UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Symbolic Value and Greek Foreign Language Learner Investment in Multilingualism A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics by Elpida Petraki 2019 © Copyright by Elpida Petraki 2019 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Symbolic Value and Greek Foreign Language Learner Investment in Multilingualism By Elpida Petraki Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2019 Professor Susan J. Plann, Chair Since Greece entered the EU, language learning has become prominent and gained further momentum in the context of modern globalized economy. Acknowledging the intense commodification of the modern foreign language education industry, this research explores Greek Foreign Language Learner (FLL) investment in multiple foreign languages, and how symbolic value can influence it. To this purpose, I borrow the definition of symbolic value from the field of sociology—namely the context-dependent sociocultural meanings associated with commodities, or in the context of this research, languages—and, grounded on the construct of investment (Darvin & Norton, 2015), which is located at the intersection of identity, ideology, and capital, I perform a thematic analysis of thirty-three semi-structured, in-depth, interviews conducted with Greek FLLs. The results lead to the following conclusions: i) knowledge of English is so widespread it is taken for granted; investment in several foreign languages is thought essential for professional success and signifies personal cultivation and social class ii aspirations. ii) Proficiency, but mainly certification, in languages of major EU countries is thought to be necessary for career purposes, and has come to represent symbolic power, which is associated with desirable linguistic capital and learner identity, but not necessarily with economic advantages. iii) Recent economic developments drive learners to consider alternative language choices that are associated with negative symbolic value but are understood to grant access to the “new economic world order.” However, despite their increasing economic relevance domestically and internationally, these languages cannot “stand alone” in terms of the individual’s capital. Learning languages associated with positive symbolic value appears crucial in terms of identity as it allows learners to affiliate with desired imagined communities and to claim imagined futures, thereby forging modern national and transnational identities that transcend the limitations posed by current political and economic events in Greece. iii The dissertation of Elpida Petraki is approved. Marjorie Harness Goodwin Paul V. Kroskrity John H. Schumann Susan J. Plann, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2019 iv DEDICATION PAGE To my poor red eyes v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ii CHAPTER 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Topic Introduction: Investment and Symbolic Value ................................................... 1 1.2 Foreign Language Learning in Greece ......................................................................... 3 1.3 Aims of the Study ..........................................................................................................8 1.4 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 9 1.5 Overview of Chapters ................................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER 2: Theoretical Framework.......................................................................................... 15 2.1 Foreign Language Learning in the Era of Globalization ............................................ 15 2.2 Commodification of Language and Symbolic Value.................................................. 19 2.3 Literature Review: Investment .................................................................................... 26 CHAPTER 3: Methodology .......................................................................................................... 36 3.1 Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 36 3.2 Participants .................................................................................................................. 39 3.3 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 45 3.4 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 48 CHAPTER 4: Greek Foreign Language Learner Investment in Multilingualism ........................ 51 4.1 Investment in English ................................................................................................. 51 4.2 Investment in Multilingualism beyond English .......................................................... 60 4.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 74 vi CHAPTER 5: Positive Symbolic Value and Greek Foreign Language Learner Investment ....... 87 5.1 Positive Symbolic Value and Foreign Languages ...................................................... 87 5.2 Positive Symbolic Value and Investment ................................................................... 97 5.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 107 CHAPTER 6: Negative Symbolic Value and Greek Foreign Language Learner Investment .... 119 6.1 Negative Symbolic Value and Foreign Languages ................................................... 119 6.2 Negative Symbolic Value and Investment ................................................................ 127 6.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 139 CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and Limitations ............................................................................... 148 APPENDIX I .............................................................................................................................. 158 APPENDIX II ............................................................................................................................. 159 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 161 vii LIST OF CHARTS Chart 1: Second foreign language choice ..................................................................................... 42 Chart 2: Participant languages ...................................................................................................... 42 Chart 3: Participant age upon starting foreign language instruction............................................. 43 Chart 4: Duration of studies .......................................................................................................... 44 Chart 5: Participant certification ................................................................................................... 44 Chart 6: Foreign language use ...................................................................................................... 61 Chart 7: Is knowledge of English as a foreign language enough? ................................................ 61 Chart 8: Would you like your children to learn more than one language outside school? ........... 62 Chart 9: Foreign language use for academic and professional purposes ...................................... 69 viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Where would I ever be without my incredible committee? I would like to thank the Chair of my committee, Professor Susan Plann, whose class on “Oral Histories and Qualitative Interviewing” was the starting point of my research journey, as it provided the platform to explore a topic I am most passionate about. Professor Plann believed in me and what I wanted to do, even when I did not. For this reason, I am forever grateful to her; for her academic expertise, her suggestions on my methodology, her feedback in terms of content and structure, and her patience with me. I would also like to give my deepest thanks to the members of my committee, Professors Goodwin, Kroskrity and Schumann. Professor Goodwin was always willing to meet and discuss my progress, and I am grateful to her for her encouragement and the interest she has shown in what I had to say. Professor Kroskrity’s insightful comments on my theoretical framework were of immense help throughout the writing process as they allowed me to better frame my data analysis. Professor Schumann’s generosity with his time and his expertise on language acquisition and motivation gave me the opportunity to improve my analysis. I was extremely lucky to work with and have the unwavering support of such accomplished academics from the beginning of my project. Therefore, to my Chair and all the Professors who constituted my committee, I would like to once more say a heartfelt “thank you” for always supporting me and helping me improve my dissertation. Furthermore, I would like to thank the foreign language learners who participated in this project.