitutes exposure, and what constitutes intellectual engagement have all been subject to debate.

First, it must be noted that the assumption that simply traveling abroad will lead to absorption of culture is faulty. It rests upon an assumption of the inevitability of learning though exposure alone, as well as an assumption that culture is tied to geography. These assumptions are rarely questioned in the literature looking at culture learning abroad. While some studies go in-depth into students’ culture learning 76 trajectories, relatively few of them explicitly discuss cultural variation or discuss local understandings of culture. There are certainly exceptions to this: a few studies have explicitly examined the ways in which local interactions shape cultural understandings

(e.g., Dolby, 2004; Song, 2012), while others have looked into how cultural beliefs are negotiated and constructed in interaction (Cook, 2006) or sojourners’ orientations towards local language varieties, which can be either positive or negative depending upon the conditions under which they have approached the language (Garrett & Balsà, 2014;

Iino, 2006; Shiri, 2013). On the whole, however, the bulk of the SA literature that engages with culture does so in a way that implies that crossing a national border is equivalent to moving from one culture into another.

The majority of studies looking at cultural learning abroad have examined cultural learning in terms of learning outcomes; standardized tests, in particular, are widely used.10 For example, the Georgetown Consortium conducted a broad study of standardized outcomes for a very large number of students who had gone abroad, concluding that the statistically significant increases in scores on the Intercultural

Development Inventory indicated that study abroad did result in superior intercultural learning compared to the learning of domestic students (Vande Berg et al., 2009). A few other studies have carried out in-depth qualitative assessments of cultural learning or cultural experiences while abroad. For example, Dolby (2004) provides an account of how Americans often fall back on narratives of national superiority when they encounter challenges to their American identity. Other studies have used mixed methods, drawing

10 Materials for testing intercultural communicative competence are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. 77 both on qualitative assessments of intercultural competence and on standardized measures (e.g., Elola & Oskoz, 2008; Jackson, 2008).

There are few studies that discuss methods of culture teaching in the SA context; most, instead, are purely observational. In keeping with the patterns discussed in

Kinginger (2009), very little study-abroad research actually examines or discusses the educational curriculum in any depth. Consequently, while many study abroad programs seem to have some elements of culture in their curricula, including classes on culture- related topics such as literature, film, and national history, this cultural training has not generally been studied or discussed in the literature.

A small number of studies look into program characteristics that might either enhance or inhibit cultural learning. Some have looked at the effects of pre-departure orientations for learning culture; these orientations generally include trainings in what to expect while abroad, as well as training students to understand culture is. These pre- departure interventions have been shown to be effective in fostering intercultural learning. One example is the Seminar on Living and Learning Abroad, a pre-departure seminar at CIEE programs; participants in this program show consistent growth in their

IDI scores when they are abroad (Vande Berg, Quinn, & Menyhart, 2012). Other studies have investigated which student behaviors enhance intercultural development: for example, studies have looked at the correlation between language contact and appreciation of the L2 culture (Schwieter & Ferreira, 2016), the pedagogical effects of project-based learning (discussed in more detail below); the effects of service learning projects (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005; Parker & Dautoff, 2007); and the effects of

78 specific cultural training while abroad (Vande Berg, 2009). The most extensive of these is the aforementioned project by the Georgetown Consortium, which carried out a broad survey of intercultural and language-learning outcomes of students abroad. From this survey, they concluded that longer programs enhanced cultural learning; so, too, did extensive prior language experience, enrollment in target-language content courses while abroad, and intercultural mentoring. Additionally, homestays and experiential activities improved students’ intercultural learning.

Experiential activities can take a number of forms. In general, an experiential activity is an additional project that sojourners can take on in the SA context. Many sojourners, for example, volunteer their time in charity work while abroad. This has been shown to have positive effects on language learning: a study by Martinsen, Baker,

Dewey, Bown, and Johnson (2010) directly compared language use and language learning in standard SA and a service learning SA program, finding that students in service-learning programs used the language more outside of class and had stronger overall linguistic gains. Likewise, service learning has been shown to have stronger effects on cultural learning, with students who engaged in service learning forming more social connections (Parker & Dautoff, 2007) Ultimately, service learning affects students’ worldviews (Kiely, 2004), which has implications for the development of intercultural competence.

Another type of experiential activity that students can engage in while abroad is carrying out research, particularly ethnographic research.

Ethnography is a methodology developed in the field of anthropology for studying cultures. Yet it has a status beyond simply being a research method; ethnography also has connotations of particular epistemological and intellectual stances.

According to Carole McGranahan, “Ethnographic research…is more than a method. It is not simply to watch people or interview someone or assemble a focus group or ‘shadow’ someone, but a much more all-encompassing and demanding way of knowing”

(McGranahan, 2014, p. 24). In its modern iteration, ethnography is a method that demands that the ethnographer critically examine their own cultural viewpoints in order to isolate their preconceptions so they can observe critically. It demands cultivating a certain outlook and ability to look at the world. It trains the mind in a way that simply doing qualitative research does not. Because ethnography entails adopting others’ points of view, it requires practicing critical thinking skills, cultural awareness, and empathy.

Taking an ethnographic perspective, by necessity, requires the researcher to question and critique traditional viewpoints about culture. It requires critical thought and a deep knowledge of the target culture.

A conversation on an ethnography forum listed the qualities of a good ethnographer as being the following (“What makes a good ethnographer?,” 2011):

A Good Ethnographer…

Is curious Is open-minded Has a sociable personality Is flexible and can adapt to changing situations Is good at delving deeper into cultural phenomena Knows how to translate insights into action Appropriately probes for deeper meaning Does not rigidly stick to discussion/observation guides but uses them as just that: guides Has empathy Is adventurous and is not afraid to take risks 80

Is able to establish rapport and relationships Asks good questions Is a good listener and observer Is self-reflexive…

Because ethnography requires individuals to cultivate the skills noted above, it is often used as a teaching tool in anthropology. Undergraduate and graduate students alike are asked to carry out ethnographic work in courses, both for the practice in research techniques and to hone their abilities to critically think about other cultures; indeed, as

McGranahan claims, the latter is possible even in the absence of fieldwork simply by training students in taking ethnographic stances (McGranahan, 2014).

Notably, these qualities are not only central to being a skilled anthropologist; they also are central to being a capable intercultural communicator. There is considerable overlap between the list above and the list of qualities by Byram, Deardorff, Kramsch, and others identify as crucial to intercultural development.11 Consequently, in recent years, applied linguists interested in the teaching of culture alongside the teaching of language have begun to examine the benefits of engaging students as amateur ethnographers.

Carrying out ethnographic research may also have linguistic benefits.

Ethnography typically utilizes qualitative methods of data collection, with researchers keeping field notes and recordings of participant observation. To collect this data, the ethnographer takes an active role in the community and participates in daily life.

Researchers can also collect data via interview. These methods of data collection require

11 See Chapter 1 for a thorough overview of intercultural competence and the qualities central to developing it. 81 researchers into the target culture to verbally engage with members of this culture, meaning that the researchers must utilize their linguistic skills in attempting to uncover meaning — something that has considerable potential for developing those linguistic skills according to a number of different theories of language learning (e.g., Long’s

Interaction Hypothesis, Long, 1981).

One of the earliest studies looking into the cultural and linguistic benefits of engaging students as ethnographers came from Roberts, Byram, Barro, Jordan, and Street

(2001). This study was conducted with UK-based undergraduates majoring in applied languages; these students were embarking on a compulsory year abroad. They were trained first in a course on culture and ethnography, after which they carried out ethnographic projects during their year abroad. The authors found that having students engage with ethnography helped to develop their cultural competences within Byram’s model of intercultural competence; they found also that this engagement let to personal development, including a shift in their personal identities. It is worth noting, however, that the pre-departure training and the sojourn abroad were both quite lengthy; additionally, the language skills of these students were highly advanced. Therefore, although this study provides evidence that ethnographic inquiry can support cultural and language learning abroad, it does so with a study-abroad experience quite different from that experienced by most American students.

Later studies by Jackson investigated the learning trajectories of Hong Kong students studying in London and living with a British host family. These students took a preparatory course on ethnography and culture prior to departing for London; then, while

82 studying in the United Kingdom, they carried out a several-week ethnographic study.

Jackson found that, by acting as ethnographers in the target country, these students developed their language abilities (Jackson, 2006) and intercultural competence (Jackson,

2008). However, as in Robert et al.’s (2001) study, these students were far more advanced linguistically than most American students are when they go abroad, and their preparation was more intensive than what American students receive before sojourns abroad.

As promising as this method seems, however, there are certain questions that remain about its usefulness and applicability.

First, there is the issue of language ability. Participant observation relies on a fairly high amount of interactional competence, particularly if the goal is to observe members of the group under investigation in semi-naturalistic circumstances. A low level of language ability hinders the flow of conversation and inhibits the activity being performed. This, in turn, limits the scope of activities the learners have access to: essentially, all activities involve structuring the language to be comprehensible to the language learners. Likewise, interviewing is quite a sophisticated linguistic task, and one that many students very likely have not learned; this is potentially particularly problematic in light of the fact that understandings of what interviews entail can vary from culture to culture (Briggs, 1986). Language ability was not necessarily a hindrance for the participants in the early studies on the usefulness of ethnography abroad, as these participants had a uniformly high level of language ability. However, given the calls to teach culture at the beginning levels of language study (e.g, Blattner, Dalola, & Lomicka,

2016), adapting this methodology so that more elementary language learners might engage in ethnographic work would be quite valuable.

There is also the issue of anxiety. Anxiety has proven to be an important factor in language learning, with high levels of stress lowering motivation and desire to integrate with other cultures; moreover, foreign language use seems to greatly heighten anxiety, as it renders the speakers unable to adequately express their identity or identities (Gardner,

1986). Ethnographies in particular are a highly anxiety-inducing type of project, since they require the researcher to place themselves in novel situations and use the language in new ways not covered in the classroom. Therefore, it is likewise important to determine a way that even high-anxiety learners might be able to carry out these projects, which would put a great deal of stress on them which could in theory cause them to disengage from the target culture.

Finally, there is the issue of access. These prior studies have been coupled with study-abroad trips. However, not all language learners have access to study abroad. It is a highly privileged activity: study abroad is largely limited to those who are physically abled and economically advantaged (Zemach-Bersin, 2007). Opening cultural and language learning to more populations is not only a crucial humanitarian goal; it is also in the interests of the fields of government and diplomacy, who are desperately in need of qualified cultural experts (Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad

Fellowship Program, 2005).

3.3. The domestic immersion context (“IM”)

There is also a third context of learning: that of “domestic immersion” (IM)12 programs.

In the United States, IM programs are distinct from both traditional classroom programs and from programs abroad. Unlike a program abroad, an IM language program occurs in an area where the students’ L2 is not widely used; typically, this area is in the students’ home country.

The students are, therefore, located in a physical environment in which their L1 is being spoken, just like in a traditional classroom program. What sets an IM program apart from a classroom program is that program organizers deliberately attempt to replicate the immersive qualities of being abroad. Students generally spend a large number of hours in class, studying the target language; they do not take any classes in their L1. Generally, classes specifically target the learning of an L2; other subjects may be included as a form of content-based language teaching, but all are in or related to the target language. An IM program also features out-of-class activities that focus on either the target language or culture, such as movie screenings or group meals at which the target language is spoken.

Essentially, an IM program can be differentiated from a classroom program in that all academic activity is focused in some way on language or culture study.

Some IM language programs implement a “language pledge.” This is, essentially, a promise to use only the target language in all situations. The language pledge originated at Middlebury College’s summer immersion program, and is still a hallmark of that

12 The majority of research on domestic immersion programs grows out of the tradition of study abroad research. The abbreviation “IM” grew out of this tradition. Given that this dissertation has its roots in the study abroad research field, I am following the tradition by using this term. 85 program (Geisler, 2016); however, other programs have adopted the language pledge as well. In essence, this attempts to replicate the L2-only environment of study abroad in a domestic setting. This is not, however, universal; many IM language programs allow L1 use outside of the classroom, and at times even include programming or activities in the

L1.

IM programs are typically run during the summer break, when universities are not in session. Participants, therefore, are typically students who study language in a traditional classroom format during the year, then take the intensive program as a form of accelerated language learning during the summer.

There has been very little work that studies the intensive language context directly. The studies cited above have examined outcomes of IM programs, either using post hoc surveys or pretest-posttest designs. However, no work has been dedicated to documenting students’ experiences in the IM setting. While study abroad and classroom language learning have both had qualitative or ethnographic work that has explored what occurs in the learning context, no such studies have been devoted to the IM setting.

Therefore, there is much about the IM setting that remains unknown.

There has been relatively little research into IM programs as they are defined above. It is worth noting, however, that there is a sizable body of adjacent literature: research that looks into language maintenance and language achievement amongst school-aged students in bilingual education programs. In particular, there have been a large number of studies examining student achievement in Canada, where bilingual

French-English education is prevalent (e.g., Fazio & Lyster, 1998). As a general

86 summary, this body of literature has largely found that language “submersion” — programs that suppress the use of the L1 in favor of L2 use — have negative effects on students’ overall academic achievement and language abilities, particularly abilities in the

L1 (May, 2008). Similar effects have not been observed for adult learners. Given this fact, and given the fundamental differences in educational aims and program designs between childhood bilingual education and adult immersion education, I view research on bilingual education as a distinct body of research from research on adult IM programs.

3.3.1. Intensive language learning

Studies on language learning at IM programs have focused on a few primary issues.

Because this research grew out of the SA literature, many of the field’s research questions likewise have grown out of SA-based concerns. The primary driving question in the SA field has been whether learning abroad can be attributed to the amount of language that the learners are exposed to, or whether there is something unique about the study-abroad context. Because IM students speak the target language for numerous hours per day, similar to SA students, comparing the IM and the SA contexts can be fruitful for shedding light on this question. Therefore, researchers have investigated performance in the linguistic domains in which SA students have shown an advantage over domestic students, attempting to isolate whether that advantage stems from the language situation or the in-country experience.

Consequently, many studies on IM programs have focused on oral fluency, which is a domain where SA students consistently show an advantage over classroom students. 87

One particularly influential study in the early 2000s found that SA students outperformed classroom students in fluency, but — surprisingly — that IM students had better fluency outcomes than SA students (Freed et al., 2004). These results were, however, tempered by the fact that the IM students reported more hours using the language than the SA students did. Furthermore, the results have not been replicated by subsequent research, which has found that SA and IM students outperform classroom students in fluency measures, but that either there is no significant difference between the fluency of SA and

IM students (Serrano et al., 2011) or there is an advantage for SA students (García-

Amaya, 2009).

Other studies have likewise shown either no significant differences between SA and IM programs or have found a slight advantage for SA. One study in the 1990s administered the same academic curriculum to two groups of students, one studying domestically and the other studying abroad; the abroad group had stronger language outcomes, particularly in reading, but the small size of the groups limited the conclusions drawn by this study (Huebner, 1995). A study of reading achievement found no significant differences between SA and IM students in vocabulary knowledge or free recall; the only differences were in self-assessment and level of variability, both of which were higher for SA students (Dewey, 2004). Additionally, SA students have been shown to outperform IM students on accent acquisition (Llanes, Mora, & Serrano, 2016).

Generally speaking, however, the results comparing SA to IM programs are relatively inconclusive; the general trend indicates that students abroad progress more on measures

88 of linguistic ability than immersion students do; however, this is not a universal result, and it is unclear precisely what underlies this advantage.

Far more robust is the evidence that immersion programs are advantageous over non-immersion domestic programs. University students with previous immersion experience — for example, in primary school — have been shown to have a higher willingness to communicate and decreased anxiety in the L2, as well as higher perceived competence and improved attitudes towards the language and language’s speakers

(MacFarlane & Wesche, 1995; MacIntyre, Baker, & Clément, 2003; Wesche, Morrison,

Ready, & Pawley, 1990). Similar results have been shown for postsecondary language learners. As mentioned above, Freed et al. (2004) showed an advantage for SA and IM students over classroom learners. Likewise, concentrated classroom time has shown to benefit vocabulary recognition, listening comprehension, and oral ability (Collins, Halter,

Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; White & Turner, 2006); motivation and confidence (Hinger,

2006; Spada & Lightbown, 1989); and writing ability (McKee, 1983).

There has not, however, been much research into pragmatic or sociolinguistic learning in the intensive classroom. A few studies have examined the acquisition of languaculture amongst children in bilingual school programs (e.g., Cekaite, 2017; Cekaite

& Aronsson, 2004; Kanagy, 1999). However, there have not been studies of this question amongst university students in IM programs as defined above. Unfortunately, while many of the questions from the SA literature have made their way into the IM literature, the question of pragmatic acquisition has not. Therefore, there is still much we do not know regarding the acquisition of pragmatics in the immersion context.

3.3.2. Intensive culture learning

Likewise, there is very little research looking into the learning of culture in IM programs.

No studies, to my knowledge, have looked at the development of intercultural competence during participation in an IM program. Nor have related topics, such as identity development during IM program participation, been explored. It is unclear whether and how intercultural development in IM programs differs from intercultural development in SA programs; likewise, it is unknown whether the immersive experience of IM programs leads to a different cultural experience for IM students versus AH students. It is a question in need of exploration.

3.4. The online context

In recent years, another context for learning has emerged thanks to communications technologies: the online context. Online language learning is an exciting prospect for a number of different reasons. First, networked communication ignores geographical distance: learners of a language are often physically separated from proficient users of the language, a fact which inhibits face-to-face communication but which is largely irrelevant when technology mediates communication. Second, online communication may be less anxiety-inducing than communication in a face-to-face context. Third, interacting in an online environment is increasingly natural to the lifestyles of language learners: the

90 current generation of college students in the United States grew up with the internet, and carry out many interactions via social media. Therefore, online conversations and literacy activities are relevant to students’ lives.

There has been a considerable body of research into online language learning.

Consequently, the following review will be limited predominantly to an overview of the methodologies that have been used in online learning and an overview of sociolinguistic and pragmatic learning in an online context. Following this, I will summarize the existing studies of culture learning online.

3.4.1. Language learning online

According to Belz (2007), online interactions expand language learners’ access to authentic materials, allow for more meaningful participation, and enable pedagogical interventions that can further increase learners’ pragmatic knowledge. The field of computer-mediated pragmatic acquisition, therefore, is quite exciting; however, it is still an emerging field, with significant gaps in what we currently know.

Studies of language learning online have typically been shaped and informed by the technologies of the day. The earliest studies typically looked at email exchanges, as email was a particularly prevalent form of internet use (e.g., Kinginger & Belz, 2005).

Subsequent studies often relied on data from chat rooms (Lam, 2004; Tudini, 2007). In the current day, many studies look at use of and engagement with social media (e.g.,

Blattner et al., 2016; Lantz-Andersson, 2018) and collaborative technologies such as

Wikipedia (King, 2015). Others involve direct interaction through Skype or other

91 videoconferencing technologies (Barron & Black, 2015). There is also a subset of studies that utilize advanced technologies such as virtual worlds for interaction (e.g., Thorne,

Black, & Sykes, 2009). Additionally, while early studies tended to focus on classroom interventions that used online resources, recent studies have intended to increasingly look at students’ independent use of web resources in their engagement with speakers of other languages (e.g., Blattner & Fiori, 2011; Gonzales, 2013).

These earlier classroom studies typically utilized a methodology called telecollaboration. Telecollaboration consists of bringing together classes of foreign language learners in an online environment and having them interact and work together on projects. Evidence of language learning is taken in these studies from records of their interactions; for example, one study of development of understanding of address terms during email exchanges took data from the email exchanges and from direct observations of the students interacting with one another (Belz & Kinginger, 2003; Kinginger & Belz,

2005). Generally, telecollaborative studies saw mixed results. For example, Belz and

Kinginger’s study found that some students progressed very rapidly in their understanding of address terms, while other students did not shift their patterns of use even after being explicitly corrected by their conversation partners. Another study, in which native speakers of Spanish provided feedback to language learners, found that the participants were frequently unequipped with the metalinguistic awareness necessary to serve as informal language teachers (Ware & O’Dowd, 2008). In some cases, telecollaboration was even found to result in communicative failures that resulted in interpersonal friction and negative evaluations of members of the target culture (O’Dowd

& Ritter, 2006; Ware & Kramsch, 2005). These incidents have led researchers to conclude that telecollaboration requires instructors to consistently support the participants as they carry out their telecollaborative tasks (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006), to the point that some instructors have claimed that the teacher is even more important in the online medium than in the face-to-face medium (Belz, 2003). This instructional support, additionally, is most effective when it takes the form of explicit instruction, particularly when metapragmatic instruction is included (Eslami, Mirzaei, & Dini, 2015).

Other types of classroom interventions take a less direct route to online engagement. Telecollaboration is, generally, a directed, one-on-one interaction; it mimics the dynamics of face-to-face interactions. Yet Web 2.0, the widespread term for the current mode of internet interaction, does not mimic these dynamics in the same way; social media sites tend to speak to a general audience, with interactions public and multi- participatory. Some scholars have built a framework for using students’ familiarity with this form of digital literacy into engagement with L2 digital literacies: this framework, the “bridging activities model,” has students engage in both experiential and analytic activities that engage with vernacular literacies in order to connect their in-class knowledge to real-world practices (Reinhardt & Thorne, 2011; Thorne & Reinhardt,

2008). These activities can take a number of forms. For example, Blattner and Fiori

(2011) had learners of Spanish observe Spanish-language Facebook communities and analyze the sociopragmatic patterns they found there; these activities developed the students’ metapragmatic knowledge. A similar study by Reinhardt and Ryu (2013) showed that, through observation and analysis of patterns of Korean social media use,

93 learners of Korean increased their knowledge of the sociopragmatic patterns of Korean, including when and where rules could be “flouted.” Meanwhile, one by Blattner and

Lomicka (2012) asked students to observe and reflect on sociopragmatic variation in

French, which was found to be helpful. A few other studies have looked at indirect engagement with native speaker communities online outside of the bridging activities model; one example is a study that had English language learners collaborate on the creation of a Wikipedia article; interactions with English speakers came in the form of feedback as the students’ Wikipedia articles were edited or deleted, and the students’ socialization into literacy conventions was observed (King, 2015). From these studies, it is clear that direct interactions with native speakers is not the only path to developing pragmatic competence.

Studies of pragmatic learning online have focused on a few particular learning targets. Language use is, of course, constrained and shaped by the online environment.

Studies of online pragmatic learning, like studies of face-to-face pragmatic learning, examine the acquisition and use of speech acts (Cunningham, 2016; Lutzky & Kehoe,

2017; Sykes, 2005). Other studies look into the acquisition of features such as address terms (Kinginger & Belz, 2005) and greetings and closings (Blattner & Fiori, 2011;

Gonzales, 2013).

On the whole, it is clear from these studies that direct attempts to teach pragmatic features using the internet as a medium, such as through telecollaboration, requires considerable supervision and guidance. When there is stronger instructor intervention, results tend to be more robust. This is particularly true when the instruction is explicit and

94 employs metapragmatic reflection. Finally, direct interaction with L1 users of the target language is not the only path to pragmatic development online; it can also occur thanks to observations of and reflections upon target-language interactions.

3.4.2. Culture learning online

Studies examining culture learning online tend to use the same broad methodologies as studies looking at language learning; they also tend to find, like studies on language learning, that cultural learning can be fostered by online interaction, but that considerable instructor support is needed.

A 2016 meta-synthesis of the research on cultural learning online found eight general conclusions from the literature on cultural learning abroad (Çiftçi, 2016). These results, summarized, are as follows. The meta-synthesis found that participants were largely satisfied with the online cultural-exchange experience and enjoyed using digital tools. It found that, in general, participants’ knowledge of their own culture and other cultures increased (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008; Keranen & Bayyurt, 2006; Schenker,

2012), as did their awareness (Angelova & Zhao, 2016; Elola & Oskoz, 2008; Rooks,

2008; Ware & Kramsch, 2005) and willingness to learn (Zeiss & Isabelli-García, 2005); typically, attitudes towards the other culture improved as a result of interaction (Elola &

Oskoz, 2008; Furcsa, 2009). Participants’ ICC tended to develop during these studies, but learning trajectories were frequently variable from participant to participant. Cultural exchanges were often superficial and fact-based, but that cultural understanding tended to

95 increase when students were asked to reflect on culture (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008). For intercultural exchange to be effective, facilitators needed to be well-trained and needed to guide their participants in how to engage with the other cultures. The context for engagement needed to be stimulating, with well-selected topics for discussion and in- depth and lengthy conversations. Additionally, these exchanges suffered a number of difficulties caused by technical and institutional challenges, such as time differences and mismatches in academic schedules that limited prospects for telecollaboration. Finally, the author also discussed a lack of depth and detail in reports on intercultural learning; in particular, individuals who fail to learn and participants who were dissatisfied with the programs and the digital tools are often under-represented in the results and discussion sections of studies of culture learning.

The literature on technology-mediated cultural development, however, tends to rely very heavily on telecollaboration and Web 1.0 tools. As summarized in Çiftçi (2016), most studies utilized email exchanges, text-based chat, or online message boards; only one utilized microblogging, and only two looked at podcasting. Additionally, most studies were directed and interventionist. However, some studies do take an approach that allows participants to engage in self-directed observation of the target culture. For example, Ducate and Lomicka (2008) had their participants select bloggers to follow and asked them to analyze these bloggers’ writing style and identify aspects of culture that they had learned about in a given week; this assignment encouraged cultural learning and increased self-confidence.

One of the primary debates in the literature on online cultural learning is whether cultural learning can be sufficiently deep in an online context, or whether telecollaboration and online exchanges simply lead to exchanging shallow information.

O’Dowd (2003) questioned whether online intercultural communication, particularly email exchanges, lead to deep enough cultural learning, while O’Dowd and Ware (2009) reviewed exercises used in online intercultural training and found that many of them were shallow and unchallenging. Indeed, some studies have discussed the fact that the interactions among their study participants are simply surface-level (Keranen & Bayyurt,

2006), though the authors argued that even superficial conversations could be culturally valuable. Furthermore, other studies indicated that reflection might transform shallow knowledge into deeper cultural competencies (Chun, 2011; Ducate & Lomicka, 2008).

Reflection typically, in these studies, takes the form of comparing and contrasting cultures, or having students contrast their prior beliefs against their current knowledge. In some instances, however, research participants were asked to engage in slightly more sophisticated means of cultural reflection; for example, in Furstenberg (2010), the author had French and American students jointly propose and test cultural hypotheses as a path to deep cultural learning. This sort of intellectual engagement also has been shown to deepen learning.

This is in line with the predictions generated by most models of ICC. Chapter 1 reviewed research in which the importance of critical cultural awareness for deep cultural learning was discussed. Section 3.2 discussed how ethnographies have been used to grow

97 cultural awareness on study abroad; they foster critical cultural awareness and force reflection, which in turn deepens cultural awareness.

These ICC-enhancing learning ethnographies have been conducted in person, rather than online. However, ethnographic studies are in fact possible in an online medium. While relatively new, the so-called “virtual ethnography” or “netnography” has been gaining in popularity in the past two decades. This ethnographic study is similar to an in-person ethnography, with certain aspects of the study transformed by the online environment. In her seminal work on virtual ethnographies, Hine (2000) discussed how ethnographers studying the online environment have to deal with participants who were more decontextualized than in face-to-face ethnographies, given that the online environment involves a more selective presentation of self. Additionally, they must contend with determining the boundaries of the field they are studying, given that they cannot use geography to define them. However, while these issues are highly prominent in virtual ethnographies, they are not unique to them; researchers carrying out face-to- face ethnographies also must contend with questions of authenticity and performance, and they also must critically think about how to define their field; in the modern age of globalization and mobility, old boundaries that were once taken for granted have begun to blur. It is logical to assume, therefore, that carrying out an online ethnography might have some of the same benefits as an in-person ethnography; however, this has not yet been implemented in the online learning context.

3.5. Conclusion

Three of the four primary language-learning contexts — AH, SA, and online — have been demonstrated to support sociolinguistic and cultural learning. To date, there have not been sufficient studies demonstrating that this learning happens in the IM context; conclusions cannot be drawn about this setting. However, it seems likely that this context can also help develop learners’ pragmatic and cultural competence. However, each of these contexts shows limitations in its ability to foster pragmatic and ICC development.

It has been widely demonstrated that sociolinguistic learning is possible in the classroom context. However, students in this context are exposed to few sociopragmatic repertoires, which in turn may curtail their ability to learn variation and multiple registers. Additionally, while knowledge of other cultures can be taught in the AH context, learners are not exposed to difference in the way that certain theorists believe is necessary for the development of intercultural competence.

The abroad context, meanwhile, does expose students to both difference and to multiple sociopragmatic repertoires. However, student learning during SA is subject to a large amount of variation. This seems to be due to a number of factors, many of which are still poorly understood: the sheer complexity of the SA context makes it difficult to isolate the factors which might facilitate or hinder learning. Furthermore, the fact is that the study abroad context is a privileged context: disproportionately, it is students from privileged circumstances (Stroud, 2010; Talburt & Stewart, 1999) who are able to travel abroad. Students from other backgrounds do not have this same access.

The online context, meanwhile, seems promising for acquiring knowledge of sociolinguistics and culture. However, this context also comes with its own sets of difficulties. In studies of telecollaboration, attempts at communication often go wrong; participants, at times, come away from these exchanges with a worse cultural outlook than they had going in. Furthermore, even the exchanges which are positive and cordial often end up shallow and surface-level, producing nothing more than an exchange of superficial knowledge about the cultures involved. The online context, therefore, often does not see the sort of deep learning that leads to intercultural competence, nor to a deep understanding of sociopragmatic repertoires.

No context of learning is perfect for the acquisition of sociolinguistics, nor for developing ICC. Each of them can be enhanced in various ways. The SA context has seen the largest number of studies into means of enhancing pragmatic and cultural learning; special projects such as service learning and ethnographic projects have been examined for their value to students. Research into similar projects in other contexts lags behind.

100

Chapter 4. Theoretical framework and methods

4.1. Theoretical framework

4.1.1. Learning

My approach to language learning is rooted in the transdisciplinary framework put forth by the Douglas Fir Group (2016). A visual depiction of this model is located below.

101

Figure 5. “The Multifaceted Nature of Language Learning and Teaching” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016).

This model depicts language teaching and learning as a phenomenon that happens on a number of different levels. At the micro level, learning is driven by neurobiological and cognitive abilities situated in contexts of language use: factors like individual working memory and aptitude operate at this level to affect an individual’s language learning. This individual exists in a social context, in which language learning is affected by the social interactions that learners have with others. These social factors are, in turn, situated

102 within a meso level of communities and institutions; people and their language use are all affected by (and have an effect on) the communities in which they take part. Finally, these communities are embedded within the macro level of ideologies, which shape communities and the language practices within them.

Each level, in this model, is embedded within the level beyond it. Influence flows both ways, with lower levels affecting higher levels and vice versa. For example, ideologies shape communities, but communities also shape ideologies; communities shape individuals, but individuals also shape communities; individuals guide interpersonal interactions, but interpersonal interactions also affect individuals’ personalities and language capacities.

The model is holistic. It also does not give primary importance to any particular school of SLA research. The cognitive school of SLA research informs the micro levels of the model, showing how neurological mechanisms on an individual level can shape language ability. The sociocultural school of SLA research informs the meso levels of the model by providing insight into the role of social interaction and community in language learning. Broad cultural research, meanwhile, provides insight into the ideological forces that shape language learning and language use.

This model — unsurprisingly — encourages research that utilizes multiple methods of data collection and analysis. For example, under this model, a research paper that explores constructs like aptitude in a social context would be fruitful.

My project is rooted in this holistic approach to language learning. In it, I examine interactions amongst varying levels of learning. My research pursues questions of

103 ideology and individuals’ cultural self-image — something that is rooted in the relationship between the micro (individual) and macro (ideological) layers. At the same time, I also look at how questions of self-image shape learners’ access to and use of language resources, especially sociolinguistic resources. I also believe that helping to develop and reshape an individual’s ideologies can assist in the acquisition of linguistic resources.

This view of language learning has consequences for the questions that this research concerns itself with. First, it has influenced me to take a mixed-methods approach to my research. This model sees learning as something that is shaped by social interaction, by cognitive factors, and by broader ideologies. Therefore, my research endeavors to examine learning from a cognitive perspective, by measuring learning outcomes through tests that capture unconscious attitudes and automatized knowledge. At the same time, I also endeavor to capture learning from a sociocultural perspective.

The sociocultural perspective, as articulated by Vygotsky (2012) and interpreted for SLA by authors such as Lantolf (Lantolf & Appel, 1994) holds that learning is a process that is mediated by cultural tools. These tools can include, but are not limited to, language and various cultural artifacts.

Therefore, in this study, I envision the Internet as a mediating tool that allows language learners access to views of languages other than their own and cultural practices that differ from theirs. From this viewpoint, language and cultural awareness can be learned via engagement with this mediating tool. The online course, meanwhile, along with my feedback and support, helps mediate student engagement with the Internet and

104 the process of ethnographic cultural exploration. Through the use of this online tool, students are able to build their expertise to the point that they can engage critically with the target culture.

The sociocultural perspective also emphasizes interaction as a mechanism of learning: this interaction does not occur merely between teacher and student, but also amongst peers. Consequently, the online course was constructed to allow interaction amongst students.

Finally, I also envision meta-knowledge as a mediating tool that learners can use to understand and automatize their knowledge. Evidence has suggested that metalinguistic knowledge facilitates learning and using languages (Brooks & Kempe,

2013; Jacqueline Thomas, 1988). I begin from the assumption that metalinguistic knowledge is involved in second language use, rather than standing as something independent of it. Metacultural knowledge, similarly, I see as part of intercultural competence. Therefore, measurements of metapragmatic and metacultural knowledge are, in fact, simply measurements of knowledge, understood broadly.

4.1.2. Culture and intercultural competence

My view of culture is fundamentally postmodern in nature. Specifically, my view aligns with authors such as Anderson (1983), Holliday (1999), and Risager (2007) (see sections

1.1.2 and 1.2.1 for more in-depth overviews of these perspectives). According to this perspective, culture is a set of beliefs, behaviors, and norms that are negotiated at the 105 local level. Essentially, culture as something real is only found in communities of practice. There is, however, also imagined culture, one which is associated with imagined communities (Anderson 1983) or the “large cultures” described by Holliday. Essentially, this imagined culture grows out of the images, narratives, and cultural artifacts associated with the imagined community by the media in particular. These images may or may not reflect any sort of objective reality; however, they often influence reality, as these myths can affect attitudes towards what constitutes proper behavior and can shape senses of belonging. Indeed, forces such as nationalism, which can have deadly consequences, grow out of the imagined community and its associated myths. Imagined communities, after all, are not imaginary: they have real impact upon people and affect their identities and attitudes.

This postmodern perspective has several consequences for this project. Primarily, it shapes my view on what constitutes “cultural learning.” Because I do not see culture at the national level as something real, I do not believe that learning “facts” about a culture actually increases cultural knowledge. Therefore, the course that involves “teaching culture” does not endeavor to describe “Russian culture.” Learning national myths and attitudes is not completely irrelevant, because learning about these aspects of other cultures encourages empathetic thinking and perspective-taking and allows knowledge of the contexts of others’ perspectives; however, the knowledge in and of itself is not cultural competence, and the accumulation of facts is not sufficient for cultural competence. Instead, learning culture involves the growth of skills of critical inquiry, critical engagement, and empathy. It also involves the growth of self-knowledge: because

106 the only “real” culture is the agreed-upon norms of a given community, understanding culture requires understanding one’s own place in relationship to others. Furthermore, it is worth noting that cultural competence, in this viewpoint, is not something that happens in a vacuum. Rather, it emerges in cooperation with others: skills of empathy, perspective-taking, and engagement emerge from social interaction.

The perspective also shapes my view of the interrelationship between language and culture. Many models omit linguistic competence as an element of intercultural competence (see Chapter 1). However, my skills-based view of intercultural competence foregrounds interactive abilities. Because cultural competence is not constructed in a vacuum, but is instead built in cooperation with others, one cannot be culturally competent without the ability to communicate. Furthermore, one cannot be culturally competent without the ability to position oneself in a communicative situation; this by necessity demands skills in sociolinguistic and pragmatic domains, as this element of language ability permits speakers to construct particular social identities in cooperation with others.

This perspective also means that I favor certain models of intercultural competence over others. Several of the more popular models of ICC are incompatible with my perspective on culture. For example, Bennett’s DMIS focuses on the development of skills rather than on the accumulation of knowledge; however, the unidirectional course of development, the irrelevance of language to development, and the fact that interaction plays no role in constructing intercultural competence mean that the view of ICC presented there is overly simplistic for my purposes.

107

Other models hew closer to my view of ICC. For example, Byram’s Intercultural

Competence Model foregrounds interactive competence as a component of ICC; it also foregrounds self-knowledge as the central component of ICC (Byram, 2012). However, the primary drawback of this model is that it represents ICC as a semi-static state; important in my conception of ICC is that it is dynamic.

This theoretical background leads naturally to certain practical decisions in this study. Because of my general epistemology and theory of language, when I actually begin to analyze the data, I need something that is interaction-focused, dynamic, and foregrounds elements of ICC that I think are crucial. In my search for an appropriate tool for analysis, I settled on Deardorff’s (2006) Process Model of ICC. This model includes a number of components which seem to me to be crucial to ICC: it factors in language ability, self-knowledge, various skills, and attitudes. It also emphasizes the iterative nature of intercultural competence. After all, successful encounters lead to better attitudes and expanded skills, which in turn lead to more successful encounters: at its core, I see

ICC as a cycle in which continued experience feeds continued growth. Therefore,

Deardorff’s model is the one I employ in this research to conceptualize ICC.

A number of the concepts in Deardorff’s model, however, are somewhat nebulous and underdefined. While she gives some explanation of what each component actually entails (e.g., “respect” is defined as “valuing other cultures, cultural diversity”; openness is defined as “openness to intercultural learning and to people from other cultures, withholding judgment”) these explanations are overall relatively brief.

108

Consequently, I expand upon each of these concepts below. My definitions are based upon my common-sense understanding of these concepts, as well as upon my sense of how they are used in the literature overall. I do not claim that these are the definitions of the concepts as Deardorff or all other scholars have used them; these are merely the precise definitions of the terms that I am using throughout this dissertation.

1. Attitudes

a. Curiosity and discovery: These are the qualities of seeking out and valuing new

experiences and perspectives. There are many sources of evidence demonstrating

the qualities of curiosity and discovery: for example, stories about seeking out

new situations could be evidence of curiosity, as could career goals that focus on

research and learning, as could simply discussing and raising new topics of

interest in the midst of interviews; likewise, expressing uncertainty is understood

to be evidence of curiosity, as recognizing one’s lack of knowledge is a sign of an

awareness that there is more to learn. More difficult is finding evidence for a lack

of curiosity. Evidence of lower levels of curiosity can include making statements

with high levels of certainty, as recognizing ambiguity and uncertainty is taken to

be evidence of curiosity; expressing indifference to open-ended or broad cultural

questions; and expressing preference for the familiar over the new.

b. Openness: Openness is the quality of suspending judgment when confronted

with new experiences and perspectives. Evidence of openness on the part of a

speaker can include engaging with new situations instead of attempting to escape

109

from those situations, tolerance of ambiguity, and avoiding value judgments while

speaking about others and their perspectives. A lack of openness is indicated by

disengagement with new situations, dislike of ambiguity, negative emotional

reactions in situations of disagreement, and the assignment of value judgments

(positive or negative) to other cultures, perspectives, or experiences.

c: Respect: Respect is the quality of valuing perspectives and experiences that are

unlike one’s own perspectives and experiences. Respect can be identified by

making positive statements about or discussing the positive qualities of others’

perspectives and experiences; it can also be identified by the speaker adhering to

what they perceive to be the appropriate norms for discussing these perspectives

and experiences, such as using preferred terminology. A lack of respect can be

identified by the speaker discussing the negative qualities of others’ perspectives

and experiences, as well as not respecting the perceived norms for discussing

them. In Deardorff’s model, she particularly identifies “respect for diversity” as a

key quality of ICC; accordingly, I focus on discussions of diversity in my

analysis.

2. Skills and knowledge

a. Skills

i. Analysis, evaluation, reflection: Skills of analysis are the skills which

allow an individual to reason through evidence to arrive at a solution. It is

the ability to solve both complex and simple problems in a logical manner

on the basis of available evidence and common-sense skills. Evidence of

110 analytic skills includes evidence of sustained problem-solving; evidence of a lack of analytic skills includes avoiding problem-solving. Skills of evaluation are the skills which allow individuals to assess given states of being or situations; effective evaluation involves using explicit, predetermined, or common-sense criteria to come to a value judgment.

Evidence of evaluative skills includes discussions of evidence-gathering for the purpose of judgment or being explicit about the motivations for certain value judgments; evidence of a lack of evaluative skills includes coming to value judgments without evidence gathering or without considering explicit criteria. Skills of reflection are an individual’s ability to be aware of and critically reflect upon their own mental and emotional states. Evidence of reflection includes explicit discussion of the speaker’s mental/emotional state, particularly employing explicit criteria; evidence of a lack of reflection includes the exclusion of personal discussion from discussion and writing, as well as reliance upon stereotyped or shallow narratives in discussing emotional and mental states. ii. Listening, observation, interpretation: Skills of listening and observation are skills of evidence-gathering. Listening is the ability to gather information in active conversation with others, while observation is the ability to gather information independently through attending to the world around oneself. Evidence of listening skills are taken from interviews and assignments, and include engagement with and reflection

111

on readings, following guidance, and attentiveness to interview questions.

Evidence of a lack of listening skills includes non-engagement with

readings and failure to follow guidance on assignments. Evidence of

observational skills is taken largely from assignments, and includes data-

collection ability and incidental noticing. A lack of observational skills

includes frustration and difficulty during data-gathering assignments and

failures to pick up on aspects of assignments. Skills of interpretation are

the ability to translate evidence into conclusions. Evidence of interpretive

skills includes drawing clear and logical conclusions from evidence;

evidence of lacking interpretive skills includes drawing unclear or illogical

conclusions from evidence. b. Knowledge

i. Cultural self-awareness: Cultural self-awareness is the understanding of

and ability to articulate one’s cultural identity or identities. An individual

with cultural self-awareness understands how they have been shaped by

their cultural environment or environments; they do not necessarily resist

or push against their cultural identity, but rather comprehend its

importance in their cognition. Evidence for cultural self-awareness

includes the ability to discuss and analyze one’s cultural identity on the

basis of explicit criteria based in the real world; evidence for a lack of

cultural self-awareness includes expressing beliefs that minimize the

112 importance of culture in one’s background or simply depicting one’s cultural identity in terms of stereotyped descriptors of one’s culture. ii. Culture-specific information: Culture-specific information refers to the knowledge about the practices, products, and perspectives of a given culture; specifically, this refers to the background culture of the individual that one is interacting with. Evidence for cultural-specific information includes discussion of aspects of cultural products such as historical narratives, literature, and film; discussion of aspects of cultural practices such as traditions, rituals, and patterns of daily life; and discussion of aspects of cultural perspectives, such as political, religious, and intellectual values. Evidence for a lack of culture-specific information includes a failure to adequately discuss cultural information at points at which that would be appropriate or a citation of stereotyped information in place of deeper knowledge. iii. Deep cultural understanding: Deep cultural understanding refers to the understanding of culture as a construct. It is not culture-specific, but instead is a broader understanding of what culture is: it is a comprehension that culture is not tied to language group, ethnicity, or nationality and that, although it is not objectively real, it can shape and affect individuals’ behavior. Evidence for deep cultural understanding can include reflective analyses of how culture comes into being, the ability to distinguish between culture and other constructs like ethnicity and nationality, and an

113

understanding of how others can be shaped by their culture. Evidence for a

lack of deep cultural understanding can include an inability to articulate

cultural understandings and a denial of the existence or importance of

culture.

iv. Sociolinguistic awareness: Sociolinguistic awareness is an awareness

of the way in which language and culture interact generally, as well as a

language-specific knowledge of the sociolinguistic system. Evidence for

general sociolinguistic awareness includes an ability to discuss the role

language plays in culture, a tolerance for linguistic difference, and an

understanding of the social power of language variation; evidence for a

lack of general sociolinguistic awareness includes a lack of understanding

of the social power of language and a dislike for or intolerance of

linguistic difference. Evidence for language-specific sociolinguistic

awareness includes discussions of linguistic variation in the target

language and an understanding of the linguistic resources needed to

express one’s identity in the target culture; evidence for a lack of

language-specific sociolinguistic awareness can include things like

minimizing linguistic variation in the target language, expressing a lack of

knowledge of various registers and accents, and expressing an inability to

communicate one’s identity in the target language.

3. Internal outcomes

114 a. Adaptability: Adaptability is the ability to adjust to new situations or conditions or to new speech situations. New situations could include, for example, an entry into a new culture or a different educational situation. Evidence of adaptability can include discussions of learning to live in new cultures or discussions of adapting speech norms to others’ norms; for example, being aware of one’s own speech changes in response to others’ speech would show adaptability.

Discussions of avoiding or leaving new experiences are taken as evidence of low adaptability, as are individuals’ expressions of preference for the familiar; so too are indications that their speech never changes. b. Empathy: I define empathy according to the social-psychological work that has been done on the subject. Carré, Stefaniak, D’Ambrosio, Bensalah, and Besche-

Richard (2013) describe empathy as a three-factor system. The first factor, emotional contagion, describes how prone people are to being affected by others’ emotions when they are exposed to them. The second, cognitive empathy, describes the ability to consciously and rationally understand others’ emotional states. The third factor, emotional disconnection, is the ability to regulate emotions and protect oneself against distress and pain; it is related in an inverse fashion to empathy, meaning that greater emotional disconnection means a lower level of empathic functioning. Therefore, empathy in this paper is identified by looking for a combination of emotional contagion and cognitive empathy, with emotional disconnection understood as a factor that is adverse to empathy.

Evidence of empathy includes descriptions of times at which emotions were

115 contagious or verbal reasoning through others’ emotional states. Evidence of lower empathy includes descriptions of emotional detachment or reasoning away emotional reactions. c. Ethnorelative view: An ethnorelative view is a viewpoint in which an individual accepts the validity of all groups and cultural practices. This viewpoint does not mean denying differences amongst people or groups; instead, it entails acknowledging differences but recognizing that no one point of view is superior to any other. Evidence of an ethnorelative viewpoint can include discussions of cultures that uses neutral or nonjudgmental terms, as well as consideration and evaluation of cultural viewpoints. Evidence of lacking an ethnorelative viewpoint can include dismissal of other cultures or promotion of particular cultures over others. d. Flexibility: Flexibility is the ability to deal with stressors, particularly new or unfamiliar ones, by changing one’s perspective or patterns of behavior. This is a concept that overlaps with adaptability, above; the primary difference is that adaptability is the ability to change one’s patterns of behavior in the long term, while flexibility describes the ability to react quickly to immediate or unexpected developments. Evidence of flexibility includes descriptions of incidents in which an individual was able to come up with solutions to conflicts or unexpected occurrences, tolerance of ambiguity, and the tendency to seek out unfamiliar situations. Evidence of a lack of flexibility includes indications of dislike of

116

ambiguity, resisting change, and becoming overwhelmed or unhappy in instances

of uncertainty.

4. External outcomes

a. Behaving and communicating effectively: Effective behavior is behavior that

accomplishes what the individual wants it to accomplish. Essentially, if someone

is able to achieve their goals in an interaction, their behavior and speech has been

effective. This study does not observe its participants in cross-cultural

communicative scenarios, so the participants cannot be judged on their actual

efficacy in interactions; instead, self-reported efficacy serves as a stand-in. I use

this with the caveat that reported successes very likely do not perfectly correspond

to actual successes, as some individuals might inflate either their success rate or

their failures in recounting them. Nevertheless, the psychological condition of

believing oneself effective very likely has real repercussions for actual efficacy,

and so it is used here.

b. Behaving and communicating appropriately: Appropriate behavior is behavior

that brings about in others the social effect that one desires.13 Likewise, the ability

to observe whether participants accomplish this in cross-cultural communication

scenarios is not within the purview of this study. However, again, self-reporting

can provide insight into participants’ actual abilities. Consequently, self-

13 At times, “appropriate” communication is defined as the ability to communicate in a way that is acceptable to one’s interlocutors (e.g., Arasaratnam, 2009); however, there are in fact instances in which an individual might wish to be decidedly unacceptable in their behavior, such as during confrontations. Consequently, I adopt this less concrete but more precise definition. 117

evaluation of communicative appropriateness in stories and anecdotes is used as a

measure of actual appropriateness.

4.1.3. Sociolinguistic competence

As laid out in Chapter 2, many discussions of L2 pragmatic and sociolinguistic competence actually center around sociolinguistic knowledge. Much of the literature on the acquisition of sociolinguistics and pragmatics defines acquisition as becoming increasingly target language-like in one’s production of sociolinguistic features.

However, from my point of view, just like intercultural competence is not a set of memorized facts or production of target-like behaviors, sociolinguistic competence does not consist of knowing or even producing target-like features in the L2. Rather, it consists of having the ability to use target-language sociolinguistic features to adequately represent one’s identity and achieve one’s social goals in the target language.

Unfortunately, this view of sociolinguistic competence has not been sufficiently theorized for there to be, to my knowledge, postmodern or skills-based models of this construct. Consequently, in this research, I had to devise my own model of intercultural competence. This model was designed to parallel models of intercultural competence, such as Deardorff’s 2006 model, under the assumption that sociolinguistic competence is tied closely to intercultural competence.

118

The model is as follows:

Attitudes Knowledge Skills Curiosity and Pragmalinguistic knowledge Speech awareness discovery (knowledge of pragmatic forms in the Social awareness Respect for L2) Linguistic and diversity Sociopragmatic knowledge paralinguistic ability Desire for (knowledge of the social roles and and fluency integration rules that govern appropriate Linguistic self- pragmatic usage) confidence Knowledge of variation (knowledge of the rules that link pragmalinguistic forms to social information) Critical cultural awareness (awareness of own cultural identity and others’ cultural identities)

Figure 6: A model of sociolinguistic competence

Like in the model of intercultural competence, attitudes lead to a growth in knowledge and skills. Knowledge and skills, meanwhile, lead to positive outcomes, which in turn lead back to improved attitudes and increased self-confidence, which in turn lead to development of key attitudes and skills.

However, like as was the case for intercultural competence, this study did not examine direct interaction with other individuals in the L2. Thus, it was not possible to evaluate skills such as linguistic ability and fluency. Consequently, these facets of sociolinguistic ability were excluded when participants’ sociolinguistic ability was measured; this is discussed further in section 4.3, which deals with data-collection methods.

119

4.1.4. Pedagogy

A part of this study involves leading students through an online course. I designed this course according to certain principles that I see as important for learning generally, but particularly online. The course was designed according to the principles of active learning, a mode of teaching that foregrounds participatory activities over lecturing or reading as the central mode of learning (Dee Fink, 2013). The course as I designed it did have a few readings as a means of communicating information; however, the bulk of the course was centered around activities such as data collection and analysis and reflective writing. Research has indicated that this is an effective means of instruction, particularly in online environments (Prince, 2004), which is why I have utilized it in my online course.

4.2. Methods

Out of the concerns and interests listed above grew the following research questions.

1. Is it possible to increase language learners’ intercultural and sociolinguistic

competence by having them engage in quasi-ethnographic inquiry regarding an

aspect of their target culture, using online language data to investigate their

question?

2. How does learner engagement affect these sociolinguistic and intercultural

outcomes?

120

3. Can this ethnographic program be made widely accessible by making it scalable

to those outside of the traditional classroom setting?

In order to answer these questions, I trained two groups in qualitative methods and had them engage in ethnographic inquiries. Descriptions of my exact procedures follows.

4.2.1. Phase 1: The Summer Language Institute

Context. Phase 1 of the study was carried out at the University of Pittsburgh’s Summer

Language Institute (SLI). The SLI is a program run annually in which university students, both graduate and undergraduate, undertake summer study of a foreign language. The languages offered varies from year to year; in the summer of 2018, the languages included Arabic, BCS, Bulgarian, Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Slovak, Turkish, and Ukrainian. Of these programs, the Russian program is the most robust: there are four levels offered, more than any other language. Students have the choice of studying in a domestic intensive program only, which takes place over eight weeks at University of

Pittsburgh; they also have the choice of in a hybrid program, which begins as a domestic intensive program at University of Pittsburgh lasting five weeks, after which the students travel to Moscow to engage in a five-week study abroad program.

During this domestic intensive program, Russian-language students spend approximately four to five hours per day in class: three hours in the morning, then another two hours in the afternoon on days with no extracurricular activities. On days that feature extracurricular activities, class is shortened to accommodate them. The students are also assigned daily homework that is intended to take approximately three to four 121 hours, although actual amount of time spent on homework can vary. Intermediate courses use the textbook Russian: From Intermediate to Advanced (Kagan, Kudyma, & Miller,

2014), with the course generally following the grammatical and curricular sequence presented in the book; in practice, classes utilize communicative activities developed by the instructor, rather than drawing primarily upon textbook material.

In addition to the daily language classes, students participate in extracurricular activities related to language study. Some of these activities are mandatory, such as film screenings, singing classes, and guest lectures. The singing classes and film series are exclusively for Russian students; the songs and films are both in the Russian language.

The lecture series, however, is intended for students of all languages; the lectures are in

English and deal with issues of general interest (such as the nature of linguistic variation and implications for learning an L2 or the history of languages) or serve as overviews of cultural issues (such as lectures covering coffee-drinking culture in Turkey, given by the

Turkish instructor, or a lecture from the Czech instructor on beer culture). There are also weekly picnics hosted by the other language groups: for example, the first week of the program featured a Polish/Czech picnic, the second a BCS picnic, and so on. They consist of a meal of traditional foods from the language area being represented, with one of the dishes cooked by the students themselves. These picnics are optional, but are generally widely attended.

On the whole, Russian is the proverbial “elephant in the room” at the SLI.

Because of a number of factors, including the strength of Pittsburgh’s Russian program and the general status of Russian as a policy-relevant language, Russian students

122 outnumber all the other students. Moreover, four levels of Russian are offered; no other language goes beyond the third year. It is worth noting that the popularity of Russian is not driven by funding, as indeed other languages often have funding available after

Russian funding has been assigned. The Russian program is also culturally dominant within the SLI: very often, Russian students form a sort of cohort amongst themselves, with non-Russian language students forming a separate cohort. The administration’s awareness of the dominance of the Russian program can be seen in the programming, with many of the lectures and the sequencing of the picnics designed deliberately to ensure that non-Russian languages receive exposure and attention.

The program is relatively expensive. The domestic-only program costs students

$6,290, while the hybrid program costs students between $9,100 and $9,300, depending on the students’ residency status. However, these costs are frequently defrayed by financial aid packages supplied by SLI such as FLAS awards, which pay for tuition in full and award a stipend to selected United States citizens in the program; the Project GO scholarship, which covers language study for military affiliates; and a Summer Language

Institute scholarship, which covers a portion of the cost. Funds for these scholarships are provided partially by Title VI, a federal funding source; partially by UCIS, the area studies center at Pittsburgh; and partially by tuition income from the previous year’s SLI participants.

All participants who apply for a grant are awarded some amount of money, though not always the full amount. Selection criteria for the more lucrative grants include academic credentials, language of study (with languages that have lower enrollments

123 incentivized with additional grants) and choice of study abroad or domestic program.

Therefore, the costs are brought down for most participants, particularly those with remarkable academic credentials, which makes the program more accessible and affordable than — for example —traditional study abroad to Russia. However, it should be noted that participation in the program requires some degree of financial security, as participants generally cannot hold jobs while participating, and some of the participants still have to pay some portion of the costs.

Participants. The participants in Phase 1 of this project were Summer Language Institute students who took part in the online course and project. Participation in this group was open to students studying at second- through fourth-year Russian. Participants were recruited via an email sent approximately two weeks before the beginning of the program, targeted to students who had already signed up for Russian study at SLI.

Potential participants were offered an incentive of $175 for their participation and were advised that participation would take approximately twenty-four hours of their time spread over eight weeks. Six individuals from a variety of academic and personal backgrounds volunteered their time for this project, with one dropping out in the first week when he withdrew from the Summer Language Institute.

The remaining five participants in this project were all enrolled in second- or third-year Russian. They were either graduate students or advanced undergraduates nearing the completion of their academic program. Three of them (Sarah, Mary, and

124

Andy14) had prior international experience, while the remaining two (Anna and Rob) had not traveled abroad previously. Four of the five were enrolled in a domestic course at

SLI, while one (Rob) was traveling abroad to Russia later in the summer as part of the hybrid program.

Procedure. Participants in Phase 1 of this study began by carrying out an online training.

The online courses by which students were trained in ethnography and culture theory were designed in accordance with several key pedagogical principles. First, the course was student-centered; I, as the instructor, did not engage in any lecturing or direct instruction, but instead taught primarily through problem-based assignments such as data collection or carrying out investigations. Readings were provided in the first iteration of the course; however, these readings were reduced in the second iteration of the course in response to participant feedback. Finally, instructor feedback on assignments was provided regularly, once a week, in order to increase levels of interaction and engagement (Vrasidas & McIsaac, 1999).

The course used to train the participants in Phase 1 lasted for four weeks. Because the participants were on break from university at that time, they were expected to spend more time per week for fewer weeks than the students in the classroom study. Each week of the course presented a new unit, designed to cover a new topic; participants were expected to spend approximately two hours on each unit. Descriptions of these units, along with detailed information about assignments, follows.

14 All names used are pseudonyms, and personal details have been changed. 125

Figure 7: Screenshot from landing page for online course

Unit 1: “Culture is a Thing We Do.” This unit was focused primarily on having students think critically about their cultural identities and their assumptions about culture. In particular, assignments were designed to create discomfort with more traditional, modernist views of culture, under the belief that discomfort would contribute to curiosity and openness to new intellectual viewpoints; under Deardorff’s model, these attitudes will contribute to subsequent cultural learning.

126

Figure 8: Screenshot from Unit 1

Unit 2: “Cultural Perspectives Shape the Way We Talk.” This unit was focused on providing an alternative view of culture, presenting the students with a “small cultures” framework for understanding culture (Holliday, 1999), supplemented with readings from

Holliday, Hyde, and Kullman (2010). Additionally, the unit began introducing the idea that language can be used as a cultural tool, as well as the idea that language is something that can be studied. In keeping with the idea that curiosity and openness are key elements of intercultural learning, I took care when designing the course to never assert that the

“small cultures” framework was correct, nor that a postmodernist view of culture was; instead, I presented it as an alternative that students could utilize to think about culture.

127

Figure 9: Screenshot from Unit 2

Unit 3: “The Way We Talk Shapes Our Cultural Perspectives.” This unit focused on introducing ethnography as a methodology for studying language and culture, particularly for studying the interaction between the two. In particular, the unit focused on a discussion of dominant discourses in order to underline the importance of suspending judgment and examining their underlying biases when writing and thinking about culture.

It also presented them with an example of an ethnographic study of Russian talk during

Perestroika (Ries, 1997), asking them to read and analyze this study and comment upon the techniques the author used to carry out her research.

128

Figure 10: Screenshot from Unit 3

Unit 4: “We Can Scientifically Investigate the Link Between Language and Culture.”

This unit focused on giving students some practical experience in exploring other cultures using ethnographic methods. It did so through a guided assignment in which the students collected data from the comments section of a YouTube video. It also gave guidelines on selecting a project to do for the ethnographic assignment; students were not required to propose a project, but instead came to a subsequent meeting having thought about the project. At this meeting, they discussed possible projects with me, and I provided advice on how they might proceed.

129

Figure 11: Screenshot from Unit 4

Ethnographic exploration. Following the end of the online course, participants began an online ethnographic exploration in which they chose a speech community and investigated their patterns of speech, with feedback given as they progressed through this.

They also periodically wrote reflective blog entries as they conducted this assignment.

All assignments given as part of the online course can be found in Appendix E.

4.2.2. Phase 2: The Ohio State University

Context. The second phase of the study was carried out at The Ohio State University, in cooperation with the university’s Russian program.

130

The Ohio State University is a large midwestern institution in an urban setting. It has nearly 70,000 students enrolled across several campuses; unsurprisingly, given that number, it also has a wide variety of academic programs, majors, and colleges. The university is highly research-driven, but also claims a strong emphasis on undergraduate teaching.

Foreign language teaching at this university falls under the auspices of the

College of Arts and Sciences, which is subdivided into a number of departments of languages, literatures, and cultures (LLC15). One of these departments is the Department of Slavic and Eastern European Languages and Cultures. This department is one of the smaller language departments at the university, but maintains a graduate program and significant language enrollments. As is common in LLCs generally, the department teaches both language courses and culture courses. The culture courses are typically conducted in English, although certain upper-division courses can have components that are taught in Russian. Language courses are largely taught in the target language, using the Communicative Method; however, there are a few language courses that utilize the students’ L1 (such as a course on teaching Russian reading skills).

As at SLI, Russian is dominant culturally within the department. The majority of faculty are primarily Russianists, though many also have a secondary specialization. The overwhelming majority of graduate students, likewise, are Russianists. Russian language

15 LLC will be used as a shorthand from this point on to refer to departments that are dedicated to the study of a particular region, language group, and/or culture. These departments are specifically those with a traditional, humanistic/linguistic orientation, rather than those that focus on issues of political science or sociology (e.g., the programs sponsored by the Department of Education’s National Resource Centers Program). 131 courses see larger enrollments than any other language branch, and is indeed taught up to the fifth year with additional classes for advanced speakers; however, the department does also offer courses in Polish, BCS, and Romanian, as well as a Czech distance- learning course.

Russian classes are held four times per week for 55 minutes per session from the first through third year. Fourth-year Russian is held three times per week for 55 minutes per session; fifth-year Russian is held twice per week for 80 minutes per session. In accordance with the time commitment, first through third year earns students four credits towards completion of their degree; fourth- and fifth-year Russian earns students three credits. This means that the early levels of Russian are both a more significant time commitment and a more significant financial commitment, as tuition rates at the university depend upon the number of credits for which a student is registered.

This study was done in cooperation with an advanced Russian class. This class consisted of students who had completed at least three years of Russian, with others having completed more. This class focused upon improving Russian language skills, with most classroom time devoted to giving students chances to utilize their Russian in conversation with one another and to exercises that developed skills of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation.

Participants. There were 15 participants from the Ohio State University in this phase of the study (with data analysis performed on the eight students who answered both the pretest and post-test surveys). Initially, because the university ran several sections of

132

Advanced Russian that semester, I had planned to recruit students from other Russian courses to serve as a control group in a quasi-experimental design. However, data from the first administration of the questionnaires showed a significant difference between the two groups at the start of the study. A t-test revealed a significant difference between the intercultural competence of the experimental (M=65.99, SD=18.70) and control

(M=44.47, SD=20.32) groups (t(7)=8.917, p<0.05). Another t-test revealed a significant difference between the sociolinguistic competence of the experimental (M=58.57,

SD=17.39) and control (M=37.35, SD=22.38) groups (t(7) = 8.256, p<.05).

The assignment of students into different classes is, of course, non-random; students will self-select their section based upon factors such as timeslot and pre-existing relationship with the section instructor. If, in spite of this, the students in the various sections had seemed to be uniform, I might have still been able to use these students as a control group; however, the results of these initial surveys indicated that the groups were dissimilar. This, combined with high rates of participant attrition from the potential control group, lead to my decision to eliminate the control group from the study.

Another difference was in the amount of contact I had with students in Phase 2.

The participants’ primary point of contact during Phase 2 was their regular instructor, rather than me. I corresponded with the students via email and through the feedback that I provided on their assignments. I also spoke with them at two points: once via Skype at the beginning of the study, and once in-person at the end of the study. This is in contrast with Phase 1, in which I met with the participants periodically to conduct interviews.

133

Procedure. The online course also differed between Phases 1 and 2. Feedback from the participants in Phase 1 was used to adjust the curriculum. My goal in making these alterations was primarily to make the curriculum more engaging and fun in order to foster higher levels of participation and more persistence. Feedback from the first-round participants emphasized that heavy reading was often de-motivating and led them to lose interest. Assignments that allowed them to engage with real language use, on the other hand, was far more engaging. Consequently, I reduced reading-based assignments in order to put greater emphasis on data analysis and gathering. Feedback also indicated that participants had a hard time getting started on their ethnographic project; in this second iteration, I broke the creation of the ethnographic project into a smaller number of finite assignments that would assist them in its completion. This reduced some of their ability to freely explore, but also reduced uncertainty.

Because this phase of the project was integrated into a Russian language course, the per-week workload had to be reduced. The assignments teaching ethnographic methods and culture were given alongside the standard homework assignments for the course, which meant that these culture-focused assignments needed to match the length and format of the usual, language-focused homework assignments. In general, students were expected to spend roughly an hour on homework per night, so I attempted to make the culture assignments take the same amount of time.16 The assignments can be found in

Appendix F.

16 It is worth noting that several students complained about the length of these assignments even so. This information was received secondhand, from the regular instructor, and so I was not able to follow up with the students. I think it is possible that the assignments were longer than I had thought they were when I was assigning them. It is, however, also possible that language-focused homework assignments take less than an 134

Additionally, in this phase of the study, the assignments were graded. Participants received a score of 5 (full points, given for completion of the assignment with clear effort and thought put in), 3 (partial points, given for brief, sloppy, or partial completion of the assignment), or 0 (when nothing was submitted) on their assignments. In practice, no participants actually received a score of 3 on any assignments; they either completed the task with enough thought and consideration to merit full points, or they didn’t do the assignment at all. In addition to point scores, detailed feedback was given to the participants.

Finally, the methods of data collection differed slightly between Phase 2 and

Phase 1. The increased number of participants meant that I focused much less on collecting and analyzing qualitative data. I did not conduct interviews with the participants; rather, I used questionnaires as my primary data collection method, with qualitative data from their assignments used to supplement and contextualize the results from their surveys.

4.3. Data collection

Several different types of data were collected over the course of this study with the intent of triangulating intercultural and sociolinguistic development from several different perspectives. The data types were as follows.

hour, perhaps because students are very familiar with the process and have techniques for completing the assignments more efficiently. Another possibility is that, because the culture assignments have several subcomponents, they feel “longer” even though they are, in fact, taking the same amount of time as the standard language-focused assignments. 135

4.3.1. Questionnaires

Questionnaires were administered to elicit information about participants in both

Phase 1 and Phase 2. See Tables 1 and 2 at the end of this chapter for information on the timing of the administration of each of these questionnaires. It must be noted that while these questionnaires were based upon the models of ICC and sociolinguistic competence that I discussed earlier, this dissertation was the first time that the questionnaires had been employed. While the questionnaires were piloted somewhat, they likely could have been piloted further: during data collection, there was a great deal of noise in the data, and several questions were at or near ceiling in participants’ responses. Before these questionnaires are used further they need refinement and revision.

Three types of questionnaires were used for the collection of quantitative data.

These questionnaires were:

1. Demographic questionnaire. This questionnaire was administered once at the beginning of the study in order to better understand participants’ personal and language- learning backgrounds.

The questionnaire was delivered via Qualtrics, an online survey platform.

Questions were presented using a combination of multiple-choice options, sliders, and free response questions. This survey can be found as Appendix A.

2. Intercultural questionnaire. The intercultural questionnaire was developed based upon Deardorff's (2006) developmental model of intercultural competence. This model was selected, as discussed above, for the specificity of its categories of

136 intercultural competence, its iterative structure, and the balance between the constructs of cultural self-awareness and awareness of the cultural other. Between two and four questions were developed that reflected each category of intercultural competence.

Participants responded to statements via slider. They were instructed to move the slider to indicate their level of agreement with statements about their abilities. The slider was set as a default to zero, with degree of agreement ranging between -100 and 100.

Figure 12: Sample questions from cultural questionnaire

The full questionnaire can be found as Appendix B.

137

3. Sociolinguistic questionnaire. This questionnaire was administered jointly with the cultural questionnaire. It was also delivered in the same format, with sliders set at zero and with possible degrees of agreement ranging between -100 and 100.

This questionnaire was based upon the model of sociolinguistic competence discussed in section 4.1.3. The questionnaire was split into two main sections: one that measured sociolinguistic attitudes and one that measured skills and knowledge.17 This survey consisted of 32 questions overall. The full questionnaire can be found as

Appendix C.

It is worth noting that this survey measured what participants perceived to be their linguistic abilities, which made it a somewhat imperfect tool. Reliance on perception meant that a very naïve learner who had never been in authentic interactions with members of a target-language speech community might rate themselves quite highly, because they simply where not aware of the gap between their abilities and the demands of the communicative situation. It is likely that events such as extensive language use or study abroad would cause a decrease in perceived abilities as language users encounter the limitations of their abilities. Likewise, someone with low sociolinguistic self- awareness might rate themselves highly, even though in practice they were frequently flubbing social interactions.

However, as discussed in my theoretical framework, I do not see pragmatic competence as native-like performance in the L2. Rather, pragmatic competence is the

17 Skills and knowledge were collapsed into a single category here due to the fact that the “skills” section was rather brief; because there was no way to observe actual interaction, there were relatively few areas where many of the sociolinguistic skills could be measured or observed. Future iterations of this survey will separate out skills and knowledge as individual categories. 138 ability to project an L2 identity in which the participant feels confident and secure. To achieve this confidence and security, the participants who are sensitive to miscommunications and communicative obstacles need tools that allow them to analyze where interactions went wrong. These are the participants who will rate themselves low at the beginning and, ideally, increase their measures of self-confidence over time. The fortunate, enviable individuals who are unaware of social friction and are self-confident from the very beginning will very likely rate themselves highly in the beginning of the study, and will continue to rate themselves highly over time.

In general, this assessment of sociolinguistic competence is one that anticipates long-term, overall growth in abilities, but also considerable instability and flux in the process of sociolinguistic development as self-confidence and perception of skill wax and wane.

4.3.2. Interviews

In Phase 1 of the study, data were also collected from interviews with the participants.

These interviews were semi-structured: I asked frequent follow-up questions over the course of the interview, both to increase the conversational nature of the interview and to pursue information that I had not anticipated eliciting when I was initially writing the questions. Questions primarily focused on cultural and language attitudes, as well as on participants’ perceptions of themselves and their identities. Generally, the questions were designed to be chatty and informal in order to reduce anxiety. Because of my role as an authority figure associated with an educational institution, I believed that participants in

139 these interviews would be very likely to foreground aspects of their identities dealing with their status as students and their intellectual pursuits. Consequently, I attempted to write questions that would elicit information on other aspects of their identities.

The first round of interviews was conducted via Skype in the week prior to the beginning of the online course. These calls were audio-recorded. The topic of this interview focused on the participants’ cultural background and self-perception, as well as delving deeper into their language learning history and motivations for learning the language.

The second round of interviews was conducted in Week 5 of the study, after the online course was completed. These interviews were conducted in-person. At this point, the students had been taking courses at SLI for approximately one week. Consequently, in the interview, I asked questions about SLI and their feelings on the program and language study. I also asked questions about the online course and their perceptions of it, focusing in particular on students’ affective responses to the course. Additionally, this round interviews of revisited some of the earlier questions on cultural outlooks and self- perceptions to examine whether their means of describing their culture had shifted in the time since the first interview. In this interview, I also spoke with the students about which question they might investigate as part of this study.

The third round of interviews was conducted in after the Summer Language

Institute was completed. This round of interviews was conducted online via Skype.

The full schedule of interview questions is available as Appendix D.

140

Because of the increased number of participants in Phase 2 of the study, using interviews as a data source was impractical. Consequently, interviews were not conducted for this phase.

4.3.3. Course data

Participants in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 regularly submitted assignments as part of their participation in the online course. These assignments consisted of a mixture of reading responses, reflective essays, and data analysis. The assignments were used as another source of data regarding participants’ intercultural competence and sociolinguistic competence.

4.4. Summary

The following tables summarize each phase of the study, its timing, and the types of data collected.

141

Interviews Cultural survey • • Week 7 Week Participation Ethnographic assignment Data collection

Week 6 Week Participation Ethnographic assignment

Interv iews Cultur al surve y • • Week 5 Week Participation Ethnographic assignment Data collection

Week 4 Week Participa tion Unit 4

Week 3 Week Particip ation Unit 3

Week 2 Week Participa tion Unit 2

Interviews Cultural survey Demographic survey : Procedure for Phase for1 ProcedurePhase :

1 • • • Week 1 Week Participation Unit 1 Data collection Table

142

Interviews Cultural survey

• • Week 7 Week Participation Unit 7 Data collection

Week 6 Week Participation Unit 6

Week 5 Week Participation Unit 5

Week 4 Week Participation Unit 4

Week 3 Week Participation Unit 3

Week 2 Week Participation Unit 2

: Procedure for Phase for2 ProcedurePhase : Cultural survey Demographic survey 2

• • Week 1 Week Participation Unit 1 Data collection Table

143

Chapter 5. Results: Overview

Introduction

This chapter will review the outcomes from the participants in both Phase 1 and Phase 2, looking at the participants’ growth in self-reported sociolinguistic competence and ICC.

In keeping with the type and amount of data collected, the analysis of the Phase 1 participants will be more detailed and nuanced, with a detailed breakdown of individual participants’ performance on surveys supported by qualitative data taken from interviews and assignments. The analysis of Phase 2 will be more high-level, focused on a statistical analysis of participants’ self-reported growth overall to evaluate the efficacy of the project.

5.1. Phase 1: Summer Language Institute

The following section will summarize the results from the participants in Phase 1. This summary will draw primarily upon the quantitative survey data, bringing in qualitative data from interviews and assignments to provide supporting evidence for these patterns or to attempt to explain something that might not be clear from the quantitative data alone.

144

5.1.1. Patterns of participation

A few generalizations can be made regarding the patterns of participation in this program.

Participation was high at the beginning of the study. One participant (Mary) began the study late, as she was traveling at that time; the others, however, began the study in the first week. The first two weeks saw consistent participation; in week three, however, several of the participants began falling behind, and in week four, only one participant (Anna) had completed everything on schedule. The others ended up completing most of the assignments from week four, but behind schedule, with Mary and

Andy falling behind the most.

Participation in the second part of the project, the data-collection phase, was far less consistent. Not coincidentally, this was happening at the same time as the classes in

SLI. The participants uniformly indicated that their classes were the primary reason they were falling behind on these projects; they prioritized work such as homework over the cultural work. They also indicated that, because this part of the project was less directed, they did not know how to proceed, and their fear of doing something wrong interfered with their progress. Finally, the online environment was a factor that limited project completion: Mary in particular stated that, because she was not seeing me (the researcher) every day, she did not feel obligated to work on the online course in the way she worked on her regular, in-person classes.

In the end, Sarah and Anna completed the projects to the greatest degree, collecting and analyzing data. Rob did so as well, although after a delay; he was traveling abroad, and pushed the project off until after he returned from his sojourn; however, he 145 did a good amount of work on it. Andy completed strong preliminary work on his project, but did not proceed very far. Mary — who had started late — completed the online course during SLI, but then did not complete the project once these classes were finished.

In general, it is clear that participation was fullest when there were fewer demands on the participants’ time: when classes began, participation dropped off sharply. In interviews, the participants indicated that these were linked, with classes prioritized over the online course. Additionally, it seems that the online format lowered participants’ sense of the importance of project participation. Nevertheless, all but one of the participants completed some part of the project, most of them enough to be able to talk at some length about the data they had collected and the relationship between their data and culture more broadly.

Sarah Diminutive use amongst make-up vloggers on YouTube Mary Discourses of nationalism amongst advocates of Russian reclamation of Alaska (intended; project not completed) Andy Terminology describing LGBTQ+ individuals used by Russian- language speakers online Anna Styles of humor amongst late-night hosts in Russia Rob Discourses of militarism in military journalism Table 3: Phase 1 participants’ research projects

5.1.2. Sociolinguistic results

This group saw improvement in their sociolinguistic competence. The survey results are given in Table 4. Each individual participant’s results are given. The numbers are

146 representative of the average of participants’ scores on the surveys; possible scores range from –100 to 100.

Pretest Post-course Post-project

Knowl- Attitudes Average Knowl- Atti- Average Knowl- Atti- Average edge edge tudes edge tudes Andy 48.1 62.04 55.07 —18 47.9 60.95 54.43

Anna 9 31.77 20.39 24.6 57.81 41.21 39.3 62.23 50.76

Mary 38.3 60.78 49.54 43.2 55.32 49.26 53.2 62.78 57.99

Rob 56.2 27.5 41.85 80.3 39.64 59.97 68.8 37.91 53.35

Sarah 16.7 56.45 36.58 20.7 66.78 43.74 49.4 64.78 57.09

Average 33.66 47.71 40.68 42.2 54.88 48.54 51.72 57.72 54.72

Table 4: Phase 1 participants’ scores on sociolinguistic survey

A graph of the data can be observed in Figure 15. As can be seen from the graph, most participants had a general upwards trajectory in their sociolinguistic awareness, though they differed in the slope and pattern of their self-reported sociolinguistic growth.

18 Andy did not take the second administration of the survey. 147

Focal group's sociolinguistic scores 70

50 Andy 40 Anna Mary 30 Rob AVERAGE SCORE 20 Sarah 10

0 Pretest Post-course Post-project

Figure 13: Phase 1 participants’ scores on sociolinguistic survey

An analysis of qualitative data from interview and assignments further reinforces this pattern. Interview and assignment data show that these participants seem to develop in their sociolinguistic attitudes over the course of the project. Most participants seemed to have a broad, if vague, sociolinguistic awareness from the start of the study. Several of the participants, such as Anna and Rob, were able to identify reified examples of United

States regional variation; for example, Anna discussed the “pop/soda” divide that has become a marker of Midwestern versus Coastal identity, while Rob referred to the second-person plural pronoun “yinz” that is associated with Pittsburgh. However, several participants described ideologies of “good” and “bad” grammar (Rob, Andy, Anna), and all of them had difficulty describing the qualities of their own manner of speech.

Over the course of the study, some participants developed in their sociolinguistic awareness. For example, Anna and Rob developed a more relativistic view of grammar,

148 seeing a broader range of speech varieties as legitimate. However, this development was fairly limited in scope; all participants continued to subscribe to the belief that there were

“wrong” ways to speak, though they varied in the strength of this belief. Several participants were able to explain a more nuanced view of correctness at their final interview, such as Sarah, who talked about how correctness of speech could vary

“depending on your context and your location.” Nevertheless, belief in correctness persisted.

All participants became better able to describe their own speech; in particular, they became more capable of discussing how their speech related to the social contexts in which the speech was produced. For example, towards the beginning of the study, Anna described the speech patterns of her running group primarily in terms of the in-group jargon they used. Later, however, Anna was able to describe the speech of her running group in a more sophisticated way, discussing how silences were important to group dynamics alongside speech, and how the nature of the group limited the topics they discussed with one another, shaping their interactions. Participants’ understandings of their own speech and that of the people around them developed in specificity.

The participants, at the beginning of the study, had very mixed levels of confidence regarding their ability to understand and use socially-situated speech in

Russian. At the beginning of the study, most expressed frustration with their inability to be funny in Russian. Only Rob seemed satisfied with his L2 pragmatic abilities; this likely was linked to his lack of experience with the language in real-world use, as his confidence went down over time. Over the course of the study, participants did not seem

149 to become more satisfied with their abilities to portray their personalities; they continued to express frustration over their inability to communicate humor in particular. However, they actually did show evidence of gaining a more nuanced understanding of the L2 pragmatic system. For example, Anna, at the beginning of the study, identified sarcasm as something that was the same in both English and Russian. However, at the end of the study, she was able to discuss of how similar genres of humor might differ between cultural contexts, and how surface-level similarities might actually mask deeper differences. Participants did show evidence of increased understanding of the target- system sociolinguistic system, even though they did not grow much in their self- perceived competence.

Interestingly, Rob saw a very large increase in sociolinguistic knowledge between the pretest and the second administration of the survey, then a drop in sociolinguistic knowledge at the third administration of the survey. The survey was administered for the third time after Rob returned from a study-abroad trip; the dip in his self-assessment of his sociolinguistic knowledge may have been due to him encountering the limits of his knowledge in the target-language context. Chapter 4 features a discussion of this potential phenomenon, in which participants initially assess their knowledge strongly and then find that there is a gap between that knowledge and the actual demands of target- language interaction.

On the whole, it seems that participation in this project was beneficial for sociolinguistic attitudes. However, there was less benefit to participants’ perceptions of their sociolinguistic knowledge: while there was some growth in their average scores,

150 participants seemed to indicate ambivalence about their understanding of and ability to use socially-significant language in the L2.

5.1.3. Intercultural competence

Overall, there was a growth in participants’ self-reported ICC over the course of participation in this study.

Pretest Post-course Post-project

Andy 54.31 — 49.31

Anna 42.78 53.16 55.19

Mary 52.34 56.43 69.66

Rob 49.91 65.06 66.47

Sarah 55.63 63.03 65.59

Averages 50.99 59.42 61.24

Table 5: Summary of individual participants’ intercultural competence scores

A more detailed review, however, shows interesting complexity in their self- reported ICC growth, with different subcomponents growing at different rates. Table 6 provides a detailed breakdown of each participant’s ICC scores by subcomponent.

151

Averages 54.31 — 49.31 42.78 53.16 55.19 52.34 56.43 69.66 49.91 65.06 66.47 55.63 63.03 65.59 10.

Empathy 34.25 — 14.75 15 36.75 54.75 14.75 32 31 40.5 72.5 18.75 2 7 4.5 11.55

Ethnorel. 62.75 — 71.75 69.5 85.25 96.75 46 71.5 87.75 65 84.25 70.25 99.75 90.5 87.75 14.25

Adapt./ flex. 73.5 — 47.75 45.75 28.25 29 47.75 64.5 76.5 69 84.75 69.75 74.25 69.25 88.75 0.3

spec.

- .13 1.33 Cult. knowl. 51.67 — 43.37 - 60.67 50.67 36.67 36.67 60 78.33 87.67 88.33 57.67 71 51 14

9.8 Deep cult. awareness 87.33 — 78.33 77 69.67 73.67 94.33 91.33 89.33 100 100 94.33 92.33 80.33 66.33 -

7.33 11 91.33 81.33 1 Self aware - — 48.33 - 57 46.67 13 38.67 27.33 - - - 34 38 65 49.8

participants’ ICC 2.4

Cur 62.75 — 55.25 57.5 33 12 81 84 95.5 53 65.25 78.25 60.25 68.75 61.5 -

Phase 1 Phase Open 84 — 52.33 86.33 69.33 86.33 65.33 67 81 76 97 86 55 66 89 5.6

Respect 39.5 — 38 41.25 49.5 56 72.25 24.25 73.25 49.5 61.25 53.5 29.5 77.25 78.75 13.5

course project course project course project course project course project self ------growth

Pretest Post Post Pretest Post Post Pretest Post Post Pretest Post Post Pretest Post Post : Detailed breakdown of :of Detailed breakdown 6

Average Average

reported reported Rob Anna Mary Andy Sarah

Table

152

Focal group's ICC scores 80

60 Andy 50 Anna 40 Mary 30 Rob AVERAGE SCORE 20 Sarah

0 Pretest Post-course Post-project

Figure 14: Phase 1 participants’ scores on intercultural survey

Holistic growth in self-reported ICC can be seen amongst all participants, with

Andy being the sole exception. Strong specific growth was seen in participants’ cultural self-awareness, with several other components also growing over time. Interestingly, deep cultural understanding actually decreased over the course of the study, as did (to a lesser degree) curiosity.

The numerical growth in cultural self-awareness was supported by data taken from interviews with participants. All five participants had considerable difficulty articulating their understanding of their cultures when they began the study. They primarily drew on national narratives to identify their culture. Some characterized their cultural backgrounds as a mélange of (largely European) ethnicities from which they were descended; Rob, for example, described himself as:

Rob: (laughter) I’m Irish German Hungarian and English none of the traditions from those cultures have ever manifested at any family gathering like I’ve never I mean we drink as Irishmen 153

stereotypically do but so does everybody I’ve never had to wear lederhosen so it it’s just not something that manifests itself in family gatherings we’re just we’re Americans

It is worth emphasizing that this is truly an ethnic perspective on culture: Rob made a point of indicating that he did not inherit any of the actual cultural practices involved, but still viewed his descent from the nations mentioned above as significant enough to make up his personal “culture.”

Rob also draws upon another national narrative: that he is just “American.” This is also the narrative seen in Sarah’s self-identification, and is also the narrative that Andy and Mary draw on. The description of “American” identity from each individual frames

America as being a multifaceted culture; however, these descriptions also draw upon stereotypes, as when Anna describes American culture as having “freedoms” or Sarah describes it as being “consumerist.” Only Anna broke away from the national narrative by describing her cultural background as being “Michigan”; even then, however, she tended to think of her culture in terms of an overarching power structure, simply substituting the state level for the national level.

By the end of the study, they were much more able to articulate their cultures; while they still tended to use large labels like “American” to describe themselves, they were able to push beyond stereotyped narratives of American identity when questioned about what this meant to them. Mary, for example, described culture as created in cooperation with others (culture created in “the way that people see us”), while Sarah described how her own cultural identity emerged from her participation in groups. Each participant became more capable of defining and articulating their personal cultural

154 identities over the course of the study, mirroring that strong increase in scores on the survey.

In contrast, the quality of deep cultural understanding decreased over time. To review, deep cultural understanding is the understanding of culture as something that is constructed but also real for the individuals involved. For most participants, this score began high and remained high; the lowest score on this subcomponent was a 77, and generally the scores remained near this ceiling. Most of the decrease in deep cultural understanding actually came from one participant — Sarah. Further discussion of the possible reasons underlying this decrease will come in the following chapter.

As a general summary, participation in this project was associated with growth in self-reported ICC overall, with particularly strong growth in cultural self-knowledge.

Scores on the ICC survey, supported by data from participants’ interviews, strongly suggest that the participants’ cultural self-knowledge grew beyond what would be expected if they had not participated in this project.

5.1.4. Summary

A general analysis of the data points to certain trends in Phase 1 participants’ learning trajectories. In general, both qualitative and quantitative evidence point to an overall growth in self-reported sociolinguistic competence and ICC amongst those who participated in this project, with particularly strong growth coming from those who had higher levels of engagement.

155

5.2. Phase 2: Classroom study

The data from Phase 2 of the study are quantitative in nature, drawing on the sociolinguistic and intercultural questionnaires.

5.2.1. Intercultural competence

A comparison of the participants’ scores on the survey of intercultural competence showed a statistically significant increase between the pretest and posttest. A paired- samples t-test was use to compare the scores on the intercultural survey. There was a significant difference in the scores on the pretest (M=65.99, SD=18.70) versus the posttest (M=75.03, SD=13.68): t(7) = -2.407, p<.05. A more detailed breakdown of their intercultural scores can be found in Table 7.

156

Averages 65.99 75.03 9.04

4.73 Empathy 52.18 47.45 -

Ethnorel. 71.25 80.05 8.80

Adapt./ flex. 56.82 67.00 10.18

spec. - Cult. knowl. 67.10 77.73 10.63

Deep cult. awareness 80.14 84.60 4.46

- Self aware 60.95 67.00 6.05 participants’ intercultural competenc

Cur. 78.32 83.5 5.18 Phase 2 Phase

Open. 68.62 84.93 16.31

Respect 71.03 75.80 4.77

: Detailed breakdown of :of Detailed breakdown

test 7 - test - Difference Pre Post Table

157

5.2.2. Sociolinguistic competence

A comparison of the participants’ scores on the survey of sociolinguistic competence showed a non-significant difference between the pretest and posttest. A paired-samples t- test was use to compare the scores on the sociolinguistic survey. There was a non- significant difference in the scores on the pretest (M=58.57, SD=17.39) versus the posttest (M=69.05, SD=14.17): t(7) = -2.091, p<.10.

A more detailed breakdown of their scores can be found in Table 8.

Pretest Posttest Knowledge Attitudes Average Knowledge Attitudes Average Sociolinguistic 52.50 61.53 58.57 59.74 73.02 69.05 survey Table 8: Detailed breakdown of Phase 2 participants’ sociolinguistic competence

5.2.3. Analysis

This phase of the study provides another instance in which participation in this project is associated with an overall increase in ICC and sociolinguistic competence. There was a statistically-significant increase in the participants’ intercultural competence. The increase in sociolinguistic competence was not large enough to reach significance, but a trend towards increased sociolinguistic competence can be observed. It is likely that, with more responses and more power, this trend would reach significance.

There are some differences between the patterns of data in this phase of the project and the summer intensive phase. First, it can be noted that the participants in this

158 project had higher overall starting scores. Participants in the summer intensive phase of the study initially scored an average of 50.99 points on the survey of intercultural competence and an average of 40.68 on the survey of sociolinguistic competence. The participants in the classroom phase of the study, in contrast, initially scored 65.99 on the survey of intercultural competence and 58.57 on the survey of sociolinguistic competence. It should be noted that the Russian major at The Ohio State University requires that students take several electives in the field of Slavic linguistics and Slavic culture; this may, perhaps, account for the strength of these initial scores.

Another difference is that this phase of the study saw general growth across most categories of self-reported intercultural and sociolinguistic competence. The summer intensive phase of the study saw spikes of growth in certain areas (specifically, cultural self-awareness); in contrast, there was relatively more steady growth across all areas of self-reported intercultural competence and sociolinguistic competence. This may be because the larger number of participants reduced the amount of noise in the data. It is also possible that these students’ previous training in intercultural competence meant that areas that particularly benefit from training (such as cultural self-awareness) were already brought to a higher baseline; in contrast, the summer intensive participants’ lower level of prior training meant that there was far more room for growth for these areas.

Overall, however, this phase of the study — like the summer intensive phase of the study — demonstrated growth in self-reported intercultural and sociolinguistic competence associated with participation in this study. It must be noted that this phase of the study has not demonstrated that participation in this project causes an increase in

159 sociolinguistic competence and ICC. With no control group, I can only show a correlation, not a causal relationship between participation and growth of cultural knowledge. Nevertheless, this provides another association between participation and increased cultural knowledge, strengthening my claim that participation in this project increases cultural knowledge overall.

5.4. Summary

In general, the data here indicate that participation in this project is associated with a growth in self-reported intercultural and sociolinguistic competence. Phase 1 revealed a growth in self-reported intercultural competence over time for the participants in the project; this was shown through both survey data and data from interviews. Phase 2, meanwhile, recruited more participants and demonstrated that participation in the project was associated with a statistically-significant growth in self-reported intercultural competence.

To further explore these aggregated trends, the following chapter will consist of a detailed analysis of one of the participants in Phase 1 and her engagement with this project. It will go into detail describing aspects of her language-learning identity, her attitudes towards culture, and how participation in this project helped to shape her patterns of thinking about culture in language learning.

160

Chapter 6. Results: Summer program: Case Study

Introduction

In the following section, I describe the specific learning trajectory of Sarah19, one of the participants in Phase 1 of this project. Sarah was selected for a few reasons. First, based on my experience with Russian students, I can confidently assert that she is a highly

“typical” learner of advanced Russian: many learners studying advanced Russian have language learning histories similar to hers. Second, her participation was strong without being exceptional: she spent less time on the course than Anna, but more time than Rob,

Andy, and Mary. She was, therefore, selected as a representative of a relatively “typical” case, one that is likely to be representative of the experiences of many Russian language learners who would participate in a project like this.

6.1. Background

Sarah, as mentioned above, is very much a “typical” learner of advanced Russian. She possesses a particular mixture of language and cultural experiences that many advanced language curricula in the United States expect their students to have. She was born into an English-speaking monolingual family in the southwestern United States and began

19 As mentioned before, all participants in this study have been given pseudonyms. Additionally, biographical details about the participants’ backgrounds have been changed. 161 studying Russian in college. During this course of study, she had gone abroad to Russia, participating in a language-focused study abroad program for a semester. After graduation from college, she had begun to travel and work internationally, spending several years abroad. She had lived primarily in in Kazakhstan when abroad; while there, she had not used Russian as her primary language of communication, but had encountered a culture heavily influenced by its former ties to the Soviet Union and to

Russia. After returning, she had enrolled in a graduate program focused on international relations and was studying Russian language to enhance her language skills. She had enrolled in SLI for accelerated study of Russian during the summer.

Sarah’s career goal was to work in one of the member countries of the

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).20 Her study of Russian was not necessarily motivated by a desire to communicate with L1 Russian-speaking individuals; rather, she was studying Russian as a lingua franca of the former Soviet sphere, pursuing a language that would be usable in a wide variety of geographic locations so that she could have the option of working in a wide variety of spaces.

She had enrolled in the Summer Language Institute during one of the summer gaps between two semesters of her graduate program. After finishing SLI, Sarah continued her graduate studies; this included taking further Russian classes. In our final interview, which took place after the conclusion of SLI, she indicated that her experience in the summer program had been stressful and onerous, but quite valuable. She said that

20 The CIS consists of countries that had previously been in the Soviet sphere of influence but had broken away from it during the dissolution of the USSR. Russian had served as a lingua franca when these countries had been affiliated with the Soviet government, and as such, Russian continues to be a language of communication in the current day. 162 she regretted that her current Russian class was not intensive, saying that the constant contact with Russian had proven crucial to learning the language and building her confidence the summer previous.

Sarah showed evidence of fairly high levels of both intercultural competence and sociolinguistic competence even from the beginning of the study; these were demonstrated especially in her interview data. Over the course of the study, her survey scores grew steadily in most areas, in accordance with the predictions of Deardorff’s model of ICC. A detailed breakdown of her scores is given in Table 9.

163

Socio Knowledge Attitudes Average

Pretest 16.7 56.45 44.03

Post-course 20.7 66.78 52.38

Post-project 49.4 64.78 59.97

Self- 32.7 8.32 15.94 reported growth ICC Respect Openness Curiosity and Self- Deep cultural discovery awareness awareness

Pretest 29.5 55 60.25 34 92.33

Post-course 77.25 66 68.75 38 80.33

Post-project 78.75 89 61.5 65 66.33

Self- 49.25 34 1.25 31 -26 reported growth Culture- Adaptability/ Ethnorelativity Empathy Averages specific flexibility knowledge 55.63 Pretest 57.67 74.25 99.75 2 63.03 Post-course 71 69.25 90.5 7 65.59 Post-project 51 88.75 87.75 4.5

Self- -6.67 14.5 -12 2.5 9.97 reported growth Table 9: Sarah’s intercultural competence and sociocultural competence

Evidence from interviews and assignments supports the learning trajectories shown in this chart. In the following section, Sarah’s sociolinguistic competence and ICC at the

164 start of this study will be discussed. This discussion will particularly draw upon qualitative data to give a general idea of her background, knowledge, and attitudes.

6.2. Intercultural and sociolinguistic competence

Sociolinguistic competence: Attitudes. Sarah came into the study with certain key sociolinguistic attitudes and skills.

She showed a relatively high awareness of and tolerance for linguistic diversity.

Sarah was already aware that speakers could vary their speech in different situations. She expressed awareness of multilingualism and dialect diversity in the United States and elsewhere. This tolerance was limited, to a certain extent, by lingering ideologies of correct versus incorrect ways of speaking: like the other participants in this study, Sarah did see certain linguistic varieties as being more legitimate than others. For example, when discussing her use of a lexical item that was common in her home region that was not commonly used by people in the region where she was living at the time, she said,

“they made fun of me for saying it differently and I was like pissed that I said it right.”

While Sarah was aware that variation is tied to regional difference, she still at this point saw these differences in terms of correctness; furthermore, she viewed her own language variety as the correct one. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by the quote above, she was not hypercorrect in her speech, as she was willing to use non-standard discourse markers

(e.g., “like”) and vocabulary (e.g., “pissed”) in her discussions with me. While she showed evidence of ideologies of correctness, she was flexible enough in her speech to use non-standard registers for emotional performance. 165

Additionally, Sarah lacked linguistic self-awareness. In interview settings, she expressed awareness that her Southwestern speech variety differed from that of the

Pittsburgh-area students she knew; however, she was unable to articulate how this difference manifested. When asked how her speech was unique, her response was uncertain: “mm mhm (1)21 um (2) sure um I don’t know if I can pick out specific examples for you.” This uncertainty was also reflected in survey data, as the areas in which she consistently scored the lowest dealt with sociolinguistic self-awareness.

Given time to reflect, however, Sarah was far more able to identify and articulate the qualities of her speech. On a written assignment in the second week, Sarah provided a description of the local culture at the restaurant where she worked and discussed how her patterns of speech might differ based on her audience, as well as how the expectations of the restaurants’ patrons lead her to suppress personal opinions and instead project a non- controversial, friendly identity. Her exploration of this phenomenon was not extremely deep, but it contained details such as observing that her speech rate increased amongst friends or that, while talking about oneself was permitted at work, the contexts and topics of speech were highly constrained by her projected professional identity. Therefore, it was clear that Sarah had the observational and reflective skills necessary to analyze her own speech; she simply had not used these skills frequently enough to have knowledge of her own speech patterns readily accessible without deeper reflection.

21 Numbers in parentheses within quotes indicate pauses in number of seconds. 166

Sociolinguistic competence: Target-language knowledge. As an experienced learner of

Russian who had spent time abroad, Sarah had been exposed to the sociopragmatic system of Russian. However, she was not confident in her knowledge of this system. In surveys, she consistently scored her knowledge of Russian pragmatics extremely low; likewise, she indicated that she had little knowledge about either multilingualism within

Russia or different varieties of Russian that exist.

In interviews, she expressed uncertainty about other languages’ pragmatic systems. When asked about whether or not she was able to express her personality in

Russian, she responded:

Sarah: yeah sure I’m um I guess I’m a pretty sarcastic person I don’t really know how sarcasm translates into different languages (laughs) so so that’s always been hard I always feel like I’m really boring as like a foreign language speaker because I don’t really know how to express myself in that way Hope: yeah Sarah: and then I don’t know even if I tried to be sarcastic if they would get it at all or if they would just think I was being I don’t know weird or mean or something

Sarah, in this excerpt, indicates that she believes that she is unable to communicate her personality in any of her L2s. She does indicate that she has had successes in the past —

“I think there’ve been times where I’ve like where I’ll tell a joke and like they laugh and

I’ll and I’ll be like yes got it” — but her confidence at this point was quite low.

Nevertheless, like with sociolinguistic self-awareness, Sarah demonstrated greater knowledge of the target-language system when she had an opportunity to reflect. In assignments, her description of the Russian system was somewhat more sophisticated than in interviews. For example, she was able to identify racist discourses targeting

Central Asian individuals in Russia. However, she still did not show a deep knowledge of the pragmatic system of the language below the discourse level.

167

ICC: Attitudes. Deardorff identifies four separate aspects of intercultural competence: attitudes; skills and knowledge; internal outcomes; and external outcomes. This section will discuss each of these in detail.

First, Sarah showed considerable evidence of possessing the attitudes that

Deardorff identifies as serving as the basis for growing ICC. The first attitude, that of curiosity/discovery, was frequently in evidence throughout her discourse. A desire for novelty coupled with a desire to build on existing knowledge had motivated her to begin studying Russian:

Sarah: so I didn’t need to do a language but I really liked learning languages so I decided to start a new one so um and the Russia unit was my favorite unit that we covered during that class so just chose Russian

Learning the language brought Sarah into contact with difference, which she identified as being the most important part of learning languages in general. She placed a high value on difference: she became passionate about Russian because she perceived a wide cultural gap between her life and the Russian way of life. She described a moment when she had to decide which language to study and chose Russian in favor of Spanish;

Spanish, a language and a culture familiar to Sarah thanks to her upbringing in the

American Southwest, was insufficiently foreign to challenge her worldview. Russian, however, was a language associated with a discovering a different way of life.

Sarah: I guess also just learning about yeah different cultures and how different people see the world um based on their historical perspectives um and I guess learning Spanish growing up that never really I didn’t really ever get that sort of a feel but learning Russian and then learning about the culture alongside of it I could really s- see that this group of people like has has a totally

168

different past and a totally different view of the world than I do and they may have totally different reasons for um how they operate in their lives

It is worth noting, however, that Sarah’s fascination was not with Russian per se.

Rather, she was interested in contact with faraway cultures, and she perceived Russian as being the key to contacting those cultures: “I really liked the whole region as a whole but

Russian can get you around so.”

Curiosity about other cultures was also a central theme when she described her experiences abroad. She enjoyed her work abroad, in part, because that work allowed her to explore the lingering effects of Soviet bureaucratic influence over Kazakhstan.

Sarah: yeah yeah so that was really interesting especially to see like to work in education um and see how the uh Soviet system has influenced like education in that country

Themes of research and discovery were consistently central in her discussions of her career. On multiple occasions, she identified her post-graduate school career intentions as carrying out “research”; she expressed preference for working with an

NGO, but ultimately, the most important part was being able to research. This desire for carrying out research was not centered around any particular project or in service to a specific question she wanted answered. She indicated that her strategy would be to carry out a “needs assessment” on the ground before starting any longer-term work. Needs assessments attempt to understand the needs of a community by including open-ended questions and allowing the respondents to respond freely; Sarah’s focus on uncovering the requirements of communities, rather than coming in with an a priori project, speaks to her desire for discovery and her openness. This was demonstrated further by her discussion of her past perspectives: she indicated that, when she was younger, she had believed that democratization was the way to improve people’s lives; however, she said 169 that this perspective was naïve and wrongheaded. Experience and academic training had been important in helping her shift away from American political ideals towards a belief that good politics were more grounded in the realities of the target country.

Sarah: before that I had no idea about Russia at all I would say that my high school like classes prepared me for the real I mean or like taught me a lot about history of the world um or what was happening happening internationally so it was all just like amazing to me because I was I was very patriotic and like oh democracy dadadadadada and so I didn’t even yeah I had no idea about that history and then I think like what really interested me is like the whole transition from Socialism to Democracy in that region and how that has (inhale) gone really wrong

This focus on decision-making based on local knowledge rather than global ideologies remained a theme throughout subsequent interviews. Sarah consistently discussed the importance of grounding political decisions in local realities only after discovering what those local realities were, rather than imposing foreign ideals upon the location in question.

Openness was also a key feature in many of Sarah’s interviews early on. She framed openness as a key quality for others to have and showed evidence of this quality herself. In contrasting her patterns of touristic travel to those of her parents, she emphasized her preference for spontaneity, underlining that spontaneity could allow contact with new people:

Sarah: yeah so I’m with my parents it’s very structured I’m not structured really and I’m not really picky I’d rather just um stay in a hostel uh and I like that because you get to meet people from all over the place um and people at hostels will usually have lots of brochures and ideas of what to do so I kind of I pick a place that I want like I wanna go um and then I don’t really plan beforehand (laughter)

Openness to new or unusual experiences, it seemed, was tied up with discovering new things for Sarah. Both of these qualities were ones that she repeatedly framed as being important to her; she framed them also as important in engaging with other cultures.

170

However, for all of their prominence, there was also evidence of a lack of openness in some of her attitudes: she made strong judgments about culture when speaking particularly about her own hometown and American culture more broadly. While she did value openness, her own tendencies towards openness were sometimes compromised by an inability to suspend judgment while talking about her own culture in particular.

Sarah showed strong evidence of respect — though this respect tended to be towards other cultures, rather than her own. This quality was less consistently present throughout her early interviews than the themes of discovery and openness were.

However, she showed strong respect for diversity: she at several points framed diversity as an important quality for communities to have, particularly in her contrast between the perceived homogeneity of her hometown versus the diversity of the Pittsburgh urban area. Indeed, diversity was tied to several other qualities that she considered praiseworthy:

Sarah: well of course it’s more of an urban kind of a setting um way more diverse um a lot more history here so [my hometown] is pretty new town you know relatively um and has been growing a lot but Pittsburgh has been Pittsburgh has been a city for hundreds of years and so yeah there’s some established roots here and a lot more like class conflict or not class conflict but like just something like tension and then like gentrification issues that are like related to class and race that don’t exist in [my hometown] because they just have that diversity

These statements could be interpreted as potentially negative — tension and conflicts over gentrification might, after all, be unpleasant descriptors for an urban space. Yet

Sarah followed this description with an unambiguous evaluation of Pittsburgh: “I really liked Pittsburgh I felt like people are really friendly really genuine.” Diversity can have interpersonal and inter-community conflict as its outcome; so, too, can a long urban

171 history. Yet she oriented towards this conflict as a neutral outcome, not a negative one, and not one that robbed diversity of its importance. Her respect for diversity was clear.

Yet at the same time, there were instances where other cultures were treated somewhat dismissively. First, there was evidence in her discussions of the way that the national paradigm guided her thinking about culture (Risager, 2006). When asked about contact with members of other cultures, Sarah used national labels as a metonym for cultural diversity:

Sarah: I’m friends with a girl from Columbia and um I’m friends with people from all over the US um and there are some like lots of international students from like China Korea um they kind of stick together though so I don’t really I haven’t really gotten a chance to talk to them so much um a couple of other international students from like Europe so I think it’s like it’s kind of it’s kind of diverse (laughter)

Nevertheless, when discussing the (lack of) diversity of her hometown, she contrasted it to Pittsburgh, whose diversity is rooted in “race and class.” Later, when discussing some of her early experiences, she talked about how travel around the United

States had exposed her to different cultures: “like how people in California and people in

Boston are totally different.” There were moments at which Sarah discusses intranational diversity; however, the primary discussion of diversity was linked to the nation-state as a stand-in for culture. Moreover, even when the nation was not taken as the default unit of culture (as in the case of contrasting Boston versus California), imagined communities were still seen as default cultural units. And of these cultural units, the nation always held primacy: before describing her travels within the United States, she says that in her childhood she was “not super exposed to other things.” For her, various state- or city- level cultures within the United States did not qualify as “other things.”

172

Additionally, there was evidence of exoticization of other cultures. In discussing her decision to study Russian over Spanish, Sarah framed Spanish as being familiar; it was simply too ingrained in her personal experience to challenge her or her worldview.

As she described it:

Sarah: yeah um I guess also just learning about yeah different cultures and how different people see the world um based on their historical perspectives um and I guess learning Spanish growing up that never really I didn’t really ever get that sort of a feel but learning Russian and then learning about the culture alongside of it I could really s- see that this group of people like has has a totally different past and a totally different view of the world than I do and they may have totally different reasons for um how they operate in their lives and then like how that influences their the language that they use

Again, there was evidence of the national paradigm guiding her thinking. The history of

Russia, separate and disconnected from the history of the United States, was perceived as shaping the worldview of Russian-speaking people, which in turn made Russian a more interesting and challenging language to study. Meanwhile, the history of the Spanish speakers she had known growing up was (presumably) the history of immigrants to

America; because of their life within the American system, their experience was perceived to be familiar and less stimulating. Participation in the American political structure meant that their story is familiar enough, in Sarah’s perspective, that this story could not lead to the encountering of difference sufficient to challenge her (Kinginger,

2010).

Sarah’s view of Kazakhstan, the country in which she had resided for several years, was more nuanced than her view of any other country or culture. She had worked with the educational system in Kazakhstan, and most of her discussions focused on patterns of life and institutional structure there rather than broad generalizations about the

173 country. It is interesting that the country in which Sarah had grown up was treated as a monolithic unit, while the one to which she had traveled was given a more textured and local treatment. This may speak to the importance of reflective engagement for learning about culture (Byram, 2012); while Sarah has had more experience with the country of

America throughout her life, she was better able to carry out a multifaceted exploration of life in Kazakhstan, a country she had approached from the position of a novice rather than an expert.

Skills. Evidence for intercultural skills from Deardorff’s (2006) model — those of analysis and of observation — were somewhat present in the interviews with Sarah.

Sarah’s discussion of her process as a researcher foreground her abilities of both observation and analysis, and in her discussions of her international experience, she repeatedly highlighted her process of observing others before acting as central to functioning while abroad.

Stronger evidence of these skills came from the assignments she completed as part of her participation in the online course. First, the skill of observation was quite clear from the level of detail that she included in her work. When comparing her patterns of speech when amongst her friends versus her patterns of speech at work, she wrote:

I will compare my friend culture to my culture at work. With my friends, I can pretty much say whatever I want. I may speak more quickly and use more slang, and will have more emotional inflection. I work at a restaurant, so what I say there is a lot different. I need to speak at an even pace and have a friendly inflection, and I should try to speak properly and not use any slang or cursing. With my friends, I can be relaxed. We can be a little improper but still shouldn't be rude to each other, although it's perfectly acceptable to joke around. We are also supportive of each other and can tell long stories about our lives and our interests, and may have heated discussions about controversial topics. I'll dress more casually and let them in on personal information. At work, we want to create a relaxing atmosphere, but we need to focus on our customers and not ourselves. If they ask us about ourselves, we can answer, but we shouldn't go into any diatribes or 174

talk about our opinions other than about our menu items (which are inflated). We have a casual dress code but it is still strict on what we can and can't wear.

The full paragraph has been excerpted above to demonstrate the level of detail included.

This writing was in response to a prompt that simply asked her to discuss her patterns of speech in two different situations. It is clear from this narrative that she was able to observe her own behavior and that of the people around her on several semiotic levels with a moderate degree of specificity. The description of her behavior was not very deep, but is highly broad; she was able to point to many different responses she might have to interlocutors of different sorts, speaking to her skills in observing not just others, but also herself.

There was also evidence of moderate analytical ability. In various assignments,

Sarah engaged with and analyzed the phenomena she observed in the world around her.

For example, when discussing dating culture, she engaged in an analysis of how rules for payment had shifted over time. In another assignment, she extrapolated from her observations about world events that cultural unity can often grow out of threats.

However, the bulk of her writing focused on observation over analysis. Her attention to detail was considerable, but her focus tended to be upon recording that detail rather than drawing conclusions based upon it.

Knowledge. Deardorff also emphasized the importance of cultural knowledge as a foundation for shifting internal outcomes. It is clear that Sarah had knowledge in some areas, but that in others her level of knowledge was more mixed.

175

The first area of cultural knowledge, and according to Byram (2012) the most important, is cultural self-knowledge. Sarah’s cultural self-knowledge seemed to be underdeveloped, both in interviews and in writing. In the interview, when asked how she would define her cultural identity, she responded, “I don’t know American um yeah not super exposed to many other things.” Very little self-identification was given aside from that: she simply identified herself as having a pan-American identity. Yet there were signs of dissatisfaction with that label: as soon as she described herself as American, she immediately begins discussing how there are different types of Americans:

Sarah: within the States like how people in California and people in Boston are totally different um or a lot of um a lot of my family’s from the South and people from the South are totally different so um I guess that was that’s been my exposure growing up is from all over the States

This discussion undermined her straightforward national self-identification. More, when asked to define what the term “American” even meant, she expressed uncertainty:

Sarah: it’s hard to define your own culture because you’re not looking at it from from a third party view um you’re so immersed in it I don’t know very individualistic Hope: mmhm Sarah: um hh and uh (1.0) focused on progress (2.0) um I don’t know isolated from the world in a lot of ways um nn (2.0) trying to think of other things that are very American um consumer consumerist (laughter) um like very focused on like material things Hope: mmhm Sarah: um I try to not be that way (laughter) Hope: yeah absolutely yeah Sarah: but that’s I grew up surrounded by that so yeah yeah social media I guess investment a lot of investment in social media and your and your image you know like

She began by indicating that culture is best known from a “third-party view” — indicating not only that she lacked cultural self-knowledge, but that indeed she did not believe herself capable of acquiring cultural self-knowledge, as she lacked the outside perspective that she saw as necessary for understanding a culture. This spoke to her

176 possessing an essential cultural understanding — that culture is often invisible — but her comment that someone with an etic, third-party perspective could have greater insights on her culture than she could both oversimplified culture and devalued her own perspective and insight. After this, she defined American culture in terms of a series of clichés that are central to most narratives of American identity (individualistic, progress- focused, consumerist; see, for example, Althen, 1994, who presents some of these common narratives). Only at the end did she cite a characteristic that broke away from these conventional traits, American identity as being social-media obsessed; even then, however, this is a stereotype regarding young Americans. Finally, she listed these qualities and then immediately distanced herself from them by saying “I try not to be that way,” indicating not only difficulty defining her culture but also dissatisfaction and discomfort with it.

This broad and unsatisfactory cultural self-definition was echoed in her writing.

She described her cultural identity using a number of broad cultural labels — “American,

Western, Western American, middle class, white, Anglo-Saxon, among others” — but, when describing her relationship to these cultures, she again distanced herself from them.

When discussing weddings typical of her culture, for example, she expressed frustration, calling them arbitrary and pointless and linking them to “consumerism and commodifying experiences that is a big part of our capitalist culture” that “trap” people.

Repeatedly, in both writing and speech, she drew upon the broader discourses of

American cultural identity in order to define herself, but then distanced herself from the

177 cultural traits involved in those discourses. In many ways, she defined her cultural identity by focusing on what it was not, rather than what it was.

In many ways, she showed greater confidence in her knowledge of other cultures than she did in knowledge of her own. She was particularly confident in her discussion of

Kazakhstan, where she had resided prior to graduate school. As she had been involved with the educational system, she was able to speak confidently and extensively about the way educational culture operated, including how the historical context had shaped educational culture to this day, patterns of life in school and how these patterns could be realized or resisted by the teachers working at these schools, and how her position within the school was shaped by her identity as a foreigner and a woman. Her level of knowledge about Russian speech culture was rather lower, but she still expressed confidence in it — “I’m so familiar with Russian and uh Russian culture right now so far

I’m heh so like involved in it that it seems like nothing is really surprising to me anymore” — though that confidence also coexisted with other statements in which she expressed uncertainty or discomfort with actually giving a definition of what Russian culture was. For example, when later asked to describe her understanding of Russian culture, she gave this description:

Hope: yeah how about Russian culture like do you feel like you could kind of define Russian culture in any way Sarah: um (3.0) that’s yeah that’s even harder um yeah because it’s kind of ww (inhale) I would I always feel like Russian people are very like aware um (1.0) of themselves um and like all of their Russian books I’ve read and um like movies I’ve watched they’re all very like inward like like looking at their own culture analyzing their own culture like I don’t know if that’s what all Russians are like or if that’s what people who produce novels and films because they’re looking at it on another level but that’s what I’ve been exposed to so I think they’re like aware of their own culture and their um the good things about it and bad things about it I feel like they’re aware of that um I also I don’t know feel like in some ways they feel like they have kind of a fatalist view of the world like can’t change anything um I know that’s not true for everyone but hh um I don’t 178

know importance of family importance of like hospitality um importance of I don’t know education and science hhhh Hope: mmhm yeah Sarah: those are the things (.5) I don’t know

Like her definition of “American culture,” Sarah’s definition of “Russian culture” drew upon the conventional narratives about Russia. Hospitality and fatalism often feature into clichéd descriptions of the “Russian character” (Smith, 1990). So, too, does the value that Russians place upon their cultural products, such as films and books. Some elements in Sarah’s description pushed beyond the easy cultural clichés — for example, she discussed the importance of education, which is a descriptor that rarely comes up in the conventional narratives of Russian culture. Yet still, her understanding seemed largely drawn from conventional stories about Russia. Her last comment, moreover, seemed to speak simultaneously to her familiarity and confidence in this narrative and her discomfort with it: she said, “Those are the things,” but then followed that up with “I don’t know.”

Sarah’s culture-specific knowledge at the beginning of this study was variable, according to the culture in question. Her experience in Kazakhstan had been extensive, with several years spent there; moreover, the fact that she was a professional in that setting seemed to have fostered an entry into social networks that allowed her a deep insight into professional cultures and educational cultures. Her sojourns abroad to Russia, along with her extensive classroom study of Russian language, however, did not seem to completely disrupt an essentialized view of Russian culture, as discussed above. Finally, she seemed to have a highly stereotyped knowledge of American culture.

179

She likewise showed evidence of deep understanding of cultures generally though this understanding proved somewhat variable depending on the medium of communication of beliefs. In writing, she was able to provide thoughtful and detailed discussions of culture. She defined it as “the agglomeration of language, history, traditions, habits, attitudes, art, beliefs that influence behavior and understanding,” further discussing certain rituals as “arbitrary”; she also talked about how culture was produced in cooperation with others, saying it is “unable to be isolated.” She commented upon the necessity of encountering difference for understanding culture, saying that:

A lot of people who haven’t experienced foreign cultures may not realize that they are arbitrary, which is one of the many reasons why I believe it is extremely beneficial to travel abroad (or even to another culture within your own country) and immerse yourself in another culture.

In writing, her understanding of cultural patterns was highly sophisticated.

However, interview data showed that she had a somewhat lower level of sophistication in her thinking about cultures when speaking spontaneously. When discussing interaction with other cultures with no chance to plan for her answer, her discussion focused on cultural products alone: when asked about culture she had studied, she described learning Russian songs and reading literature, but did not mention learning about perspectives or practices of Russian culture. The closest she came to moving beyond big-C Culture in spontaneous speech was discussing how she studied

Russian/Soviet history, which in her view imparted some understanding of Russia as a whole. In general, she showed a high level of conscious awareness of cultural patterns in written and rehearsed mediums, but in free speech, cultural products were always the dominant mode of thinking about culture.

180

Finally, she had mixed evidence of sociolinguistic awareness at the beginning of the study. She did show some evidence of sociolinguistic awareness generally: in the first interview, she briefly discussed the language-culture nexus and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Whorf, 2012), referencing the debates over whether language is able to shape thought and behavior patterns. She was also able to identify herself as having speech patterns that differed from setting to setting, and also indicated her understanding that her speech could position her differently in various social settings:

Hope: so do you feel like you kind of speak differently in different situations Sarah: oh for sure yeah Hope: so what are like some of the different situations and how do you think your speech varies Sarah: so like I work at a restaurant um if I’m at work I’m not gonna be super sarcastic with people Hope: mhm Sarah: um and I will probably use less slang or my inflection will probably be a little different from I’ll speak really politely and smile a lot more than usual um so that’s one way or or if I’m at school and in class I’m not going to um speak the same with my friends as I would like with my professor because I really wanna impress my professor and seem as smart as possible

However, while she had a broad knowledge of sociolinguistic variation as a phenomenon, she did not have a similar deep understanding of the sociolinguistics of her target culture.

When asked if she could express herself and her identity in Russian, she indicates that she had difficulty doing so.

In this way, Sarah showed that her knowledge of Russian sociolinguistic resources was quite mixed. She knew enough to be able to identify that her system of humor did not necessarily map directly onto the Russian system of humor, indicating a fairly nuanced understanding of sociolinguistic differences. At the same time, however, she did not feel that she had access to the sociolinguistic resources necessary to truly act as a communicatively-competent speaker in Russian: she felt as though she could not communicate her humor in Russian, which made her feel that she was “boring.” 181

Her first interview and her first assignments, therefore, showed that she has the skills necessary to foster a shift of internal outcomes following Deardorff’s model. The evidence of her knowledge, however, was more mixed: while she had some sociolinguistic awareness and some culture-specific knowledge, she lacked cultural self- awareness in particular.

Internal outcomes. At the beginning of the study, there was ample evidence for Sarah showing a number of the outcomes that Deardorff identified as internal evidence of intercultural competence. Sarah showed moderately high evidence of adaptability and flexibility throughout the first interview, particularly in her discussions of her time and travel abroad. Her descriptions of her career ambitions — carrying out research based in assessing local realities — likewise spoke to her adaptability. So did her ability to discuss how her beliefs had evolved from focusing on democratization to thinking about adapting to local realities. Indeed, Sarah herself often discussed her identity in dynamic ways, emphasizing the difference between who she had been versus who she had become, underlining the importance of adaptability as a facet of her self-image.

Similarly, she showed a high level of flexibility, an internal outcome closely related to adaptability. As discussed above, she emphasized her preference for spontaneity during travel, though also discussed how she would allow her parents to determine activities and hotels while they were traveling jointly. This demonstrates that she was able to respond well to others’ desires: when confronted with the of accommodating others’ travel preferences, she was sufficiently flexible to prioritize their

182 preferences. At the same time, though, she framed her preferences more positively than she did her parents’, describing herself as “unpicky” in contrast to their finickiness.

She also showed moderate evidence of linguistic adaptability/flexibility. She displayed awareness of the fact that she adapted her own speech to various situations.

However, when discussing strategies for communication at times when communication became difficult, her strategies were relatively simplistic — “I would I don’t know use use all the language I could to try and um I don’t know just maybe even describe what I was trying to say.” She showed no evidence of alternative strategies in the event of communication breakdowns, indicating that her linguistic adaptability in the L2 was not particularly high.

The quality of empathy was one that was extremely present throughout the study, even from the very beginning. In particular, Sarah told one story about an incident in which she had wanted to engage with her host family about losses in the family, but had not known how to.

Hope: yes okay let’s see okay um so have you ever had a moment where you were speaking Russian or another foreign language where you kind of wanted to communicate something specific but you weren’t able to Sarah: all the time Hope: (laughing) all the time do you have any concrete examples Sarah: um: gosh um okay so I was a concrete example I can give you like vague general examples Hope: that’ll do Sarah: I’d say in Kazakhstan and I lived I lived in my own little house but I had a Kazakh family like next door that kind of um they were like my family and they helped me out a lot so um um my Kazakh is now it was okay but it wasn’t enough to be like able to have important conversations uh and so there were so many times when I would go over there and we would speak about like very trivial things like the weather or how busy we were at work or um talk about like upcoming events or something but I I really wanted to get to know them on like a deeper level and I just didn’t have the capacity to do that Hope: yeah um so what strategies would you try to use if you can kind of remember any to try to sort of get into those deeper conversations Sarah: um hh I would I don’t know use use all the language I could to try and um I don’t know just maybe even describe what I was trying to say um sometimes they would kind of get it um so 183

for instance on like one of the last days that I was there um I knew I knew that my family um the father and the son were had died before I before I came um and I knew that the whole time but they had never spoken of it um I actually knew because another volunteer um had lived there and they had told me that this had happened um and so I was I had always wanted to talk about that like with them or ask what happened or um and you know for a long time I didn’t have that relationship or I didn’t know how and then on one of the last days I was there like I finally felt like I could and I um yeah I kind of asked yeah I asked them about that and she told me that they died because of alcohol Hope: mm Sarah: and um I just you know I felt like we actually we shared something like I I felt really special to be trusted with that information

This story bears the hallmarks of high empathic functioning. There was extensive evidence of cognitive empathy: Sarah demonstrated that she consciously reasoned through her neighbors’ probable emotional states and modulated her behavior according to her expectations of their reactions to the emotionally charged topic. It also shows signs of her emotional contagion when she says “we shared something” — it speaks to a mutual emotional state between herself and the others. Outside of this story, Sarah showed some evidence of emotional regulation as a means of limiting empathy: when describing how she would convince someone of something, Sarah describes “giving as many facts as possible” rather than engaging on an emotional level. However, on the whole, her empathy levels appeared to be quite high from the very beginning of the study.

Curiously, however, Sarah’s empathy scores on the survey were quite low. A more detailed breakdown shows that Sarah tended to have fairly high scores on questions relating to emotional contagion (average score of 21.5), but very low scores on questions relating to cognitive empathy (average score of -17.5). For whatever reason, although

Sarah showed extensive qualitative evidence of empathic thinking, she seemed to

184 evaluate herself as having extremely limited abilities to rationalize others’ feelings. As will be discussed in a following section, this divide only increased throughout the study.

The final internal outcome is that of having an ethnorelative viewpoint. Sarah showed mixed evidence of ethnorelativism. For example, she took a negative stance on the cultural values of her hometown, describing it largely in terms of what it lacked and using words with negative connotations like “cookie-cutter” and descriptors that focus on the lack of freedom there. She described people as “nice” and the town as “pretty,” but portrayed it as unsophisticated in comparison to more urban locales. Similarly, she took a negative stance towards American culture, again describing it largely using negative words (“isolated,” “consumerist”) and distancing herself from it (“I try not to be that way”). Meanwhile, Russian culture was described largely positively, using words with positive connotations (“aware,” “importance of family,” “importance of hospitality”).

This positive description did not come from Sarah associating herself with Russian culture, nor from disavowing American culture; she still described herself without hesitation as “American.” But she took strong stances on the value of cultures, her own and others’. Similarly, she expressed different levels of interest in other cultures, with

Spanish perceived as less interesting or challenging than Russian. Although there was evidence that she had an ethnorelative viewpoint in her desire to understand cultures from their own viewpoints, she still tended to engage in judgment of cultures.

External outcomes. There was evidence that Sarah was moderately capable of both effective and appropriate communication in languages other than her own. The evidence

185 for her effective communicative ability came in the story she told of attempting to connect with her neighbors in Kazakhstan: in that instance, she managed to overcome difficulties with the language and uncertainty about social customs to accomplish her communicative goal of broaching an emotional topic and sharing a deeper connection with them. She also showed sensitivity to appropriateness by displaying her awareness of appropriate code use in Kazakhstan in a professional setting: “I would try to practice my

Russian but they really wanted to practice English with me so like that was my job so I felt kind of guilty about making them speak Russian with me.” However, overall, her confidence was low at the beginning of the study; when asked if she ever faced difficulties achieving her communicative goal, she answered, “all the time.”

Consequently, while she showed some ability to achieve effective and appropriate communication, she indicated that she was not satisfied with her abilities in this domain.

Summary. In general, Sarah showed high levels of intercultural competence at the beginning of the study. In particular, she showed remarkably high levels of cognitive empathy, openness, and adaptability/flexibility. Meanwhile, her levels of ethnorelativity were lower, as were her target-culture specific knowledge and sociolinguistic knowledge.

Finally, she also seemed to be dissatisfied with her ability to attain her communicative goals.

186

6.3. Sarah’s patterns of participation

Sarah was, on the whole, a fairly diligent participant in the online course. She was typically amongst the first to complete assignments, and skipped assignments or assignment components only rarely. Her assignments tended to be complete, though not as extensive as some other students’; for example, her first essay discussing her cultural identity was

323 words, shorter than the general average of 445 words, but not much shorter. Sarah accessed content 30 times, higher than the average of 24; again, however, this was not much higher. In general, therefore, Sarah was diligent and consistent in her participation, but not considerably more diligent or dedicated than the other students were.

Where she did show particular engagement was in the research portion. Sarah had originally wanted to research language use in online communities of Kazakh border towns, interested in investigating instances of language mixing in border areas. However, frustrated by the difficulty of finding sites related to this topic, she switched her interest instead to diminutive use. This interest, notably, grew out of the classroom: Sarah’s teacher spoke at several points about the prevalence of diminutive use in Russian speech, which raised Sarah’s curiosity, as this did not exactly match up to her own experience in Russian- speaking areas. Therefore, she decided to carry out a systematic investigation of diminutive use.

She began by looking at online makeup tutorials, focusing especially on tutorials posted on YouTube. Essentially, she began from the assumption that diminutive use was associated with femininity, and therefore explored feminine spaces as a potential site for widespread diminutive use. This assumption was an interesting — but not uncommon — 187 one; in many language contexts, across many linguistic situations, women are assumed to be the heavier users of diminutives, even when that does not actually reflect the actual patterns of use (Andrews, 1999; Makri-Tsilipakou, 2003). It is clear, therefore, that despite admonitions to do so, Sarah did not start her project from a place of “suspending judgment,” as one is expected to do when carrying out ethnographic research.

Likewise, in her actual research process, she did not truly suspend judgment. Rather than observing diminutive use (or non-use), she went in search of diminutives; she searched through YouTube videos, using “girliness” as the criterion by which she carried out the search, until she found one where there was a great deal more diminutive use. At that point, she carried out an analysis, looking at diminutive use in the space of the “girlier” video versus diminutive use in one of the more “professional” videos.

This is not proper technique for carrying out an ethnographic study. The non- suspension of judgment leads to one’s research being guided by active searching; a better technique would be to allow oneself to simply observe, without searching for what one expects to find. The question, therefore, is how this might have affected her outcomes. Was she able to develop, even without the presence of proper ethnographic technique?

6.4. Sarah’s outcomes

Sarah, as identified in the chart above, had robust self-reported growth in most areas of both intercultural competence and sociolinguistic development. Her strongest sociolinguistic growth was seen in the area of language-specific knowledge (growth of

32.7 points). Her strongest areas of intercultural growth were in the areas of respect 188

(49.25 points), openness (34 points), and cultural self-awareness (31 points). She also had a regression in deep cultural awareness (-26 points) and culture-specific knowledge, and had no growth in empathy (growth of 2.5 points from pretest to final test). Qualitative data were examined to shed light on why she followed these patterns.

At the beginning of the study, Sarah had relatively low confidence in her sociolinguistic knowledge. She gave herself an average score of 16.7 at the pre-test, the second-lowest score of anyone in the group; she gave herself this score in spite of the fact that she was one of the most experienced language-learners in the entire group. By the end of the study, however, her self-rating of Russian sociolinguistic knowledge had risen to 49.4 points. This seems to reflect a growth of her perception of both her real knowledge and self-confidence.

This apparent growth in knowledge seemed to be supported by interview and assignment data. In her first interview, Sarah had discussed her frustration over her inability to communicate her sense of humor and personality in Russian. This did not exactly improve: by the end of the study, she still felt as though she lacked the ability to be funny in Russian. Nevertheless, Sarah showed considerable growth when it came to key issues involving sociopragmatics. In particular, she showed an expanded awareness of the function of diminutives, which were the focus of her project:

Sarah: based on what my teacher told me I mean especially with the diminutives right that's why it was so interesting to me is because I was thinking I could just you know if I could learn all this vocabulary then I could just speak to people they would understand me and then she was like well if you just you just say the regular word and not use it in diminutive case then people will think you're rude Hope: uh-huh Sarah: that you're being mean Hope: (laugh) uh-huh Sarah: and you can't I mean you can't say it like that I mean you can but you know either they're going to know automatically that you're not super familiar with the culture because you're not 189

using the diminutive or they're going to like take away like a certain feeling like that you're not intending

In this excerpt, Sarah shows an understanding of the way in which pragmatics can be used to project a certain image; she shows also an understanding that the use of pragmatic features can have unintended consequences that one does not expect. Furthermore, she also displays a willingness to question and investigate: while she heard this information about diminutives from her instructor, a trusted language authority, she then proceeded to investigate the question of whether diminutives functioned in the way in which her instructor said they would. She indicates that the best way to understand sociopragmatic features is via direct observation: “in class the teacher helping you that's definitely important but I think that's also just like a lot of observation and listening.” However,

Sarah did not believe that reflection was necessary for learning, saying that “your brain kind of is able to pick up and make connections on when things are appropriate and when it's not and you don't have to actively think about it it just needs practice right.”

Therefore, while it seems that Sarah developed a desire to observe the language, she did not have as much belief in the reflective and analytic skills this study attempted to teach; this attitude may limit her ability for independent learning in the future.

Additionally, Sarah showed considerable growth in her linguistic self-awareness.

In her first interview, she had difficulty describing the qualities that made her speech unique or distinctive. By the end of the study, however, she was able to identify certain qualities of her own speech patterns that might have escaped notice previously. For example, when asked about whether there were correct or incorrect ways to speak, she said this:

190

Hope: yeah um okay so let's see so do you think that in general in English there's kind of a right way to speak and a wrong way to speak Sarah: (4.0) um: yeah I mean sometimes depending on your context and your location (1.0) yeah I mean there are like definitely professional ways of speaking so if I'm I was just thinking about this I have this I don't know if it's a gift or if it's a curse but I easily imitate the language of people that I'm around Hope: uh-huh Sarah: and I've been a lot of places so I have a lot of weird things that I just kind of say and people make fun of me (laughs) Hope: yeah (laughing) Sarah: so I'm talking with my friends … I was talking with my friends here and I was like well what are y'all doing they're like why are you saying y'all you're not from the South you don't even I was like I have some family there I just pick it up it's easy it's like a lazy way of speaking and I I like using it so I I use it sometimes I've never used it in a professional setting because that's not appropriate

She made particular note of a quality of her own speech: her tendency to accommodate to other people’s ways of speaking. This had not come up previously in any interviews or assignments, and nor had she been encouraged by the online course to think about her tendencies to accommodate to others’ speech patterns. She says specifically “I was just thinking about this,” meaning that she had recently been engaging in reflection upon her speech patterns independent of the course or the project.

Her intercultural competence also showed growth in a few key areas. Sarah had, in her first interview, shown considerable respect for other cultures, but had been rather dismissive of her own. In particular, Sarah had described her hometown as non-diverse and provincial, framing other cultures as more cosmopolitan — and, implicitly, better — than her own. This does not explicitly shift over the course of the project; however, the last interview does show an absence of disapproval towards any particular culture. Sarah took a critical stance towards certain cultures, such as online make-up tutorial culture, analyzing them in the framework of their experiences and likely background; however, she refrained from value judgments. This may have been due to an increase in respect,

191 which did seem to be reflected in her survey scores: her score in this area increased nearly 50 points from the beginning of the project to its end.

Another area where there was considerable growth was that of openness. As mentioned above, Sarah had demonstrated in her interviews that she greatly valued openness, naming it as one of the top qualities she sought out in friends. However, she had also shown a certain inability to suspend judgment when it came to other cultures and topics with which she was familiar. This had been reflected in her survey scores as well; answers indicated that she occasionally relied on pre-judgments. At the last administration of the survey, however, Sarah indicated a greater desire to suspend judgment and a greater willingness to work through cultural differences. In the data excerpt quoted above, Sarah discusses her use of “y’all,” a use which had been stigmatized by her friends who spoke different regional varieties of English. This was very similar to an incident she spoke of in the first interview, in which she disagreed with friends about the correct way of speaking. In the first incident, she had appealed to notions of “correctness” to support her choice of speech feature; in this interview, she instead analyzed the possible contexts of use that would be more or less appropriate:

I don't think like people from that area would probably use it I mean I'm just trying to think of my family and if I could even think of them (1.0) if I could picture them saying it like my aunt is a school principal do I think she would say y'all when she was addressing her students I mean I don't think so but um but it's definitely part of their culture like in their informal settings but it's not appropriate maybe speak like that in a formal setting so there are definitely yeah things like that are just one example of like a right and a wrong way I mean it's not you know of course if you say it nobody's gonna not understand you but they might judge you

Sarah showed that she suspended her judgment in favor of considering potential implications. This suspension of judgment speaks to skills of openness.

192

She showed evidence of growth especially in the area of cultural self-awareness.

When asked about her cultural identity in the final interview, she again described herself as “American.” Yet when asked what that meant, this time, in comparison to the first time, she was able to provide an answer. It must be noted that the answer provided was quite hesitant and halting; as she spoke, she was clearly working through and processing her thoughts. While this means that self-definition did not come easily for her, it also seems to indicate that the answer was the product of a reflective process, rather than a narrative that she had already decided upon.

Hope: how do you see your personal cultural identity Sarah: (1) um hmm a young American I guess Hope: and what does that Sarah: there's Hope: yeah Sarah: so many different ways (.5) to describe that Hope: what does that mean to you Sarah: hmm (2) Hope: or if that question is too big you said like that there are so many like different ways to describe it so like kind of what are some of the different ways that you might uh use to describe your identity Sarah: (6) well I guess there (3) there are just so many different levels like I could say like (3) I'm talking about like my day-to-day life (2) it's hard cause of course I would say of course I'm American now when I think about being an American every day and don't think about how that um determines my interaction and what I'm doing of course it does and being young or being a student it probably those two are the biggest right now just because um the kinds of people I'm around are my similar age and are doing a similar thing so those two like smaller cultures are probably most important for me so I'm not even necessarily around all Americans cause there are other students international students in school but those two are probably influencing my life right now I guess Hope: yeah and so uh what do you think the role of other people is in your cultural identity then like kind of what what effect do the people around you have on your own personal identity Sarah: well I think it's just what kind of culture you're cultures you belong to and I think they're I think it's natural as like in biology to try to belong to a group and so but these main groups are in your life and you're trying to belong to these groups that are possibly like pulling you in and it's going to affect how you behave and how you speak and how you even think because I mean it's just like an inherent (laughs uncomfortably) inherent thing that might not even think about

Her cultural self-knowledge had grown considerably between the first interview and this final one. It must be noted that, at this point, Sarah was still not particularly comfortable

193 talking about her identity. Her speech was marked by numerous false starts and pauses.

Nevertheless, the length of her uninterrupted discourse was markedly different from the first interview, in which she scarcely had more than a few disjointed thoughts about her cultural identity. Here, she was able to describe herself having a cultural identity that was multifaceted and situated in her local groups; she described how this cultural identity is produced in cooperation with others; she spoke about how broad cultural narratives and imagined communities become relevant only when being foregrounded by speech events like the interview I was conducting with her. She was able to differentiate her imagined culture (American) from the real cultures she participated in (communities of practice).

Further, she questioned the hegemonic narratives dominating the cultures in which she participated (for example, that the student groups she engaged with were “American” when in fact they have a broad international make-up). Moreover, she was also able to directly articulate the effect that culture can have on the individual and an individual’s behavior:

Sarah: well just to try and take on some similar characteristics um or try to find things in common whether that's like topics of discussion or trying to observe behaviors that are more mainstream and then trying to imitate them um because when you see a lot of people around you doing similar things then you think oh this must be normal this is what I should be doing in this group

Finally, she also discussed why groups exist in human social behavior and why adapting to cultural norms is important to promote belonging.

This discussion of her cultural identity is highly complex and sophisticated. It contrasts her initial cultural self-identification, where her answers primarily focused on how she did not fit well with stereotypes of Americans.

194

What brought about this growth in cultural self-knowledge? From her answers to these questions, it seems that her participation in the course and online project were crucial to this. Sarah answered the questions about her cultural identity using terminology drawn directly from the online course. “Small culture” is the term used in the course to describe communities of practice (as drawn from Holliday 1999); she referenced her

“smaller cultures” several times throughout her answer, using the term to identify communities of practice and contrasting them against the broad American identity that emerges in discourse. The descriptive tools she used in identifying and articulating her culture were drawn from what was presented to the students in the online course.

Her trajectory of development of empathy, as noted above, was also quite interesting. Sarah appeared to stay stable in her measurements of empathy across all three exams, but in fact, she was consistently rating herself lower in cognitive empathy and higher in emotional contagion, resulting in the appearance of stability. This may have been happening because of an increase in understanding of cultural complexity: the questions dealing with cognitive empathy asked participants to agree or disagree with the statements, “I understand what Russians are thinking,” and “I could imagine my life if I’d grown up Russian.” These questions might possibly have been confounded by the effect of growing intercultural awareness: perhaps the scores were lowered due to a deeper understanding of the cultural differences between Russian and American cultures, which lowered her confidence that she understood all the complexities of Russian culture. In fact, she described her ability to rationally analyze Russian culture both in the past and in the present; at several points, she described thinking about Russian speakers’ behavior in

195 terms of their cultural background, and she also thoroughly analyzed the culture-speech interface in her project exploring diminutive use. The declining self-rating in cognitive empathy is, therefore, not only not supported by the qualitative data, it seems to be contradicted by it.

Sarah also gave a lower rating to her skills of deep cultural awareness over time.

While Sarah had agreed completely with the statement “Culture is important to how people think” on the pretest (giving it a 100), this degree of agreement dropped steadily with each administration of the survey. She, similarly, was at ceiling in her agreement with the statement, “Everyone has a different worldview”; by the third administration of the exam, this had also dropped. This indicates a shift from believing in the importance of culture towards minimizing cultural differences, which on a surface level seems in line with Bennett's (1986) theory that growing intercultural competence will develop from an initial tendency to exoticize other cultures towards a belief in the universality of cultures; only afterwards will the individual develop further, towards an understanding of cultural difference as a real phenomenon. Yet it must be noted that Sarah did not seem to be stuck at the first phase of development at the start of the study; she did not exoticize or foreignize other cultures, but instead articulated capably how institutions can intersect with culture to shape individuals’ lives. Is this, then, truly a regression in abilities?

Some insight may be derived from Sarah’s qualitative data. In her final interview, she did not seem to show a lack of cultural understanding. When discussing Southern

United States speech culture, for example, she described how the contexts in which they were or were not likely to use the second person plural pronoun “y’all” were likely

196 shaped by their cultural backgrounds. Likewise, when talking about diminutive use, she discussed how there were potentially parallels between English and Russian, but stressed that things might be different:

I feel like in English you just kind of like add vowels and inflection and make it different whereas I don't I don't know that even that the inflection would change that much in Russian my Russian teacher when she was speaking in diminutives didn't really sound any different it was just like the words themselves so that's also a different like interesting cultural comparative like you could think this person is being super serious but they're actually you know speaking very gently.

This statement, which is quite nuanced and thoughtful, clearly does not mark a regression from a more-developed view of culture to a less-developed one; nor does it mark the progression from stereotyping into minimization. Rather, Sarah seems to have a dialectical view of culture: she seems to simultaneously hold views that are universalist in nature (stressing the commonalities amongst all people) and specific in nature

(understanding the importance of one’s unique cultural upbringing). At any given moment, these viewpoints seem to be in contention with one another, with Sarah attempting to negotiate this tension through concrete examples from her personal experience. Therefore, this shift in survey scores may be due to uncertainty and chaos in her personal view of culture.

Finally, her culture-specific knowledge followed an unexpected trajectory. There was an initial rise in her culture-specific knowledge as she went through the course itself; however, this self-assessment of knowledge decreased again after she carried out the project. This may have been due to the fact that, in carrying out her project, Sarah ran into a number of unexpected difficulties. For example, when discussing what would have made it easier to carry out her project, she said, “I wish I was Russian,” discussing how

197

Russians have access to and knowledge of a wide range of websites that were unknown to her. The frustration of discovering that there was an aspect of Russian culture that she had not even known that she was ignorant of may have caused enough frustration to lower her self-perception of cultural knowledge.

6.5. Contrasting Sarah with other participants

As mentioned in the introduction, Sarah was someone who engaged with the project and saw strong outcomes. She can be contrasted against a few other participants in the study to gain insight into her outcomes.

Anna was one participant who had stronger growth than Sarah. Anna did not have as much international experience as Sarah and started from a place of less intercultural and sociolinguistic competence. Some mobility within the United States had allowed her to experience some cultures other than her own, and so she was able to articulate some understanding of cultural variation; additionally, academic experience allowed her some insight into patterns of sociolinguistic variation. Anna participated very thoroughly in the project — more consistently than Sarah — and saw more growth in her self-reported outcomes. By the end of the study, she particularly showed evidence of a deeper awareness of sociolinguistic variation in Russian.

Andy, meanwhile, had weaker growth than Sarah. Andy had started with a strong academic background in languages, linguistics, and sociology, which likely contributed to his high starting scores on the surveys. Even from the beginning, Andy displayed evidence of cultural awareness and cultural relativism. He also showed a good awareness 198 of tools of cultural exploration, easily choosing a topic for his online ethnographic exploration that was well-suited to the scope of the project. However, Andy did not participate very consistently in the study; he turned in assignments late and did not do much to actually make progress on the ethnographic project. In the post-project interview, he showed evidence of little shift in his perspectives; he did not take up any of the language of the small-cultures approach to intercultural understanding, and nor did he show increased knowledge of Russian sociolinguistic patterns.

6.6. Sarah: Summary

Sarah was, in many ways, the ideal participant for a project like this. Her background fit the very traditional image of a language learner at an advanced level. She is a classroom learner of Russian with strong language skills and international experience. She came into the Summer Language Institute as a graduate student interested in international affairs; her ultimate goal was to work in an international sphere. Global-minded, curious, open, empathetic, and committed, Sarah had the qualities identified by Deardorff as crucial to intercultural competence. What is more, her participation in the project was thorough and consistent. In the end, her outcomes showed strong intercultural and sociolinguistic learning during her participation in this project.

199

Chapter 7: Discussion and conclusion

Introduction

To review, my research questions were the following.

1. Is it possible to increase language learners’ intercultural and sociolinguistic

competence by having them engage in quasi-ethnographic inquiry regarding an

aspect of their target culture, using online language data to investigate their

question?

2. How does learner engagement affect these sociolinguistic and intercultural

outcomes?

3. Can this ethnographic program be made widely accessible by making it scalable

to those outside of the traditional classroom setting?

The following chapter will evaluate these research questions in light of the data presented in the preceding chapters. This chapter will also discuss limitations of this study. As with any empirical research, this study was not perfect; in the course of carrying it out, potential improvements to my methods and the process became clear. Discussions of these limitations and potential improvements to this study will be interspersed throughout 200 the chapter, rather than grouped together at the end of this chapter, as I found it more useful and logical to associate these potential improvements with each research question in turn.

7.1. Results of participation

The first key question is whether participation in this program was beneficial to the development of ICC and sociolinguistic competence. The data indicate that there was a relationship between participation in this program and growth in these qualities.

7.1.1. Intercultural competence

Participation in this program was associated with a growth in ICC. Participants in Phase 1 of the study saw a general growth in their self-reported scores for ICC. This was supported by data taken from interviews and assignment data. Statistical analysis of the results of the participants in Phase 2 of the study, meanwhile, showed a significant growth in their self-reported ICC.

As identified by Deardorff (2006), there are a number of different subcomponents of ICC. The data from this study revealed that language learners began with varying levels of strength in these subcomponents, and that these subcomponents also developed at different rates over the course of the study.

We can look more closely at specific subcomponents of ICC to see examples of this. Participants in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 began this study with high levels of deep 201 cultural awareness — the awareness of culture as a force that shapes individuals’ practices — with many participants responding to the initial survey at or near the maximum score for these qualities. There was actually a decrease in this subcomponent over time in Phase 1, and only a small growth in the subcomponent in Phase 2. Empathy, likewise, saw relatively little self-reported growth in either phase of the study. These specific subcomponents did not seem to respond particularly strongly to the ethnographic training or participation in the program overall.

In contrast, cultural self-awareness grew considerably over the course of the study. Participants’ initial scores on cultural self-awareness were quite low in Phase 1.

Correspondingly, qualitative data also showed that participants in Phase 1 all had trouble articulating their cultural self-image at the beginning of the study. When they were asked to discuss their culture, they tended to identify themselves as being simply “American,” yet when asked to define what that meant, they often relied upon stereotypes of American identity or described American culture as an absence of culture. Individuals initially described their cultural background as “not very strong” or described how they did not adhere to the stereotypes they themselves described as central to being American.

However, this developed over the course of the study, with participants explaining their cultural identity in far more nuanced and specific terms.

The participants’ initial cultural self-image seemed to have been molded by the national paradigm (Risager, 2007). Their responses revealed discomfort as they tried to articulate how they fit into this national framework; they often expressed uncertainty as they tried to explain their identities, and all of them begin their discussions of their

202 culture with lengthy pauses or with the phrase “I don’t know,” with their subsequent responses further marked by numerous pauses, false starts, and hedging phrases like “sort of” and “kind of.”

Participants’ growth in cultural self-awareness seemed marked by a shift towards the transnational paradigm. This is unsurprising, given that the course was based in transnational thinking. It was interesting, however, how much they shifted towards describing their cultural identity in terms of practices and local types of belonging. One participant, in the final interview, described her cultural identity in terms of her joint practices with sports teams. Another participant, when asked to describe her cultural identity, described how her identity could shift in accordance with her participation with different communities of practice and, indeed, identified how this identity was constructed jointly with her communities. The participants in this project took up perspectives from the transnational paradigm.

This growth in cultural self-image could have simply been due to participation in a Russian language course, rather than due to this training. Yet it is possible to observe how participants also employed terminology taken from the cultural training they received, using it to help them describe their cultural identities. Chapter 6 went into some detail regarding on one participant’s way of using these terms. Another participant described culture in his final interview as the “shared experiences” of a group, a term that was used in the course. While he did not express a fully transnational perspective in this interview — he still tended to use a priori definitions of the groups he was discussing — he still expressed many elements of a postmodern viewpoint. For example, he focused on

203 groups’ constructions of their shared history as a crucial element of culture-building; he also discussed how language could be used by group members to differentiate themselves from others. This description showed that he was able to express the concepts of the imagined community and the importance of group self-definition in creating culture.

There was one result from the ICC survey that seemed strange and which warrants further reflection. The participants in Phase 1 saw a decrease in self-reported deep cultural awareness over the course of their participation, while the participants in

Phase 2 saw only a very small growth. In both cases, participants had started near the ceiling and then either failed to develop or actually decreased in their scores. There are two possible explanations for this. The first might be explained by bringing in one of the major models of intercultural competence, the DMIS (Bennett, 1986). According to

Bennett, the cultural learning trajectory typically follows certain stages: learners initially focus on broad stereotyped cultural differences. After this initial stage, learners develop towards a stage in which they minimize these cultural differences, promoting and advocating for a universalist sort of cultural stance; essentially, they promote the idea that

“people are people,” denying the role of cultural backgrounds in human cognition. Only after that stage, with further exposure and reflection, do they begin to understand the reality of cultural differences and their role in shaping perspectives and practices. It is possible that this dip in scores between the pre- and post-tests came from a growth in intercultural competence: participants moved towards minimization of differences, and because they minimized, their scores decreased. The survey of ICC that I employed did

204 not account for this; likely, more questions that could pinpoint the learners’ beliefs about cultural differences would help make the ICC measurement tool more precise.

This U-shaped learning was supported by interviews with the Phase 1 participants. Early interviews with participants show them drawing upon stereotypes when defining Russian culture. In later interviews, however, participants were largely unwilling to share an overview of Russian culture. One participant, asked about her perspective on Russian culture, focused simply on the usefulness of learning about

Russian culture and comparing personal experiences to what was taught in school.

Avoidance was the typical strategy in order to not reproduce stereotypical narratives of cultural difference. Some participants showed evidence of these stereotypes being replaced, as per the DMIS, by minimization. Others, however, showed that they were pushing into an understanding of cultural differences; these attitudes were accompanied by a stable level of cultural understanding across all three administrations of the survey.

Overall, participation in this program was associated with significant growth in self-reported ICC, as demonstrated by the results from Phase 2 of the study. Phase 1, meanwhile, provided insight into how this growth could vary by subcomponent of ICC.

Participation in the study did not affect all subcomponents of intercultural competence equally. Nevertheless, on the whole, the trends in ICC were positive.

There are several primary implications that can be taken from these patterns of

ICC growth. First, it shows that ICC is not a unidimensional construct; this has been argued by several theorists, including Deardorff (2006). Individuals were able to perceive

205 themselves as growing in some dimensions of ICC without perceiving growth in others.

Additionally, it seems that this program was effective in training ICC overall.

8.1.2. Sociolinguistic competence

Participation in this project was somewhat associated with a growth in sociolinguistic competence. Participants in Phase 1 of the project saw a general growth of their self- reported sociolinguistic competence, a trend that was supported by qualitative data taken from interviews and assignments. Statistical analysis of the survey data from the participants in Phase 2, however, showed non-significant growth in self-reported sociolinguistic competence.

For the purposes of this study, sociolinguistic competence was decomposed into two separate subcomponents: sociolinguistic attitudes and sociolinguistic knowledge. The former was a construct assessing participants’ attitudes towards and tolerance of speech variation, with a higher score indicating a greater willingness to tolerate speech variation.

The second was a construct assessing participants’ confidence in their ability to utilize speech norms in the target language to bring about a desired social effect. Both subcomponents saw growth in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Growth in self-reported sociolinguistic attitudes was steady amongst both groups, with all participants in Phase 1 except for one participant perceiving a growth in their attitudes over time. Participants in

Phase 2 also saw an increase in their sociolinguistic attitudes. In Phase 1, all participants except for one saw a strong increase in sociolinguistic knowledge, and the participants in

Phase 2 also saw a growth between the pre- and posttest. 206

Qualitative analysis of interview data supports that participants underwent a growth in sociolinguistic attitudes over time, though there were still gaps in their sociolinguistic attitudes at the end of the study. All of the participants indicated some deeper understanding of the norms of the target culture, such as the fact that there were multiple language varieties and multiple language registers; at the beginning of the study, their ability to articulate this fact was relatively limited. However, while the participants were able to discuss sociolinguistic variation in their target language, there was often a reluctance to apply that to their own language: one, for example, said that “obviously there’s proper grammar,” and another said that “everything is forgivable, but you should be getting the grammar right.”22 While it is clearly possible to help individuals develop a more nuanced view of the sociolinguistic patterns of their target language, they might not necessarily apply this tolerance towards variation to their own language.

Likewise, qualitative analysis showed a general growth in sociolinguistic knowledge, though again there were some areas that resisted development. Participants still discussed their discomfort with performing certain aspects of their identities in their target languages. A particular theme was their perceived inability to be properly funny in their second language; even one participant who specifically studied humor indicated that she still was not entirely certain how to tell a Russian joke. Still, even if their self- confidence in Russian remained relatively limited, their understanding of others’ language use and manipulation clearly grew over time; see Chapter 6 for a discussion of

22 It is worth noting that, because of the interview format and my status as an educational authority, they were likely trying to perform a more academic identity with me, which can be associated with prescriptivism and superstandardness (Bucholtz, 1999). They might have been less prescriptive in other settings. 207

Sarah’s growth of understanding of beauty bloggers’ language use. The participants’ metapragmatic knowledge might subsequently be used in target-language encounters to help them build their own target-language personas over time and communicate those personas in interaction with others (see, e.g., House, 1996 for a discussion of the use of metapragmatic knowledge).

Indeed, a useful measurement in a follow-up study would be to evaluate participants’ actual sociolinguistic skills in their target language. The survey allowed participants to self-assess their sociolinguistic skills. However, it would be useful to carry out a more detailed and nuanced assessment of their actual ability. This might be done by having participants describe their ideal selves and their goals in interactions with others, then having them interact in the target language; afterwards, post-interaction interviews or playback protocols could be used for data collection in which both they and their interlocutor assess whether or not they were able to achieve their goals. This would allow a researcher to assess — to some degree — whether or not these participants were actually able to act on their sociolinguistic knowledge, or whether the knowledge remained abstract.

7.2. Engagement

Among the factors that seemed to shape ICC and sociolinguistic development was engagement. Engagement was the degree to which an individual participated in the online program. Someone who completed all assignments was defined as being high-

208 engagement, while someone who completed only some assignments was considered to be low-engagement.23

Being a high-engagement participant seemed to be associated with greater growth in intercultural and sociolinguistic competence. One participant, for example, had relatively low rates of participation in the study: he completed the course only partially, skipped one administration of the survey, and did only preliminary work on the final ethnographic project. He also did not continue studying Russian after completing the summer course. He can be considered a low-engagement participant. This low level of engagement was associated with a slight decline in his scores on the survey. In contrast, another who participated quite extensively in both the online course and subsequent project and can be considered a high-engagement participant saw a large increase between the pretest and final administration of the sociolinguistic survey. It seems that the participation in the online course and project may be linked to strong growth in key sociolinguistic attitudes and skills such as awareness of own speech, tolerance of variation, and awareness of variation.

So what, then, caused these differing levels of engagement? Why did some participants complete their assignments on time, and why did others drop out entirely?

Engagement is the product of motivation. Motivation is a complex construct, one that involves a wide range of internal and external factors. It is possible to identify a few

23 While I had originally intended to also include quality of participation as an element of engagement — defining students who participated with only a small amount of thought put into their assignments, or who did not complete the assignments, as low-engagement — as it turned out, quality of participation was consistently high. Completion of assignments was essentially an all-or-nothing affair: either the participants did an excellent job, or they did not complete the assignments at all. 209 key motivational factors that have shaped classroom engagement that also seem to be relevant to participation in this study.

One factor that shapes classroom motivation is the perception of the instrumentality of the classwork (Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004).

Essentially, students engage more with the material when they perceive that it is somehow useful to achieving their personally-relevant future goals.

In this case, it is possible to assume that participants have roughly similar goals in the language classroom — to become proficient enough in the Russian language to be able to use it in some way in the future. What use meant varied from individual to individual. For more detail on this, we can look to the data from the participants in Phase

1 of the study. For example, one participant’s interest in the Russian language grew out of a combination of academic interest and nostalgia: he mostly wanted to know more about the language and its structure, and was also interested in it because many of his childhood friends had spoken it. In contrast, another participant’s goal was to gain high enough Russian proficiency to be able to work in the field for a non-governmental organization somewhere in the former USSR. In general, participants were pursuing knowledge of or about Russian; engagement in this project was shaped by participants’ belief that completion of this work would help them in this pursuit.

What is important in this construct is that actual instrumentality is not what affects engagement, but rather students’ perceptions of the instrumentality. Cultural learning might contribute strongly to effective language use, but if participants do not perceive that is the case, then they will not engage. As summarized in previous chapters

210 and discussed extensively by the likes of Kramsch, language classrooms often conceptually and symbolically separate language from culture. This separation, in turn, may lead students to view cultural and language learning as distinct from one another.

It is likely that the structure of this study also symbolically contributed to this perception of the language-culture separation. In Phase 1 of the study, I was not integrated whatsoever into the Russian language course. It was clear that SLI supported my work, as SLI administrators had initially sent out emails advertising my study, and as

I was present at many program-wide events. However, I was not present in the language classroom aside from the few times I dropped by to observe the way the class was organized. My study was not mentioned by the participants’ Russian teachers, and my evaluation of participants’ work was not shared with the participants’ instructors in any way. This likely exaggerated the sense in Phase 1 that culture was separate from and unrelated to language proficiency.

I tried to address this in Phase 2 by integrating my project into the classroom.

However, even then, there was symbolic separation between the language and culture activities. Culture work was associated with me, while language work was associated with participants’ regular instructor. Culture-related homework had a specific structure that was different from the structure of the language-related homework. When I interacted with participants, the participants’ regular instructor was not copied on these emails; when I attended class, she was not present. Many of these choices were made to conform to the rules set out by the Institutional Review Board: by separating the research-related assignments from the instructor’s oversight, it was less likely that the

211 students would feel any pressure to participate, which reduced the risk that they were being coerced into the study. However, this ethical decision had the consequence of making the research — and, therefore, cultural learning — seem separate from language learning. This, in turn, reduced perception of instrumentality and engagement.

I did attempt to do a few things from the beginning to combat this sense of non- instrumentality of the work. I encouraged the participants to choose a speech community to research that was relevant in some way to their future goals; for example, one participant was interested in governmental work in the future, so I encouraged him to research political discourse online. In future iterations, taking steps such as these to increase perceived instrumentality would be crucial to participant success.

Another element that may have reduced engagement was the way that the project was not designed to create relationships among the participants or between the participants and me. Most of the participants’ work was done independently. While there were elements of interactivity in the project, such as a discussion board which was used occasionally, participants did not interact much with one another. Indeed, in Phase 1, they never actually interacted in person with one another, and only met with me in person occasionally. In Phase 2, the participants had contact with one another, but those moments of interaction were in the context of the language-focused classroom.

Research has shown that interpersonal relationships are important in maintaining classroom motivation (Martin & Dowson, 2009). I had hoped that relationships mediated by an online environment might be sufficient to ensure engagement: I interacted with participants over email and Skype, and participants used message boards to interact with

212 one another. However, it seems that this type of interaction was not sufficient to maintain motivation. One participant, in discussing her perceptions that she did not do enough in this project, said, “I feel like a failure,” but then gave the explanation that, “But I don’t see you every day, so…” An iteration of this study that ensures that learners form meaningful relationships with both the facilitator and with one another — perhaps by utilizing group-work or ensuring that the participants interact in person — might be useful for ensuring engagement.

7.3. Accessibility

Another question of the study is whether this program might make cultural learning more accessible. In particular, the online course and subsequent ethnographic exploration could potentially make learning more accessible in two ways:

1) by enabling students who are unable to study abroad to have extensive contact

with their target culture; and

2) by making this program available even to those who are not able to study

language in a traditional classroom setting.

Accessibility might have been curtailed by the following factors. First, the participants might have found it difficult to gather data, perhaps due to difficulty accessing sites where Russian-language speakers interact. They might even have had difficulty accessing the internet. Internet connectivity did not pose a problem in this 213 study; this group of students had good and reliable internet connections.24 Furthermore, the resources needed to participate in this program were not taxing: participants largely viewed static pages, with only a few isolated instances where they needed to engage with streaming videos. A few participants required better accessibility to carry out their ethnographic projects — for example, one accessed a large number of YouTube videos

— but participants were also able to shape their ethnographic projects to suit the resources they had access to.

Actually accessing the Russian-language data was more of an obstacle. Gaining access to websites was rarely an issue. The participants gathered data only from public sites, not from those that required any sort of login.25 Fortunately, there are a plethora of

Russian-language websites with open posting, so participants had a wide selection of possible resources. However, one considerable barrier to accessibility was not knowing where to find these resources; the participants needed considerable advice and guidance to find a website that interested them and that they felt prepared to research.

The participants also might not have treated internet interaction as “real” interaction, which would have caused this program to fail. If the participants had viewed online communication and interaction as something completely separate from interpersonal interaction, and resisted the idea of internet culture as “culture,” they would

24 The participants were all young people living in an urban setting in the United States who were embedded in the structure of the university, which has a vested interest in ensuring reliable internet connections and access to information. Therefore, their ease in finding reliable internet connections is not generalizable to all populations. 25 This was done because individuals posting in spaces that require membership to view would likely have a higher expectation of privacy, even if membership was open to everyone. Instead, participants only gathered data from online spaces that had no screening mechanism. 214 have difficulty taking their insights about online culture and applying them to face-to- face culture. However, there is no evidence that the online data were perceived as artificial or inauthentic. In interviews and assignments, participants were able to talk about their imagined participation in these online communities. If the participants had perceived the communities as unreal, they likely would have had difficulty describing their potential participation in them. Additionally, several made conjectures about face- to-face Russian-language speech culture based on their observations about online speech culture; for example, one made observations about online discussion about comedy and applied those observations to the Russian comedy scene more broadly. It seems that the participants viewed online interactions as part of the social structure, rather than something separate from it. Therefore, they were able to generalize the insights they gained from observing online interactions to culture more generally.

Overall, therefore, the program did make cultural learning accessible to participants who were embedded in an educational system. However, there was also an additional goal: making this program available to those outside the educational system.

Greater accessibility for those without the resources to go abroad is certainly useful, but participants in a language classroom, with access to an instructor, are already a privileged pool of learners. What of those who cannot access instructors?

The ideal solution would be to turn this course into a massive open online course, or MOOC. MOOCs are open-enrollment, no-fee courses that are available online. These courses often have vast numbers of students who complete assignments, watch videos, participate on discussion forums, and the like. Because of the size and scale of these

215 courses — MOOCs can have hundreds of thousands of students enrolled (Breslow et al.,

2013) — there is very little instructor oversight of students in the course. Any feedback given is automated, rather than being personalized to the individual student. Often,

MOOCs have very high levels of student drop-out; typically, fewer than 10% of enrolled students complete the course (Jordan, 2014). Some courses have managed to achieve higher completion rates by, for example, employing teaching assistants to give feedback or asking students to pay a fee up-front (Ahearn, 2019). While these steps have had remarkable impact upon the student dropout rates, they also inherently make the courses less accessible.

Could this program be adapted into being a MOOC-like course, widely available to a large number of students, regardless of their resources? Automation of the program in its current state would not be feasible. The participants needed extensive guidance and feedback to progress in the program. For example, they did not even know where to uncover Russian-language data. In Phase 1, I did not initially guide students to websites where Russian speakers interacted with one another, as I wanted participants to have the ability to explore a wide range of spaces. However, four out of the five Phase 1 participants subsequently asked for help finding appropriate digital spaces for exploration. In Phase 2, I provided the participants with some background regarding various websites that they might explore; even then, however, some participants indicated that they faced difficulty finding appropriate data for analysis. Furthermore, even successful participants required a considerable amount of feedback to begin their analysis of collected data. The experience of ethnographic exploration is a very new one for these

216 participants; additionally, it is novel in a way that is often strange and quite likely violates student expectations: after all, they are students in a modernist (Risager, 2007) language classroom being asked to operate in a postmodernist paradigm. This is most certainly not impossible, as participants in this project have shown, but it also requires considerable reassurance and guidance.

Additionally, as discussed in earlier sections, participants seemed to depend very heavily upon contact with the researcher to keep them motivated and moving along in the program: when I was absent or removed from the situation, the participants fell behind.

While it could be easy to say that accessibility only really matters most for those who are motivated to access it — that a program should be designed for those who want to learn, not for everyone in the world — that is still not a wholly satisfactory answer. This program should have an element of fun or curiosity that would keep people moving through it of their own accord. It must be refined to ensure that people want to engage with it; otherwise, it simply could not succeed as a program without external stakes ensuring that participants continue on and complete it.

Ultimately, this program does make cultural learning more accessible for those who are already embedded within an educational system. However, it is not scalable in its current form: it still relies upon the classroom structure for success. Therefore, it is not broadly accessible.

217

7.4. Conclusion and future directions

Students of foreign languages do not only need to learn the grammar and vocabulary of the language they are studying. They need, too, to learn about patterns of speech and variation. They need to understand how speech intersects with culture. Finally, they must also have a set of tools that they can use to independently investigate speech cultures that they come into contact with, so that they can gain the understanding necessary to interact with these speech cultures on their own terms.

This project has studied whether giving Russian learners access to these tools increases their understanding of other cultures’ and those cultures’ speech patterns. It has done so by taking learners through an online program that teaches about the processes of ethnography and then asks these learners to carry out an ethnographic inquiry of their own. It has also studied how the online delivery format interacts with the learners’ engagement with the material, to see whether making this style of learning accessible to a wider group of language learners would be feasible.

In the project, I have shown that having learners carry out ethnographic inquiry is associated with an increase in sociolinguistic and intercultural competence. Through investigating online speech cultures, participants were able to increase their awareness of foreign-language variation and the ways in which language is used to perform culture.

However, I have also shown that an online delivery format is associated with difficulties in maintaining students’ engagement and motivation. This reduces the efficacy of this program as a widely-accessible teaching tool: if students need to be pressured to continue

218 learning, then only a small subset of learners would be successful in this program if it were scaled out to a large number of learners.

The challenge, therefore, will be to increase motivation without losing educational value. This might be done in a number of ways. Something as simple as a more elegant visual design for the website might increase learners’ engagement. On the more complex and complicated side, elements of gamification might help learners stay with the course: turning parts of the learning experience into a game holds promise for ensuring that learners maintain motivation (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015).

On the whole, this program is a promising one. It requires further refinement to be scalable to a large population. However, those who participated in it did see a deepening of their sociolinguistic and intercultural awareness, all without having spent a single dollar to travel abroad.

219

Bibliography

Agar, M. (1994). Language Shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New

York: William Morrow & Co.

Ahearn, A. (2019, June 6). Moving From 5% to 85% Completion Rates for Online

Courses. EdSurge News. Retrieved June 8, 2019, from

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-06-06-moving-from-5-to-85-completion-

rates-for-online-courses

Alcón-Soler, E. (2015). Pragmatic learning and study abroad: Effects of instruction and

length of stay. System, 48, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.005

Althen, G. (1994). American ways: A guide for foreigners in the United States (2nd ed.).

Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of

nationalism. Verso Books.

Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., Rexeisen, R. J., & Hubbard, A. C. (2006). Short-term study

abroad and intercultural sensitivity: A pilot study. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 30(4), 457–469.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.10.004

220

Andrews, E. (1999). Gender roles and perception: Russian diminutives in discourse. In

M. H. Mills (Ed.), Slavic Gender Linguistics (pp. 85–112).

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Angelova, M., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Using an online collaborative project between

American and Chinese students to develop ESL teaching skills, cross-cultural

awareness and language skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1),

167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.907320

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. U of

Minnesota Press.

Arasaratnam, L. A. (2009). The development of a new instrument of intercultural

communication competence. Journal of Intercultural Communication, (20).

Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr20/arasaratnam.htm

Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of

Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 83–95.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672890800388X

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A

research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677–

713. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00105

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63, 68–86.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x

221

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the

ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401–415.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.004

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things

with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing.

Barron, A., & Black, E. (2015). Constructing small talk in learner-native speaker voice-

based telecollaboration: A focus on topic management and backchanneling.

System, 48, 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.009

Bateman, B. E. (2002). Promoting openness toward culture learning: Ethnographic

interviews for students of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 318–

331. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00152

Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural

competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68–99.

Belz, J. A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of

L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 45–75.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508070037

Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic

competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms.

Language Learning, 53(4), 591–647. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-

9922.2003.00238.x

222

Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–196.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2

Benson, P. (2011). Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An

introduction to the field. In Beyond the Language Classroom (pp. 7–16).

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230306790_2

Bhabha, H. K. (2012). The location of culture. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language

proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 157–168.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012857

Blattner, G., Dalola, A., & Lomicka, L. (2016). Twitter in foreign language classes:

Initiating learners into contemporary language variation. In Handbook of

Research on Learning Outcomes and Opportunities in the Digital Age (pp. 769–

797).

Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2011). Virtual social network communities: An investigation of

language learners’ development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy

skills. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 24–43.

Blattner, G., & Lomicka, L. (2012). A sociolinguistic study of practices in different social

forums in an intermediate French class. International Journal of Instructional

Technology and Distance Learning, 9(9), 3–24.

223

Borden, A. W. (2007). The impact of service-learning on ethnocentrism in an

intercultural communication course. Journal of Experiential Education, 30(2),

171–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590703000206

Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’

conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22.

https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748

Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., & Ginsberg, R. P. (1995). Predictors of foreign language

gain during study abroad. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a

study abroad context (pp. 37–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T.

(2013). Studying learning in the world wide classroom: Research into edX’s first

MOOC. Research and Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–23.

Briggs, C. L. (1986). learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the

interview in social science research. Cambridge University Press.

Brooks, P. J., & Kempe, V. (2013). Individual differences in adult foreign language

learning: The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory & Cognition,

41(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0262-9

Bucholtz, M. (1999). “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a

community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28(2), 203–223.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599002043

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.

Clevedon; Philadelphia; Toronto; Sydney; Johannesburg: Multilingual Matters.

224

Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural

citizenship: Essays and reflections. Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (2012). Language awareness and (critical) cultural awareness: Relationships,

comparisons and contrasts. Language Awareness, 21, 5–13.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.639887

Byrd, D. R., Hlas, A. C., Watzke, J., & Valencia, M. F. M. (2011). An examination of

culture knowledge: A study of L2 teachers’ and teacher educators’ beliefs and

practices. Foreign Language Annals, 44(1), 4–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-

9720.2011.01117.x

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. OUP

Oxford.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language

pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and

Communication (pp. 1–47). London; New York: Routledge.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1981). A theoretical framework for communicative

competence.

Carré, A., Stefaniak, N., D’Ambrosio, F., Bensalah, L., & Besche-Richard, C. (2013).

The Basic Empathy Scale in adults (BES-A): Factor structure of a revised form.

Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 679–691.

Carroll, J. B. (1967). Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors

near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1(2), 131–151.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1967.tb00127.x

225

Cekaite, A. (2017). What makes a child a good language learner? Interactional

competence, identity, and immersion in a Swedish classroom. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 37, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000046

Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2004). repetition and joking in children’s second language

conversations: Playful recyclings in an immersion classroom. Discourse Studies,

6(3), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604044295

Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the

intercultural sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3(1), 3–14.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Chun, D. M. (2011). developing intercultural communicative competence through online

exchanges. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 392–419.

Çiftçi, E. Y. (2016). A review of research on intercultural learning through computer-

based digital technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 313–327.

Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners.

TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 33–56.

Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish

and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The

Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

4781.2007.00540.x

Cole, D., & Meadows, B. (2013). Avoiding the essentialist trap in intercultural education:

Using critical discourse analysis to read nationalist ideologies in the language

classroom. In F. Dervin & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Linguistics for intercultural

226

education (pp. 29–48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Coleman, J. A. (1997). Residence abroad within language study. Language Teaching,

30(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012659

Collentine, J. (2011). Study abroad research: Findings, implications, and future

directions. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The Handbook of Language

Teaching (pp. 218–233). Wiley-Blackwell.

Collins, L., Halter, R. H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and the

distribution of time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 655–680.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3587881

Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. (2005). Global

competence & national needs: One million Americans studying abroad.

Washington, D.C.

Cook. (2006). Joint construction of folk beliefs by JFL learners and Japanese host

families. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study

abroad contexts (pp. 120–150). Clevedon, England; Buffalo, NY: Multilingual

Matters.

Crozet, C., & Liddicoat, A. J. (1999). The challenge of intercultural language learning:

Engaging with culture in the classroom. In J. Lo Bianco, A. J. Liddicoat, & C.

Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the third place: Intercultural competence through

language education (pp. 113–125). Melbourne: Language Australia.

227

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual

classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de

Linguistique Appliquée, 10(2), 221–240.

Cunningham, D. J. (2016). Request modification in synchronous computer-mediated

communication: The role of focused instruction. The Modern Language Journal,

100(2), 484–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12332

Curriculum Overview: General structure. (n.d.). Retrieved June 16, 2018, from

Georgetown University Department of German website:

https://german.georgetown.edu/undergraduate/curriculum/overview

Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom.

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Davis, J. McE. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context.

Language Learning, 57(4), 611–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9922.2007.00430.x

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a

student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 10(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002

Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Los

Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Deardorff, D. K. (2011). Assessing intercultural competence. New Directions for

Institutional Research, 2011(149), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.381

228

Dee Fink, L. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach

to designing college courses.

DeKeyser, R. (2008). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long

(Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 313–348). John

Wiley & Sons.

Dema, O., & Moeller, A. (2012). Teaching culture in the 21st century language

classroom. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher

Education. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/181

Dewaele, J.-M. (2004a). Retention or omission of the ne in advanced French

interlanguage: The variable effect of extralinguistic factors. Journal of

Sociolinguistics, 8(3), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9841.2004.00268.x

Dewaele, J.-M. (2004b). Vous or tu? Native and non-native speakers of French on a

sociolinguistic tightrope. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching, 4(42), 383–402.

Dewey, D. P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in

intensive domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 26(2), 303–327.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104262076

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A

systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 1–14.

229

Dietrich, R. (1995). The acquisition of temporality in a second language. John Benjamins

Publishing.

Dolby, N. (2004). Encountering an American self: Study abroad and national identity.

Comparative Education Review, 48(2), 150–173. https://doi.org/10.1086/382620

Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog

readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1).

Dykstra, L. D. (2012). Learner perception of formal and informal pronouns in Russian.

The Modern Language Journal, 96(3), 400–418.

Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A

psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering intercultural competence development

in foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3),

454–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03307.x

Eslami, Z. R., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer

mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners’

pragmatic competence. System, 48.

Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D. K.

Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456–476).

Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

230

Fazio, L., & Lyster, R. (1998). Immersion and submersion classrooms: A comparison of

instructional practices in language arts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 19(4), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639808666358

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of

residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587–653.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00281.x

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A contrastive

study of the realization and perception of refusals. John Benjamins Publishing.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs,

role plays, and verbal reports. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech Act

Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues (pp. 41–56).

John Benjamins Publishing.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Cohen, A. D. (2012). Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign

Language Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource. Hispania, 95(4),

650–669.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Hasler-Barker, M. (2015). Complimenting in Spanish in a short-

term study abroad context. System, 48, 75–85.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.006

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental

concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x

231

Freed, B. F. (1990). Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of

interactive and non-interactive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement

and oral proficiency. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on

Languages and Linguistics (GURT) 1990: Linguistics, Language Teaching and

Language Acquisition: The Interdependece of Theory, Practice and Research (pp.

459–477). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

Freed, B. F. (Ed.). (1995). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second

language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and

intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

26(02), 275–301.

Furcsa, L. (2009). Outcomes of an intercultural e-mail based university discussion

project. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(1), 24–32.

Furstenberg, G. (2010). A dynamic, web-based methodology for developing intercultural

understanding. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on

Intercultural Collaboration (pp. 49–58).

García-Amaya, L. (2009). New findings on fluency measures across three different

learning contexts. In J. Collentine, M. García, B. Lafford, & F. Marcos Marín

(Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 68–

80). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

232

Gardner, R. C. (1986). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of

attitudes and motivation. London: Hodder Arnold.

Garrett, P., & Balsà, L. G. (2014). International universities and implications of

internationalisation for minority languages: Views from university students in

Catalonia and Wales. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,

35(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.874434

Geisler, M. (2016). “Language boot camp”: 100 years of Middlebury Language Schools.

In S. Berbeco (Ed.), Foreign language education in America: Perspectives from

K-12, university, government, and international learning (pp. 151–170). London:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Ginsberg, R. B., & Miller, L. (2000). What do they do?: Activities of students during

study abroad. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language Policy and

Pedagogy (p. 237). https://doi.org/10.1075/z.96.15gin

Gonzales, A. (2013). Development of politeness strategies in participatory online

environments: A case study. In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in

Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching (pp. 101–120).

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Gore, J. E. (2005). Dominant beliefs and alternative voices: Discourse, belief, and gender

in American study abroad. New York: Routledge.

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004).

Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement:

Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary

233

Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462–482.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in

one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-

934X(89)90048-5

Gudykunst, W. D. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory: Current

status. In International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 19.

Intercultural communication theory. (pp. 8–58). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano‐López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity:

Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and

Activity, 6(4), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039909524733

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural

sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-

1767(03)00032-4

Hammer, M. R., Wiseman, R. L., Rasmussen, J. L., & Bruschke, J. C. (1998). A test of

anxiety/uncertainty management theory: The intercultural adaptation context.

Communication Quarterly, 46(3), 309–326.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379809370104

Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning.

Columbia University Press.

234

Hassall, T. (2006). Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study. In M. A.

DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp.

31–58). Clevedon, England; Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of

address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1–17.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.003

Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, 68(4), 922–935.

https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.4.02a00040

Hiller, G. G. (2010). Innovative methods for promoting and assessing intercultural

competence in higher education (B. Dupuy & L. Waugh, Eds.). Tucson, AZ:

CERCLL.

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: SAGE.

Hinger, B. (2006). The distribution of instructional time and its effect on group cohesion

in the foreign language classroom: A comparison of intensive and standard format

courses. System, 34(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.08.003

Hinkel, E. (1996). When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors. Journal

of Pragmatics, 26(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00043-7

Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237–264.

Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2010). Intercultural communication: An

advanced resource book for students. Routledge.

235

House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language:

Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

18(2), 225–252.

Huebner, T. (1995). The effects of overseas language programs: Report on a case study

of an intensive Japanese course. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition

in a study abroad context (pp. 171–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What does it mean to be globally

competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and

issues. Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Iino, M. (2006). Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward a two-way

flow of linguistic and cultural resources. In M. A. DuFon & E. E. Churchill

(Eds.), Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 151–173). Multilingual

Matters.

Isabelli-García, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes:

Implications for second language acquisition. In M. A. DuFon & E. E. Churchill

(Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 231–259). Multilingual

Matters.

Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language

and culture meet. Routledge.

236

Jackson, J. (2006). Ethnographic preparation for short-term study and residence in the

target culture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(1), 77–98.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.004

Jackson, J. (2008). Globalization, internationalization, and short-term stays abroad.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 349–358.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.04.004

Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online

courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,

15(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651

Kagan, O. E., Kudyma, A. S., & Miller, F. J. (2014). Russian: From intermediate to

advanced (1 edition). London: Routledge.

Kanagy, R. (1999). Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and

socialization in an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(11), 1467–1492.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00113-1

Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics,

22(4), 502–530.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden,

MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Keranen, N., & Bayyurt, Y. (2006). Intercultural telecollaboration: In-service EFL

teachers in Mexico and pre-service EFL teachers in Turkey. TESL-EJ, 10(3).

237

Kiely, R. (2004). A chameleon with a complex: Searching for transformation in

international service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,

10(2), 5–20.

Kiliçkaya, F. (2004). Authentic materials and cultural content in EFL classrooms (Vol.

10). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570173

King, B. W. (2015). Wikipedia writing as praxis: Computer-mediated socialization of

second-language writers. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 106–123.

Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in

France. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 1–124.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00821.x

Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of

research. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kinginger, C. (2010). American students abroad: Negotiation of difference? Language

Teaching, 43(2), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005703

Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. A. (2005). Socio-cultural perspectives on pragmatic

development in foreign language learning: Microgenetic case studies from

telecollaboration and residence abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 369–421.

https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.369

Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of meta-pragmatic awareness

in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10,

19–42.

238

Kramsch, C. (1995). The cultural component of language teaching. Language, Culture

and Curriculum, 8(2), 83–92.

Kramsch, C. (2013). Culture in foreign language teaching. Iranian Journal of Language

Teaching Research, 1(1), 57–78.

Kramsch, C., & Gerhards, S. (2012). Im Gespräch: An interview with Claire Kramsch on

the “multilingual subject.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 45(1), 74–

82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1221.2012.00120.x

Kramsch, C., Howell, T., Warner, C., & Wellmon, C. (2007). Framing foreign language

education in the United States: The case of German. Critical Inquiry in Language

Studies, 4(2–3), 151–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427580701389615

Krasner, I. (1999). The role of culture in language teaching. Dialog on Language

Instruction, 13(1/2), 79–88.

Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and

local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44–65.

Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research.

Greenwood Publishing Group.

Lantz-Andersson, A. (2018). Language play in a second language: Social media as

contexts for emerging sociopragmatic competence. Education and Information

Technologies, 23(2), 705–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9631-0

Larina, T. (2003). Kategoriia vezhlivosti v angliiskoi i russkoi kommunakativnykh

kul’turakh. М.: Izdatelstvo RUDN, 315.

239

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language

development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language

Journal, 92(2), 200–213.

Lewis, T. L., & Niesenbaum, R. A. (2005). Extending the stay: Using community-based

research and service learning to enhance short-term study abroad. Journal of

Studies in International Education, 9(3), 251–264.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2006). Learning the culture of interpersonal relationships: Students’

understandings of personal address forms in French. Intercultural Pragmatics,

3(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.003

Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (2003). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the Oral

Proficiency Interview: A brief history and analysis of their survival. Foreign

Language Annals, 36(4), 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-

9720.2003.tb02137.x

Littlewood, W., & William, L. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An

introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Liu, S. (2014). Becoming intercultural: Exposure to foreign cultures and intercultural

competence. China Media Research, 10(3), 7–14.

Llanes, À., Mora, J. C., & Serrano, R. (2016). Differential effects of SA and intensive

AH courses on teenagers’ L2 pronunciation. International Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 27(2), 470–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12151

240

LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes,

learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 29(1), 69–89.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00046-4

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.

Lutzky, U., & Kehoe, A. (2017). “Oops, I didn’t mean to be so flippant”. A corpus

pragmatic analysis of apologies in blog data. Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 27–36.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.007

MacFarlane, A., & Wesche, M. B. (1995). Immersion outcomes: Beyond language

proficiency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 51(2), 250–274.

https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.51.2.250

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., & Clément, R. (2003). Talking in order to learn:

Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 59(4), 589–607. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.4.589

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami051

Magnan, S. S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study

abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-

9720.2007.tb02853.x

Makri-Tsilipakou, M. (2003). greek diminutive use problematized: Gender, culture and

common sense. Discourse & Society, 14(6), 699–726.

https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265030146002

241

Marriott, H. (1995). The acquisition of politeness patterns by exchange students in Japan.

In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp.

197–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement,

and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice.

Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325583

Martinsen, R. A., Baker, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Johnson, C. (2010). Exploring

diverse settings for language acquisition and use: Comparing study abroad,

service learning abroad, and foreign language housing. Applied Language

Learning, 20(1/2), 45–69.

Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to

second language socialization. Language Learning, 51(4), 635–679.

May, S. (2008). Bilingual/immersion education: What the research tells us. In J.

Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education

(Vol. 5, p. 16). Springer Science + Business Media LLC.

McGranahan, C. (2014). What is ethnography? Teaching ethnographic sensibilities

without fieldwork. Teaching Anthropology, 4(1), 23–36.

McKee, E. (1983). The Effects of Intensive Language Instruction on Student Performance

in Beginning College French.

242

Moeller, A., & Nugent, K. (2014). Building intercultural competence in the language

classroom. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher

Education. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/161

Moore, Z. (1996). Culture: How do teachers teach it? In Foreign Language Teacher

Education: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 269–288). Lanham/New York/London:

University Press of America.

Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and

instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 578–596.

https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm056

O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understandging the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-

English email exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 27.

O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with “failed

communication” in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623–

642.

O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. D. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design.

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188.

Omaggio Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd edition). Boston: Heinle

& Heinle.

Open Doors 2016 Executive Summary. (2016). Retrieved from IIE website:

https://www.iie.org:443/Why-IIE/Announcements/2016-11-14-Open-Doors-

Executive-Summary

243

Parker, B., & Dautoff, D. A. (2007). Service-learning and study abroad: Synergistic

learning opportunities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(2),

40–52.

Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts.

Multilingual Matters.

Pedersen, P. J. (2009). Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year-long

study abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 70–

80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.09.003

Pellegrino Aveni, V. A. (2005). Study abroad and second language use: Constructing the

self. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, A. (1990). Critical pedagogy and second language education. System, 18(3),

303–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(90)90003-N

Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills:

Models and approaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453–466.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2011.644948

Peterson, E., & Coltrane, B. (2003). Culture in second language teaching. CAL Digest,

3(9), 1–6.

Pinker, S. (2000). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York:

HarperCollins.

Polanyi, L. (1995). Language learning and living abroad: Stories from the field. In B. F.

Freed (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context (pp. 271–

292). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

244

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of

Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-

9830.2004.tb00809.x

Regan, V. (1995). The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: Effects of a

year abroad on second language learners of French. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second

language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 245–267). Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing.

Reinhardt, J., & Ryu, J. (2013). Using social network-mediated bridging activities to

develop socio-pragmatic awareness in elementary Korean: International Journal

of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 18–33.

https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2013070102

Reinhardt, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2011). Beyond comparisons: Frameworks for developing

digital L2 literacies. In Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and

research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 257–280).

Ries, N. (1997). Russian talk: Culture and conversation during Perestroika (1 edition).

Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.

Risager, K. (2006). Language and culture: Global flows and local complexity.

Multilingual Matters.

Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational

paradigm. Multilingual Matters.

Rivers, W. P. (1998). Is being there enough? The effects of homestay placements on

language gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 492–500.

245

Roberts, C., Byram, M., Barro, A., Jordan, S., & Street, B. (2001). Language learners as

ethnographers. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Robinson‐Stuart, G., & Nocon, H. (1996). Second culture acquisition: Ethnography in the

foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 80(4), 431–449.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05463.x

Rooks, M. J. (2008). A unique opportunity for communication: An intercultural email

exchange between Japanese and Thai students. CALL-EJ Online, 10(1), 1–14.

Rose, K. R. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2.

Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2345–2364.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.002

Rosenau, P. M. (1991). Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and

intrusions. Princeton University Press.

Saltagi, L. (2014, July 14). study abroad programs that will make you (almost) fluent.

Retrieved September 9, 2017, from Go Overseas website:

https://www.gooverseas.com/blog/study-abroad-programs-for-language-fluency

Schenker, T. (2012). Intercultural competence and cultural learning through

telecollaboration. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 449–470.

Schmidt, R. W. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative

competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174).

Schmidt, R. W. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.

246

Schumann, F. M., & Schumann, J. H. (1977). Diary of a language learner: An

introspective study of second language learning. TESOL ’77: Teaching and

Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice.

Presented at the TESOL, Miami, FL.

Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language

acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(5), 379–

392. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1986.9994254

Schwieter, J. W., & Ferreira, A. (2016). on the interrelated nature of study abroad

learners’ language contact, perceptions of culture, and personal outcomes. (19),

23.

Serrano, R., Llanes, À., & Tragant, E. (2011). Analyzing the effect of context of second

language learning: Domestic intensive and semi-intensive courses vs. study

abroad in Europe. System, 39(2), 133–143.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.002

Shardakova, Maria. (2005). Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2

learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural

Pragmatics, 2(4), 423–451. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.423

Shardakova, Marya, & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Identity options in Russian textbooks.

Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 3(1), 25–46.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_2

247

Shiri, S. (2013). Learners’ attitudes toward regional dialects and destination preferences

in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 565–587.

https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12058

Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study

of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030

Siegal, M. (1994). Looking East: Learning Japanese as a second language in Japan and

the interaction of race, gender and social context. University of California,

Berkeley.

Siegal, M. (1996). the role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic

competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 356–

382. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.3.356

Sinicrope, C., Norris, J., & Watanabe, Y. (2007). Understanding and assessing

intercultural competence: A summary of theory, research, and practice

(Technical report for the Foreign Language Program Evaluation Project).

Retrieved from http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/40689

Smith, H. (1990, October 28). The Russian character. p. 6006031. Retrieved August 1,

2018, from the New York Times website:

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/magazine/the-russian-character.html

Song, J. (2012). imagined communities and language socialization practices in

transnational space: A case study of two Korean “study abroad” families in the

248

united states. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 507–524.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01395.x

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1989). Intensive ESL programmes in Quebec primary

schools. TESL Canada Journal, 7(1), 11–32.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In

D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–

52). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Stepanova, O., & Coley, J. D. (2002). The green eyed monster: Linguistic influences on

concepts of envy and jealousy in Russian and English. Journal of Cognition and

Culture, 2(4), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685370260440991

Stroud, A. H. (2010). Who plans (not) to study abroad? An examination of U.S. student

intent. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 491–507.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309357942

Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and

written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399–431.

Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 31, 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018

Taguchi N. (2014). Cross-cultural adaptability and development of speech act production

in study abroad. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 343–365.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12073

Taguchi, N. (2015a). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in

class, and online. System, 48, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001

249

Taguchi, N. (2015b). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were,

are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(01), 1–50.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263

Talburt, S., & Stewart, M. A. (1999). What’s the subject of study abroad?: Race, gender,

and “living culture.” The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 163–175.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00013

Tan, D., & Kinginger, C. (2013). Exploring the potential of high school homestays as a

context for local engagement and negotiation of difference. In C. Kinginger (Ed.),

Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (Vol. 37, pp.

155–177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Taylor, D. S. (1988). The meaning and use of the term ‘competence’ in linguistics and

applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 148–168.

https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.2.148

The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual

world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47.

https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301

The National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-readiness standards for

learning languages, 4th ed. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Thomas, Jacqueline. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and

third language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,

9(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1988.9994334

250

Thomas, Jenny. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–

112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91

Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization,

and learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern

Language Journal, 93(1), 802–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

4781.2009.00974.x

Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). “Bridging activities,” new media literacies, and

advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558–572.

Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2017). Adult learners’ acquisitional patterns in L2 pragmatics: What

do we know? Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 101–129.

https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-2005

Trentman, E. (2015). Negotiating gendered identities and access to social networks

during study abroad in Egypt. In Eurosla Monographs Series: Vol. 4. Social

interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad (pp. 263–

280). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association.

Tudini, V. (2007). Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat

rooms. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 577–601.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00624.x

Vande Berg, M. (2009). Intervening in student learning abroad: A research‐based inquiry.

Intercultural Education, 20(sup1), S15–S27.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980903370821

251

Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium

Project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1–75.

Vande Berg, M., Quinn, M., & Menyhart, C. (2012). An experiment in developmental

teaching and learning: The Council on International Educational Exchange’s

Seminar on Living and Learning Abroad. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K.

H. Lou (Eds.), Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students Are Learning, What

They’re Not, and What We Can Do About It (pp. 383–407). Sterling, VA: Stylus

Publishing.

Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online

course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649909527033

Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German

and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2),

190–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00274.x

Ware, P. D., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration.

Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43–63.

Welch, C. (2009). The emergence of pragmatic softeners in Spanish by instructed

learners of Spanish in the study abroad and immersion contexts (Dissertation).

University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX.

252

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (1 edition).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wesche, M. B., Morrison, F., Ready, D., & Pawley, C. (1990). French immersion:

Postsecondary consequences for individuals and universities. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 46(3), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.46.3.430

What makes a good ethnographer? (2011, August 4). Retrieved June 14, 2018, from

Anthropologizing website: http://anthropologizing.com/2011/08/04/what-makes-

a-good-ethnographer/

White, J., & Turner, C. (2006). Comparing children’s oral ability in two ESL programs.

Canadian Modern Language Review. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.61.4.491

Whorf, B. L. (2012). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee

Whorf. MIT Press.

Wuthnow, R., Hunter, J. D., Bergesen, A. J., & Kurzweil, E. (2012). Cultural analysis:

The work of Peter L. Berger, Mary Douglas, Michel Foucault, and Jürgen

Habermas (1 edition). London: Routledge.

Yager, K. (1998). Learning Spanish in Mexico: The effect of informal contact and

student attitudes on language gain. Hispania, 81(4), 898–913.

https://doi.org/10.2307/345798

Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written

DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics,

33(2), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00031-X

253

Zeiss, E., & Isabelli-García, C. (2005). The role of asynchronous computer mediated

communication on enhancing cultural awareness. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 18(3), 151–169.

Zemach-Bersin, T. (2007). Global citizenship and study abroad: It’s all about U.S.

Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 1(2), 16–28.

254

Appendix A. Demographic Questionnaire

Please fill out the following information about yourself.

Background • Age: • Gender: • Cultural background: • Year in program: • Why did you decide to take Russian?

Cultural and language experience • Level of Russian proficiency, with 1 being no knowledge and 10 being completely nativelike proficiency: Spoken: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Reading: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Listening: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Writing: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

• How did you learn Russian?: • Languages known, other than Russian: • Have you traveled outside the United States? If so, where, and for how long? • Do you have friends from other cultural backgrounds? • Do you go to events/activities involving contact with other cultures – e.g., foreign-language films, festivals, cultural clubs, etc.? o If so, what sorts of activities? • Have you taken a culture-focused class before? 255

o Which class? • Have you ever carried out a research project before?

Technological experience • Do you use social media – i.e., post your own content? Which sites? How many hours per day do you spend posting on social media? • Do you read social media? Which sites? How many hours per day do you spend reading social media? • Do you ever look at websites in other languages? Which sites? Which languages? • Have you ever emailed with or corresponded with speakers of other languages? What language did you use? • Have you taken an online course before?

256

Appendix B. Intercultural Questionnaire

• Attitudes o Respect § I respect all cultures equally. § Diversity is always good for society. § It’s not funny when people make fun of other people’s accents. § It frustrates me when people call other cultures “crazy” or “weird.”

o Openness (to intercultural learning and to people from other cultures, withholding judgment) § I try not to judge people before I get to know them. § I want to make Russian friends. § When there are cultural misunderstandings, you can’t just walk away. You need to stay patient and work through them.

o Curiosity and discovery § I want to know more about Russian culture. § When someone tells me something about Russian culture, I try to find out whether it’s really true. § It’s okay to not know what’s going on. § I like going new places.

• Knowledge & Comprehension o Cultural self-awareness § If I were asked to explain my culture to someone, I could do so. § My cultural habits influence the way I think. § I often think about my own cultural background.

o Deep understanding/knowledge of cultures § I understand how cultural practices can affect people’s behavior. § Culture is important to how people think. § Everyone has a different worldview.

257

o Culture-specific information § I can talk about Russian cultural patterns. § I know about Russian history. § I understand Russian cultural biases.

• Desired internal outcome o Adaptability & flexibility § I enjoy being in new situations. § I can get used to living in a new place easily. § I don’t mind when things don’t go my way. § I like being challenged.

o Ethnorelative view § No one culture is better than any other. § People are just people, even when there are surface cultural differences. § Russian culture isn’t any “weirder” than American culture is. § There are reasons for every point of view, even the ones I think of as wrong.

o Empathy § I find it easy to understand what others are thinking. § I can imagine what I’d be like if I had grown up Russian instead of American. § I can easily see things from others’ perspectives. § I get caught up in other people’s feelings sometimes. § I can often understand what people are thinking even before they tell me.

258

Appendix C. Sociolinguistic Questionnaire

• Specific sociolinguistic awareness of Russian o I know about different accents and dialects in Russian. o I know about languages other than Russian spoken in Russia. o I understand how people speak in formal situations in Russian. o I understand how people speak in casual situations in Russian. o I know about Russian curse words and slang. o Russian speakers have different ways of speaking in different social situations.

• Personal sociolinguistic awareness of Russian o I understand how I would need to speak if I were trying to be polite to someone in Russian. o I understand how I would need to speak if I were trying to be friendly towards someone in Russian. o I feel like I can express my personality when I’m speaking Russian. o I feel like I can speak appropriately in a wide variety of situations in Russian.

• General sociolinguistic awareness o Ideologies of standardness § Bad grammar bothers me. § There is a right way to speak and a wrong way to speak. § I like it when people speak differently from me. § Nobody speaks “better” or “worse” - all dialects and accents and ways of speaking are equally valid.

o Linguistic self-awareness § I don’t have an accent. § Everybody has an accent, including me. § I can identify the features that make my speech unique.

259

§ If you asked me to describe my accent/dialect/way of speaking, I wouldn’t know how to. o Cross-linguistic empathy § It’s okay to laugh at other people’s accents. § You need to be respectful of everyone’s accent or dialect. § Sometimes I get annoyed when I hear people speaking in other languages in public. § I don’t really care if someone has an accent or not. o Awareness of and respect for diversity § Everyone in America knows English. § America is a land of many languages - linguistic diversity is everywhere in this country. § You shouldn’t go to a country if you don’t know the language that they speak there. § Countries should welcome immigrants, no matter what language they speak. o Understanding variation § How someone speaks says something about their background. § People speak differently in different social situations. § Sometimes, people will change the way they speak if they want to present themselves in a certain ways. § People get judged based on how they speak. § I don’t always speak the same way - sometimes I change the way I speak depending on who I’m talking to or where I am.

260

Appendix D. Interview Schedules

Interview schedule: Preliminary interview

1. Tell me a bit about your background. a. Where are you from? b. What’s your family like? c. What’s your academic background – what’s your major, what do you study? d. How would you describe yourself culturally? 2. What’s your Russian program like? a. What do you like about it? b. What don’t you like? 3. Why did you decide to take Russian? 4. Do you know other languages? 5. Do you think you’re a polite person? a. How do you show this politeness? 6. Do you speak differently in different situations? 7. Do you feel different when you speak Russian? 8. Do you like speaking Russian? 9. What do Russians speak like? a. Do you think all of them speak the same way? 10. Do you think Russians are polite? a. How do they show politeness? 11. Have you ever been in a situation where you were really uncomfortable? a. What did you do? 12. Have you been in a situation where you had trouble communicating with someone even though they spoke your language? a. How did you resolve this? 13. Do you know people from other cultures? 14. Do you think it’s important to learn languages? a. Why? 15. Have you ever traveled outside the country? a. What was it like? 16. If you could travel anywhere, where would you go?

261

17. What do you think about Russian culture? 18. What do you want to learn about it? 19. Do you get along easily with people? 20. When you want to convince someone to believe your point of view, how do you go about it? 21. Do you spend time online? a. What sites do you use? i. Why do you use them? b. Do you ever read social media or anything in other languages? 22. What are your career plans? 23. What do you want to get out of the language? 24. What do you want to get out of this program? Interview schedule: Mid-project interview

1. How have things been going? 2. Are you at all nervous about the workshop? 3. What did you think of the online program? 4. Do you think you learned anything from it? 5. Has your perspective on things changed at all? 6. How would you describe yourself culturally? 7. Do you think you have a different culture from other people? 8. Do you think you’re a polite person? a. How do you show this politeness? 9. Do you speak differently in different situations? 10. Do you feel different when you speak Russian? 11. Do you like speaking Russian? 12. What do Russians speak like? a. Do you think all of them speak the same way? 13. Do you think Russians are polite? a. How do they show politeness? 14. Have you ever been in a situation where you were really uncomfortable? a. What did you do? 15. Have you been in a situation where you had trouble communicating with someone even though they spoke your language? a. How did you resolve this? 16. Do you know people from other cultures? 17. Do you think it’s important to learn languages? a. Why? 18. Have you ever traveled outside the country? a. What was it like? 19. If you could travel anywhere, where would you go? 20. What do you think about Russian culture? 21. What do you want to learn about it?

262

22. Do you get along easily with people? 23. When you want to convince someone to believe your point of view, how do you go about it? 24. What do you think Americans’ attitudes towards Russia are like? 25. What are your attitudes towards Russia like? 26. What do you want to learn most?

263

Appendix E. Online course: Phase 1

Reflection paper: What’s your culture?

To start this course out, I’d like you to answer a question that we’ll be returning to many times: who are you, culturally?

Consider the following issues and answer as many or as few of these questions as you’re comfortable with: 1. How would you define the term “culture”? 2. What is your cultural background? Basically, what culture(s) did you grow up in or grow up with? 3. How well do you fit in with this culture? 4. Are you always the same, culturally? Or do you think that your cultural identity can change from situation to situation?

Don’t worry about answering this question in a formal essay, or putting forth polished writing. Your answer can be as long or as short as you’d like.

Assignment – Essentialist and non-essentialist views of culture

“Essentialism” is the belief that all members of a category have certain obligatory qualities. So, for example, having an essentialist view of gender means that you believe that men like beer and women like handbags: basically, that categories define who people are. Stereotypes come out of essentialist views of culture – the belief that all members of a particular culture have particular traits. Read this document and respond to the questions that follow.

I. Evaluate the following statements on a scale from being totally essentialist to being totally non-essentialist. Essentialist Non- essentialist Russians love vodka. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Americans tend to eat too much.

264

Russian culture is conservative and dominated by Russian Orthodoxy. Americans are religious. Village culture in Russia differs from city culture. Russia is not just made up of Russians. There is a wide variety of ethnicities, languages, and groups within its national borders. American culture is for the most part work-driven.

II. A way to move away from essentialism is to stop thinking of the world in terms of “Americans” and “Russians” and start thinking of it in terms of little groups.

The anthropologist Benedict Anderson talks about how national communities are “imagined communities.” There are such things as “real communities” – the people you meet with and talk to every day, and the people with whom you have an understanding of what okay behavior is and what wrong behavior is. Your classroom is a real community, as is your family and your dorm.

But you can’t ever possibly meet all Americans. You will never talk with every American – and you certainly don’t have things in common with every American. This is why stereotypes feel wrong – they’re being applied to something that’s not real. You feel a commonality with other Americans in your imagination – hence “imagined” communities – but you haven’t figured out the norms of interaction and rules of behavior with all Americans the way that you have with your roommates.

This isn’t an easy concept. Go through and determine with the following whether they’re real or imagined communities.

1. A table of people sitting and talking in a Starbucks (Real: They all know each other and are negotiating norms. Obviously, this is a very temporary community, but that’s okay. Communities don’t have to be permanent.) 2. All the people sitting together and working in a Starbucks without talking to each other (Real: These people are aware of each other and interacting with each other, even if that interaction is firmly ignoring one another. That still counts – you know, because if someone stood up and suddenly started yelling, that would be breaking all the unspoken rules you’ve established with everyone else.) 3. Members of Starbucks’ loyalty program (Imagined: You can’t possibly meet everyone who’s a member of this loyalty program, and so the link to them isn’t real. But it IS a community in some way, because if you met someone else who whipped out their loyalty card, you’d feel some small tie to them.) 4. Residents of a 30-person village (Real: Probably real. All these people probably know each other, and they probably have unspoken rules of behavior and they know who breaks them.)

265

5. Residents of New York City (Imagined: New Yorkers can’t possibly know all New Yorkers. But New Yorkers still feel this as part of their identity. So it’s not real, because they haven’t personally interacted with other people and figured out what’s okay to do and what’s weird…But it matters to them still.) 6. Stamp collectors (Imagined) 7. Members of the University of Pittsburgh Stamp Collectors’ Club (Real) 8. Harry Potter fans (Imagined) 9. Harry Potter fanfiction writers (Imagined) 10. Members of a particular 15-person Harry Potter fanfiction-writing community (Real) 11. Americans on a single study abroad program in Moscow in Summer 2018 (Real) 12. Americans studying abroad in Russia (Imagined) 13. Americans (Imagined)

III. So by this logic, do you think it’s possible to define what makes an “American” or what makes a “Russian”?

A way to move away from essentialism is just think of culture as what people do and the patterns they fall into. For example, an essentialist view of Russian culture says “They’re family-oriented”; a non-essentialist view says “There’s a tendency amongst people who are associated with the Russian community to stay close to home to support parents when they grow older, as well as to discuss family as a relevant value when they’re describing themselves.” (Which sounds a lot less snappy. There’s a reason that essentialist cultural views are way more prevalent than these more complex understandings.)

Can you provide a less essentialist view of American culture? What patterns do people associated with an American identity fall into? What habits do people seem to share? (You should also feel free to go more local – if you don’t want to talk about Americans, you could talk about the people you grew up with, in your local community.)

Assignment: Performing culture on YouTube

If culture is a performance, a thing that you do, then you can see people playing their culture up or playing it down. It’s definitely something you can see on YouTube. Choose one of the following videos:

This is Хорошо: Russian-language humor channel where host comments on viral videos. (Subtitles available.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyWId1Znlzg Crazy Russian Dad: English-language channel where Russian man explains Russian culture to Americans.

Address the following questions: 1. What is the video about?

266

2. Who do you think is the intended audience for this video? 3. What is the video author trying to do? 4. Does the video author play up their Russian identity? They might do this by: a. Making reference to Russia, Russian history, etc. b. Playing into stereotypes about Russians, either embracing them OR rejecting them c. Using cultural signifiers that are linked to Russia – dress, musical cues, linguistic features 5. Do they play up their Russian identity the same amount over the course of the whole video? Do they get more or less “Russian” at different points?

Then comment on someone else’s post, replying to someone who looked at a different video from you. Contrast the two videos. Focus on what differences there seem to be between the videos.

EXAMPLE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=i1_YsCrokfQ 1. This video is a humorous video in which Sonia is discussing the issue of who pays first on a date. Therefore, on the surface, it looks like a dating advice video. However, it’s obviously supposed to be funny, both from the absurd things she says and the responses that YouTube commenters have left her. 2. The intended audience for this video is Americans/English speakers. This is clear from the language choice: Sonia speaks only English, and that English is subtitled (presumably for English-speakers who have trouble with her accent). 3. The video author is trying to make humorous videos based on an exaggerated Russian- woman persona. 4. The video author plays up her Russianness by: • Her outfit – the over-the-top perfection of make-up and the fur coat are stereotypical for Russian women • The topic – she’s playing with attitudes that Russian women are materialistic and also spend a lot of time and money on their appearances • Direct references to her Russianness in the video • Exaggerating accent – e.g., dropping articles from speech 5. She’s consistent in how she plays her Russian identity in the video.

Overall, she’s trying to portray an image of a stereotypical materialistic-but-beautiful Russian woman. This is clearly the gimmick for her channel – the persona she’s built to attract viewers. And playing around with the stereotypes and ironically commenting on them clearly gets her views.

Reflection paper: What’s your culture?

267

Language, as discussed in the reading, is central to shaping and defining who you are in your culture. The way you speak says something about who you’re trying to be at any given moment. So think about the way you use language in the following contexts:

Speaking • When speaking to your professor • When speaking to your parents • When speaking to your friends

Writing • When writing on social media • When texting • When writing a term paper

How do they different? Compare and contrast the written contexts to one another and the spoken contexts to one another. How does your language shift from context to context? Why do you think you change the way you speak/write in these different contexts?

Assignment: A different point of view on culture

Read pages 260 – 265 out of “Intercultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book for Students.” You can skip the activities that aren’t listed here – no need to do interviews. Once you’ve read, answer the following questions.

1. Do task C1.5.1. Which of those are symbolic of belonging, and which are symbolic of resisting belonging/transgressing norms?

2. Think of yourself in the context of one of your cultures. We touched on this in the reflection paper, but now I’d like you to go into more depth. Pick one culture and think of a few of the unspoken rules and codes of conduct for this group, the things where you know what you’re supposed to do. How do you show plaisir in relationship to this culture and its rules? How do you show jouissance? And is this always the same – do you sometimes vary between wanting to fit in and conform and wanting to resist?

268

3. As is clear from this discussion, everyone has a different relationship to the groups they belong to, and that relationship can change from moment to moment. This is why it’s helpful to think of culture not as a thing that you have, but as a process of doing.

So, as we discussed before, this means that you follow the rules of the small groups you’re a part of – the people you’re with – and sometimes, you use your bigger ideas of How My Big Culture Is Supposed To Act to influence you. So it’s not that there’s an American Culture – instead, there are common narratives of what it means to be an American, and sometimes those get used to influence a group’s behavior. So, for example, on the 4th of July, a group of friends might have a barbecue because there’s a common idea that barbecues are American in some way. Or people in your Russian class might go out to a Russian restaurant or say «здравствуй» to one another to in some way perform their idea of what it means to be Russia-esque.

So think about this question: when do you “do” an American identity? What is your idea of what it means to be American? When do you exhibit plaisir towards being an American (i.e., really perform the identity as you know it, really play up your American-ness) and when do you exhibit jouissance (fighting against the identity as you know it, resist your American-ness)?

Reflection paper: So what is culture?

So we’ve thought a bit about culture and different views of culture. I’d like you to tackle a big question, and answer this:

From all the discussions of non-essentialized views of culture, it’s pretty clear that culture is something that is different for every person – and that’s even different from moment to moment. So is it even real? What’s the point of talking about it or learning about it?

Reflection paper: Language and thought

One thing that is debated both in official linguistic research and in the media is how important talk is for shaping thought. This can become the center of debates, as you saw clearly in the assignment in the previous chapter where you looked at the debates over v/na Ukraine, where the perception is that the use of na with Ukraine makes Ukraine seem like less of a legitimate sovereign country. Obviously, we talk about the

269 relationship between speech and perception America, too – take, for example, the movements to replace words like Congressman with Congressperson.

What’s your take on this? Are you less likely to think of a woman if you hear Congressman than if you hear Congressperson? Can you think of other examples of contested terms? Do you think that people’s thoughts can be shaped by language?

Linguistic anthropology

1. What can studying language tell us about someone’s culture?

2. Russian has an elaborate system of kinship terms. They are (partially) as follows: mother мать father отец sister сестра brother брат uncle дядя aunt тётя father-in-law (husband’s father) свёкор mother-in-law (husband’s mother) свекровь father-in-law (wife’s father) тесть mother-in-law (wife’s mother) тёща daughter-in-law невестка sister-in-law (brother’s wife) невестка sister-in-law (wife’s sister) свояченица son-in-law зять brother-in-law (sister’s husband) зять brother-in-law (husband’s brother) деверь godfather кум godmother кума *uncle (mother’s brother) уй *aunt (mother’s sister) уйка *cousin (mother’s brother’s son) уйец * No longer in use.

Traditionally, in Slavic culture up to the 19th century, people lived together in the same household as multi-generational extended families. Sons would never move out of the household; all brothers would stay together. However, daughters, when they got married, would leave their parents’ households and move into their husband’s home. 270

i. Think about this in relationship to the kinship terms. Can you see any patterns in the kinship terms that seem to relate to this pattern of life?

ii. The word “свекровь” has fearsome connotations, whereas the word “тёща” has much kinder and softer connotations. Why do you think this is, taking into account Slavic cultural history?

4. How do you understand “communicative competence”? What would you need to become a communicatively competent speaker of Russian?

5. As discussed in this chapter, “indexicality” refers to when something indexes – points to – something else. So, for example, if someone from Georgia were to use the word “y’all,” that might index their Southern identity – in that moment, they might be (subconsciously or consciously) trying to show their Southernness. Indexicality is also always very contextual – think what a Northerner might be indexing if they used “y’all.”

One example of a strong linguistic index is the use of either в or на before the name of the country Украина. In Russian, usually, to say “in a country” you use в + the country name in prepositional – в Америке, в Англии, в России, в Китае. However, traditionally, “in Ukraine” has been conventionalized as “на Украине.” After Ukraine achieved independence in 1991, however, they asked that Russian speakers use в instead of на, so that Украина would be treated like any other country.

Now, the choice of preposition has become strongly indexical. To say на Украине indexes a pro-Russian or anti-PC identity; to say в Украине indexes a pro-Ukraine, anti- Russian, or politically correct stance. On this message board (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.soviet/jqR465i1z9Y), people are discussing this issue. Take a look at their discussion, then go to our own discussion board and share a few reflections on it.

Reflection paper: What’s the effect of dominant discourses?

271

1. What effect do you think dominant discourses have? What happens when they get reproduced in the media? Do you think people around the world believe the dominant discourses about Americans in the media? What do you think the impact of this is?

2. Imagine you’re a writer or movie-maker, and you need to depict some group other than yours. You don’t want to just reproduce dominant discourses when you’re creating your art. How do you avoid falling into that trap? How can you check yourself to make sure you’re not unconsciously reproducing the images you’ve seen in the past?

Watch one of the following videos:

Rocky IV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6K3IvJzJRg John Wick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P37_c4u-G4I Eastern Promises: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcubF7zXxwo

Do you see any dominant discourses about Russians in these clips? Do you see things that break out of or challenge those dominant discourses?

Model post: Commenting on Air Force One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOCzAH6WE_s&t=85s

We can see a lot of dominant discourses here. (It’s worth noting that Gary Oldman’s character here is not Russian, but rather is Kazakh; obviously, we didn’t really have many dominant discourses related to Kazakhstan before Borat came along, and the discourses established by Borat weren’t really based in anything historical or cultural. So when I comment on this character, I’m commenting on him in relationship to the bigger discourse of the Eastern Other – someone who’s from Eastern Europe, with no cultural details more specific than that. You’ll find these tropes being applied to Russians, Tatars, Ukrainians, etc., etc., etc…)

The character here: • Speaks with a Russian/Eastern European accent. • Is intermittently cold and collected and out-of-control screaming. You see this with other Russian villains a lot of the time – they vary between absolute chilling coldness and total histrionics. • Is sort of misogynistic – he makes gendered, contemptuous comments to the Vice President.

272

• Uses metaphors that pop up a lot for Russians in media (e.g., “run away like a dog”) – though it’s worth noting that Russian doesn’t actually have these metaphors…Also says things like “mother Russia” (even though he’s Kazakh) • Is callous towards human life • Is archly intellectual – shows contempt for other people’s intelligence • Is mysterious/enigmatic – there’s a lot of discourse of Russians being “enigmas” (as talked about in a speech by Winston Churchill himself!) • Hostility towards Capitalists

The only thing that isn’t very dominant discourse-y about it is that he’s not a representative of the government, but rather an independent terrorist. Usually, in movies of the 1970s and 1980s, Russian villains were acting on behalf of the government.

For this assignment, you’re going to start collecting data in one of the most dangerous areas of the internet: the comments section on YouTube. (Terrifying!!) Specifically, you’re going to collect and analyze data regarding the recent Eurovision song contest.

Eurovision is an interesting example, because it’s an event in which people seem to be representing their countries, and so conversation around nationality often seems to occur. For this, go to YouTube and pick one of the recent Eurovision song performances (from this playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhC7onQkPI&list=PLmWYEDTNOGUKg6BT9F OIQy8y17NBCxoQp), then look through the comments section. Answer the following questions about what you find there.

Please replace all usernames with pseudonyms when you’re answering these questions.

1. Describe the circumstances of when you’re looking at this video and its comments section. How long after the contest is it? 2. Describe the video and the song. 3. How many views has this video gotten? What’s the ratio of likes to dislikes? 4. Look at the comments section. How active is it? How frequently do comments seem to be posted? (You can sort comments either by top comments or by how recent the comments are. Switch to recent view to get an idea of how frequently comments have been posted lately.) 5. Look through the first page of comments. Are there conversations? I.e., do people respond to each other, or are the comments posted without responses? a. If there are responses, what sorts of comments get those responses? Copy/paste at least two examples, if you can find them. 273

6. What languages get used? Is it the official language of the country in the video? 7. How do people identify themselves, if they do? Copy-paste at least three examples of comments where people mention their identity. 8. How do people talk about nationality or culture, if they do? Copy-paste three examples. 9. Are there fights? Is there positivity?

Discussion board

Try to bring these observations you made in the previous assignment together, and write up a comprehensible, interesting overview of what’s going on in the comments section for this specific video. Write at least 2-3 paragraphs. As you’re writing, try to be aware of your own points of view. For example, there are dominant discourses out there about Russians being internet trolls – check yourself to make sure you’re not automatically assuming that just because someone’s a Russian, they’re a troll. After you’re done writing, look it over and try to pick out any moments where your thoughts might have been influenced by stereotypes.

If you’d like an example that I wrote, you can look at one here.

Example response

Video: “Time” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KWZ4CKapPA&index=42&list=PLUJXoM9aoCl9 tzahmw11uu2vbMb5ImeXj Comments section examined: May 25, 2018

The song “Time” was the official entry from Ukraine into the 2017 Eurovision song contest. This song was performed by O. Torvald, a Ukrainian rock band. The song is sung in English, with somewhat ambiguous and obscure lyrics that seem to deal with a relationship between two people. The video of the song consists of the band’s live performance of the song – in this video, the members of the band are standing on what appears to be piles of trash as they sing and play their instruments, with clocks embedded in their chests counting down the time of the song. There is also a clock in the wall behind them. The performance makes use of pyrotechnics and strong lighting contrasts, with the bright key lights contrasting with the dark stage. I explored the comments section for this video in May 2018. The comments section was highly active in 2017, in the lead-up to the Eurovision song competition; since then, the rate of comments has dropped off significantly.

274

The comments can be separated into a few different categories. One category of comments focuses on the artistic qualities of the music. These, at times, comment on the genre of the music, particularly focusing on the fact that the music is rock – “that is the only rock music?” goes one comment, while another says, “this song was the only different and unique one i believe, this year in the eurovision we had so many in the pop genre and having a bit of rok in the 21st century doesn't hurt anyone.” At times there are comments on the quality of the performance. Another category of comment seems to be spam, such as comments posting strings of numbers or profanity. A third category of comments focuses on expressing support expressly using the points system. In Eurovision, members of countries are not allowed to vote for themselves. Consequently, many commenters demonstrate their support by indicating they voted for this song. These comments are highly formulaic – the format is always that the commenter indicates the number of points and then the country these points came from. “12 points from America,” “12 points from Norway, very good :D,” “12 points from Italy! Good luck.” These comments are often very highly-rated, with thumbs up indicating their support – the majority of the top-rated comments are dealing with the number of points they’re giving to this song. These comments also sometimes spark responses, often ones that perform cross- cultural understanding and support. One comment stating “12 points from Lithuania :)” is met with several responses: “Thank you, brothers! Luck to Lithuania ❤” runs one response, and another responds with “labas,” meaning “hello” in Lithuanian. The use of language and of well wishes for the commenter’s own country is a fairly common indication of support. At times, there are conflicts. One commenter posts, “Все шансы занять первое место. 12 баллов. Россия.” (“Well-wishes for your chance to win first place. 12 points. Russia.”) One poster, apparently Ukrainian, responds in English with, “Thank you, we hope that the competition will be held at a decent level. I wish you and your country success. Welcome to Ukraine this year!” However, another commenter responds in Russian, saying, “Сначала разберись кого ты поддерживаешь, дура” (“First figure who you’re supporting, дура,” with дура a highly offensive term roughly translating to idiot, and with the automatic address in the informal register likewise offensive.) The first commenter pushes back by demanding to know why the respondent is being disrespectful and says that she is not supporting anyone; she also asserts that the contest is one of songs, not of politics. This small conflict seems to be driven by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, given the reference to politics and the fact that the second commenter is reacting specifically to a vote from Russia to Ukraine. It is worth noting that the first commenter uses aesthetics as a justification for her vote; she insists she is not voting for the country, but for the song. In this way, she seems to try to sidestep the conflict. Overall, this comments section seems largely to display cross-cultural support, though at times this support is influenced by larger geopolitical events.

275

Larger assignment

Over the next few weeks, you’re going to be visiting one particular (Russian-language) web space and looking into and thinking about how people talk about things in that space. Note that in this training, we talked about discourses of national identity, but you certainly don’t have to talk about that or focus on it. After all, questions of national identity show up in spaces like the Eurovision Song Contest comments section, but they aren’t necessarily going to show up in a gardening website. So think about things you might be interested in investigating - things you’re passionate about - and think about where people might talk about that sort of thing. For example, you might be interested in topics like: • How do (Russian-speaking) people talk about Russian movies versus American movies? (You should go, then, to a blog/vkontakte site where people talk about movies.) • When do Tatar people online use Tatar, when do they use Russian, and when do they use English? (You should go to a vkontakte group/livejournal group dedicated to discussion about/networking in Tatar.) • Do Russian speakers use friendly or formal language on an official university webgroup? (Go to that webgroup and start lurking around.)

And so on.

Once you’ve thought about interesting topics, you need to pick a space to investigate. (If you’re at a loss for topics, too, it can help to pick the space first, then figure out the topic from there.) You can go pretty much anywhere you want to online (as long as it’s not a site that’s illegal or pornographic; please don’t get me in trouble!!). A good starting place can be the following: http://9net.ru/53-public-vk.html: A list of the most popular public groups on VKontakte. https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/rutube-the-top-russian-youtubers-you-need-to-know-45705: A list of popular Russian vloggers https://www.livejournal.com/ratings/community?country=cyr: A list of the most popular Cyrillic livejournal communities

I’d recommend, if you’re going to Russia, to think about what you want to accomplish while you’re there. If you’re interested in, for example, volunteering or getting involved in a local hobbyist group, you might want to look into groups involving that activity. You could potentially use this project to network before you go over there. If you’re not going to Russia, think instead about an online community you might be interested in participating in remotely.

Once you’ve thought about possibilities, submit a description of what space you want to investigate and why. I’ll be setting up a meeting with you, and we can talk it over at that point.

Blog prompts

Answer the following question. 276

• How do you typically interact with people online? Look back across some of your past social media posts, emails, forum interactions, et cetera. What do you notice about the way that you write? Does it change from context to context? If it does, why do you think it changes – what about the context shapes your way of writing? If it doesn’t, why do you think you’re so consistent?

As you’re writing, try to take an “alien anthropologist” perspective on your own writing. Imagine that you’re explaining the way that people write on the internet to a space alien visiting Earth for the first time. This space alien knows the basics about how human fingers work and how computers work and how to connect to the internet. But aside from that, the alien is totally clueless about what people do and why they do it. Try to explain to the alien what you do online and why.

Writing assignment for 7/1/18:

Answer the following question. • You’ll be starting to explore the online space you selected. Do so by following the instructions below.

1. Defining the field

An important first step in online ethnographies is defining exactly what space it is you’re investigating. What is your field of investigation? How do you define it? You did something like this previously, but don’t just copy/paste what you wrote before – re-thinking your definition (and making it clear and concise) can help your thought process.

2. Broad investigation

Spend at least 30 minutes just exploring the field you’ve chosen. Type up notes as you go of what you’re thinking about and what you notice as you go through this community. There’s no wrong way to take notes - just try to write down anything you take note of. (And stay open-minded - pretend you’re making notes for that alien anthropologist who doesn’t know anything about how humans interact.)

The most important thing here is to remember: don’t try to answer a question right away. Just observe.

Copy/paste your notes below.

277

3. Anything interesting? Give a short summary of what you’re seeing as you think about the online space. Are you noticing anything interesting?

Writing assignment for 7/27/18:

Answer the following question. • You’ll continue to explore the space you selected. Do the following:

1. Be a stalker

Pick someone in the online space who seems to be fairly active and who you took an interest in. If you can, follow them across multiple postings. Think about how they might write differently in different topics. Do they change anything about their language use? The way they present themselves? Copy/paste a few examples of their interactions below. (Please, if you can, obscure their names.)

2. Identify a question

Think of a research question based on the data you’ve collected. Basically, think about what you’re seeing and consider: do there seem to be any patterns to the way people are writing and interacting with one another? This doesn’t have to be the same question you came in with – it doesn’t even have to be related. Just think of something that your data might let you answer.

This means your question needs to be very, very narrow. Don’t bite off anything big. Questions might be – “do people use more smileys when they’re in an online argument with someone?” or “do they use ты consistently, or just with people they already know?” Don’t make this a big question – keep it focused.

278

3. What do you think? Try to see if you can start to answer the question you wrote above. Pick out at least 2 examples of language data that might answer it. Copy/paste them below. (Again, please obscure usernames.)

Writing assignment for 8/7/18:

Answer the following questions.

First, provide a summary of the space you selected for the other participants in the course. As you’re writing up your summary, answer some or all of the following questions:

• What is this space? Why do people come to this website? Why do they participate here? • How do they participate? What do people do when they come to this website/these sites? • How do they talk to one another? What sort of language do they use? Do they communicate non-linguistically (e.g., with gifs, emoji, embedded clips, memes, etc.)? • What patterns have you noticed in their communication? Do you think these patterns are true beyond this webspace? • If you were a participant in this space, how would you participate? How would you communicate with others? How would you want to come across – what sort of identity would you want to project? And what sort of language/communication would you use to project it? • How is the Russian used here different from the Russian you learned in the classroom? How is it different from Russian you hear in movies? How is it different from Russian you hear on the street (if this is something you can comment on)?

Try to make this as polished as possible. It’s going to be for others to read – so, essentially, try to make it into something that other people can read and follow along with easily.

Second, respond to the following prompt. This is going to be a general reflective piece of writing, so don’t worry so much about making it polished for other people to read.

279

In time, you’re probably going to be living in a Russian-speaking community, whether on study abroad or in a longer term working situation. Try to envision yourself. What would you want to do while living in this community?

Think of one “small culture” you would want to participate in; this might be something like a local running club, a professional workplace, etc. What do you think you would need to know in order to fit into this “small culture”? What ways would you need to speak to get along with the other people you’d want to get along with? If you don’t have access to that knowledge, how would you find out? How can you learn more about ways that people communicate?

280

Appendix F: Online Course: Phase 2

Note: In the interest of preserving space, this section only reproduces assignments which differ from those given in Phase 1 of the study.

Уважамые студенты!!!!

I’m so delighted you’ve decided to help me out with this research! Thank you so much in advance for your time and your mental power that you’ll be contributing to my work.

This unit will be structured as follows: Assignment 1: What is culture? Assignment 2: How can language shape culture? Assignment 3: What is the relationship between Russian language and Russian culture? Assignment 4: What speech cultures exist in Russia? Assignment 5: How can we investigate Russian speech cultures? Assignment 6: Starting your research.

The assignments will go up roughly once a week (skipping a few weeks). Each assignment will be posted on a Thursday and will be due on a Tuesday. The grading scale will be as follows:

FULL POINTS: All sub-parts of the assignment completed. Clear effort put in. NO POINTS: One or more sub-parts of the assignment not completed or low levels of effort put in.

The final project will involve collecting data from the Russian internet. We will discuss this data collection in class on date. More instructions on this will be given later.

If you have any questions about any of this, please contact me at [email protected]. Otherwise, go ahead and move onto Assignment 1!

281

Week 1. Assignment overview.

The topic of this first assignment is: “What is culture?”

In it, we’re going to be exploring ideas of culture. By the end of it, you should be closer to being able to understand what “culture” is. You should also have an understanding of the role stereotypes play in defining culture —how stereotypes can be used to define others, but also how people use stereotypes to define themselves.

The goal of this lesson, ultimately, is to get you to think about culture and question your assumptions/pre-existing beliefs.

There are five parts components to this assignment.

1. Reflective essay 2. Assignment reflecting on stereotypes 3. Reading about and responding to a description of a cross-cultural encounter. 4. Reacting to a definition of culture. 5. Thinking about what you might be interested in.

Discussion board posting 1

First, respond to the following question: 1. How do you define “American culture”?

Then go to another person’s post and respond to their definition. Do you agree or disagree with them?

My sample post Personally, I don’t think that there’s any specific “American culture.” After all, I can go into new spaces and see people with different habits and patterns of living and values. I came from California originally, and when I came to Ohio, a lot of really subtle things were weird to me – even something as simple as how people acted in restaurants. For example, here in Ohio, I noticed that people tended to order really large portions in restaurants and then box up the leftovers, enough for a whole other meal – which we definitely didn’t do growing up. But we’re all Americans…So Americans can differ from one another. But even people from the same place can have different cultures— since I don’t even think there’s an “Ohio Culture” — since there’s even a different culture in, 282 say, a physics classroom versus a Russian-language classroom. The patterns of behavior like when you’re allowed to interrupt the teacher, the sorts of questions you’re allowed to ask, things you’re not allowed to say, where and how you sit, your relationship with fellow students…They’re really different. So even Ohio State, the cultures are different.

So I guess I don’t think there is a real “American culture.” Americans can be so incredibly different from one another, and they can act in different ways — basically, they can differ in every single way that’s culturally important. So I think, instead, that “American culture” is a story we tell ourselves. We imagine what American-ness is, and we use that idea to guide our actions and behaviors. If we think that Americans are independent and self-reliant, then when we want to feel more American, we try to be independent and self-reliant.

So I’ll start this out with the disclaimer that I think that American culture is a bundle of ideas, rather than any inflexible qualities. And for me, the idea of an American — the story of Americanness that I’ve heard from other people — include someone who is: • Independent • Needing a lot of personal space • Loud • Capitalistic • Innovative • Optimistic • Ignorant about other cultures • Courageous • Freedom-loving etc.

Wrap-up.

As you wrap up this assignment, I want you to think about the following proposal for how we can define culture. My proposal is as follows: • When we’re challenged to explain what American culture is, or what Russian culture is, we can’t. All we can do is give generalities but then name all the exceptions we’ve noticed and all the ways this isn’t really the case.

• The only cultures that exist in reality are “small cultures.” A “small culture” is groups where everyone is in contact and where there are fairly concrete (if unspoken) rules for how to behave. EXAMPLES OF SMALL CULTURES: This Russian class. You have both explicit rules (written into the syllabus) and unspoken rules (who sits where, when you can talk, what sorts of

283

questions it’s okay to ask Helen, etc.). You share patterns of behavior in this class. You know when something isn’t okay, if they’ve broken the unspoken rules.

Your apartment/dorm and your roommates. Again, you have unspoken ways of being that you’ve figured out together. Maybe you have roommate meetings, or maybe you all have just settled into patterns. Maybe you explicitly say who takes out the trash, or maybe someone has just started doing it (or maybe you all get really passive-aggressive at each other, because that’s a rule that hasn’t been worked out well enough yet!). But regardless, you’ve all established a way of life together.

Your family. Again, you have ways of being with one another. When someone does something unacceptable, the rest of the family knows it’s unacceptable.

A club you belong to.

An online community.

• “Big cultures,” like American culture, Russian culture, Ohio culture, Harry Potter fan culture, stamp-collecting culture, etc., do matter. But they’re abstract ideas rather than something real. Which doesn’t mean they don’t matter! We’re always affected by our imaginations. But you can only describe American culture in terms of the stories we tell, what we think Americans are.

• So if we want to study cultures, we can do two things:

o Focus on small cultures, and go in and describe how small communities interact with one another. o Focus on big cultures by analyzing the stories people tell about what their culture means.

Do you like this proposal? Do you hate it? You’re free to think either way! We’ll be, in the next few weeks, discussing this and discussing how to better understand other cultures.

This PDF (https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472033041-101AmerCult.pdf) is taken from a book on how to adapt to American culture for non-Americans. Read through it and answer the associated questions.

1. Would you describe this list as positive, negative, or neutral? 284

2. Are there any particular listed traits of Americans that you disagree with? 3. Does this list of traits describe you? 4. What reaction do you have to this list? Intellectually, does it seem to be correct? Emotionally, does it sit right with you – i.e., do you like reading it, or do you dislike it? Why do you think this is?

That list, of course, is a mixture of factual information about how life works in the United States and stereotypes. Even though these stereotypes are generally not negative, and there’s nothing here that’s offensive, reading this list still doesn’t exactly feel right (at least not to me).

Now go read this list of characteristics of Russians (https://www.ribttes.com/russian- people/) and answer the following questions: 1. Which of these characteristics have you heard before? 2. What is your emotional reaction to this list? 3. Do you think it’s accurate or inaccurate? What problems do you see with it?

Read the cross-cultural encounter described in this section of the book. Then discuss the following questions.

1. What are the two views of Confucianism presented by the two Chinese students?

2. Have you ever heard Russians presenting an essentialized view of Russian culture? If so, why do you think they did this?

3. Think of a stereotype of Americans. What is your relationship to this stereotype? Do you ever embrace the stereotype? Do you ever fight against it? Do you think it’s possible to sometimes embrace stereotypes and sometimes resist them? What would cause this contradictory behavior?

Week 2. Assignment overview.

The topic of this first assignment is: “How do language and culture relate to each other?” 285

Essentially, we’re going to be diving into linguistic anthropology – the study of how language gets used in culture. Certain groups speak certain ways; patterns of speech are part of their culture. If you belong to that culture, you might speak like them...or you might also have your own slightly unique way of speaking.

There are four parts to this assignment.

1. Data collection on how you speak 2. Reflective essay on the speech norms of your Russian class 3. Reading about linguistic anthropology and reflecting on it 4. Finding a site to explore

Week 3. Assignment overview.

The topic of this first assignment is: “How do Russian language and culture relate to each other?”

This week, we’re going to focus in on Russian speech culture. Last week, you observed how your speech can change from situation to situation, as well as how your small community (i.e., your Russian class) can have its own speech norms. Today, you’re going to start looking into Russian language norms.

There are four parts to this assignment.

1. Reflective essay on Russian speech culture. 2. Reading and responding to chapter on speech during Perestroika. 3. Selecting a site.

Week 4. Assignment overview.

The topic of this assignment is: “How can we investigate Russian culture/language and how they relate to one another?”

286

This week is going to involve some data collection! We’re going to go onto YouTube and look at a Russian-speaking person’s videos and analyze how they “perform” their cultural identity for others. You’ll be thinking about culture in terms of performance.

There are four parts to this assignment.

1. Reflective essay on “performing” culture. 2. Analyzing a performance on YouTube. 3. Thinking about audience (with reference to your own site).

Week 5. Assignment overview.

The topic of this assignment is: “What does all of this mean for language learning?”

This week, you’ll think about the consequences of these ideas for your own use of Russian.

There are three parts to this assignment.

1. Reflective questions 2. A mini-investigation 3. Thinking about crossing language borders

Pre-class assignment.

We’re going to have an in-person class session this coming Tuesday, November 6. In preparation for this class, I want you to do the following:

1. Take about three minutes to reflect on your language-learning goals. Think about the following: a. What sorts of Russian speakers would you want to be friends (or colleagues, coworkers, etc.) with? b. What sorts of things do you want to be able to talk about with them? c. What do you want your personality to be in Russian?

2. Go to the website you selected.

287

Pick out about 5 comment chains with people talking to one another; preferably, they should be talking in a way that’s interesting to you for some reason (maybe because of what they’re talking about, the way they’re talking to each other, etc.) Copy/paste them into a word document. Either print out this document and bring it to class or save it onto your computer/tablet/phone and bring your tech with you. (We may or may not have time to get to it.)

Thinking about the data

Answer the following questions about the data we looked at in class. The worksheet is posted on Carmen for you to refer to if you need to.

1. What are the differences between the speech norms of the YouTube community and the Lingualeo community that we discussed? Describe some of them. Give details.

2. Why do you think these differences exist?

3. Imagine you’re responding to the blog post and to the video while trying to fit in as best you can – basically, you’re trying to pass as a Russian without necessarily being “fake.” What comment would you leave?

YouTube:

Lingualeo:

288

Your project

1. Think about the site you collected data from – the one you’ve been looking at. What is the site like? Who uses it? What’s its purpose? (Don’t just copy-paste from previous assignments; give a new summary.)

2. Now look at the data you took off this website. Try to find patterns in their language use. In class, we analyzed formality and informality on two different websites. You can focus on that, but don’t feel limited to it; you can also look at things like language choice (when they use English, when they use Russian); use of diminutives; use of memes/emojis; when they say мы versus when they say я; etc., etc., etc. a. First, copy/paste the data below:

b. Then provide an overview of a pattern you see.

3. Now try to bring questions #1 and #2 together. a. Can you make any generalizations about the patterns of language use and why users on this website fall into these patterns?

b. If you were to participate in this website (post a comment), what would you need to keep in mind?

4. In about 5-6 sentences below, describe what you know about the Russian sociolinguistic system — i.e., the parts of the language that people use to make assumptions about your personality and identity; e.g., formality/informality, humor, slang, accent, regionalisms, etc. Then identify Russian sociolinguistic features that would be useful for you to learn in order to be more authentically “yourself” in Russian.

289