Identity and Pragmatic Language Use: A Study on Japanese ELF Users 9781501504211, 9781501512131

Citation preview

Yoko Nogami Identity and Pragmatic Language Use

Developments in English as a Lingua Franca

Editors Jennifer Jenkins Will Baker

Volume 11

Yoko Nogami

Identity and Pragmatic Language Use A Study on Japanese ELF Users

ISBN 978-1-5015-1213-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0421-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0417-4 ISSN 2192-8177 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020934494 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

To myself in the past, present and future

Acknowledgements It is another milestone for me in my academic career to publish this book. It is a pleasure to thank those who made this possible. I am indebted to the series editors Will Baker and Jennifer Jenkins for their guidance and support on the book’s journey from proposal to final manuscript. Without their encouragement and patience, the publication of this monograph would not have been possible. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that have led to significant improvement on the presentation and quality of the manuscript. I would like to show my deepest gratitude to Professor Emeritus Carol Rinnert for her immense inspiration and support from the very beginning of my academic career. As a former supervisor and a friend, she has helped me in many aspects of life. I am truly thankful for her insightful and perspective comments on the earlier draft of this work too. My whole-hearted thanks go to my husband, Yusuke Hamada and my parents, Katsuyoshi and Takako. They have always endowed me with emotional support and constant warm encouragement, which strengthened me and helped accomplish this expedition. This monograph is based on my doctoral thesis Japanese L2 English users’ second language identities and pragmatic use in relations of power and culture (University of Essex 2011) although much revised and reorganised. The list below shows the author’s published papers based on the thesis, which share some parts of the book. Nogami, Yoko. 2013. Negotiation of second language identities in shifting power relations: Voices of Japanese L2 English users. Hiroshima Journal of International Studies 19. 81–100. Nogami, Yoko. 2018. Identity and pragmatic language use among East Asian ELF speakers and its implications for English-medium Education. In Kumiko Murata (ed.), ELF in EMI settings in higher education, 176–197. London: Routledge. Nogami, Yoko. Forthcoming. Understanding the ELF phenomenon through narrative inquiry: A diary study on identities of Japanese ELF users. In Kumiko Murata (ed.), ELF research methods and approaches to data and analyses: Theoretical and methodological underpinnings. London: Routledge.

All the works that have led to the completion of the manuscript could not have been achieved without cooperation of the research participants. I am extremely grateful to all of them for their participation and for sharing their stories with me. This is the product of collaboration among people who worked with me.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-202

Contents Acknowledgements Notes

VII

XV

Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background and the aims of the book 2 1.2 English as a lingua franca (ELF) 5 1.3 Theoretical standpoint on second language user 1.4 The definition of native and non-native speakers 1.5 Structure of the book 8

6 7

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens 11 2.1 Language and identity 11 2.2 Conceptual underpinning: Poststructuralist approaches to L2-related identity 13 2.2.1 Identity and subjectivity 14 2.2.2 Language, the relation of power and identity 16 2.2.3 Culture, the English language and identity 18 2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF 20 2.3.1 The identity negotiation theory 20 2.3.2 Identity and investment in L2 learning and use 24 2.3.3 Power relations in L2 use and intercultural communication 26 2.3.4 Understanding identities of Japanese L2 learners/users 28 2.3.5 English as a lingua franca and identity 34 2.4 Pragmatic language use and L2 users’ identity through ELF 38 2.4.1 Pragmatics, speech act theory and intercultural pragmatics research 38 2.4.2 Research on L2 pragmatics and identity 40 2.4.3 Studies on pragmatic strategies through ELF and index of identity 45 2.5 Imagined communities and ELF 48 2.5.1 Theory of communities of practice 48 2.5.2 Communities of practice and ELF 49

X

2.5.3 2.6

Contents

Imagined communities Summary 53

50

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use 55 3.1 The study: Central questions and qualitative inquiry 3.2 Participants 57 3.2.1 Sampling data 57 3.2.2 Sample selection and recruitment 57 3.3 Methodological design 59 3.3.1 Diary study 62 3.3.2 Questionnaire-based interviewing 66 3.4 Analytical framework and data organisation 75 3.4.1 Analysis of questionnaire-based interviews 76 3.4.2 Analysis of the diary data 80 3.5 Summary 81

55

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self 83 4.1 Value of the English language 83 4.1.1 The English language for intercultural communication 83 4.1.2 The English language as their own language 85 4.2 Sense of English-speaking self 88 4.2.1 Being the “real me” 88 4.2.2 Being outspoken 90 4.3 Becoming a multilingual subject: In the midst of different linguacultures 92 4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1 93 4.4.1 Mio’s Story: From socialisation with an ESL context to appreciation of ELF 93 4.4.2 Musashi’s story: Idealisation of the West 97 4.4.3 Kazusa’s story: Transition of identities as a learner to a user through ELF experience 101 4.4.4 Hana’s story: Imagined community of ELF users in a business context 105 4.5 Discussion and conclusion 108 4.5.1 Symbolic capital of the English language 108

Contents

4.5.2 4.5.3

The English language as a means of self-representation 109 Taking ownership of English through ELF encounters 109

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication 112 5.1 We are all in the same boat: A sense of sharing and collaboration among ELF users 112 5.2 Asymmetrical power relations in ELF 116 5.2.1 Collaborative power relations and a source of empowerment 116 5.2.2 Coercive power influencing identity and loss of investment: Interactions with NSEs 120 5.2.3 Coercive power relations and loss of investment: Interactions among ELF speakers 126 5.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 2 128 5.3.1 Yayoi’s story: On the perception of a legitimate speaker of English 128 5.3.2 Hikari’s story: Ideal L2 self in the globalised world 132 5.3.3 Natsumi’s story: Professional identity and relations of power 135 5.4 Discussion and conclusion 139 5.4.1 A sense of sharing as commonality and issues of identity in ELF 139 5.4.2 Symbolic resources, power relations and positioning of self 141 5.4.3 Discourse of native-speakerism and imagined communities 142 Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF 145 6.1 Awareness of the self and others 145 6.2 Feeling of closeness and perceived similarity with East Asian ELF users 147 6.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 3 150 6.3.1 Miyu’s story: The sense of sharing and identity as an advanced user of English 151 6.3.2 Isuzu’s story: Perceived discrimination and identity misalignment 154

XI

XII

6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2

Contents

Discussion and conclusion 157 A sense of sharing, cultural group and cultural identity in ELF interaction 157 Imagined communities of East Asian ELF speakers and interculturality 159

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF 162 7.1 Expressing English-speaking self 162 7.2 Whose norms to follow? A struggle over the decision with negotiation of multiple identities 165 7.3 English learner identity overwhelming user identity 168 7.4 Building rapport with East Asian ELF speakers 174 7.5 Underlying communicative assumption among East Asian ELF speakers 182 7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Short case studies of the participants in the questionnaire-based interviewing 185 7.6.1 Takako’s case study 186 7.6.2 Hitomi’s case study 187 7.6.3 Nina’s case study 188 7.6.4 Mutsumi’s case study 190 7.6.5 Fuyuka’s case study 191 7.6.6 Hiromi’s case study 192 7.6.7 Umi’s case study 194 7.6.8 Yoshito’s case study 195 7.6.9 Kaori’s case study 197 7.6.10 Tae’s case study 199 7.6.11 Naofumi’s case study 200 7.6.12 Yoriko’s case study 202 7.6.13 Motoya’s case study 203 7.6.14 Takeo’s case study 205 7.6.15 Tomomi’s case study 206 7.7 Discussion and conclusion 208 7.7.1 ELF users and social agency 208 7.7.2 Pragmatic language use as manifestation of identity negotiation 209 7.7.3 Toward cultural practice among East Asian ELF speakers 211

XIII

Contents

Chapter 8 Conclusion 214 8.1 Summary of the book 214 8.1.1 What kinds of identities do the Japanese L2 English users construct relating to the English language? 214 8.1.2 How do power relations emerge in ELF communication and influence the Japanese L2 English users’ identities? 216 8.1.3 How do the Japanese L2 English users’ identities reflect a feeling of cultural closeness with ELF interlocutors? 218 8.1.4 How do the Japanese L2 English users account for their deliberate pragmatic language use in ELF contexts? 220 8.2 Educational implications 221 8.2.1 Interculturality in language education 222 8.2.2 Investment in learning and in identity 223 8.2.3 Challenging the ideology: Developing awareness of the English language and power relations 225 8.2.4 Realisation of ELF-oriented language learning 226 8.2.5 Learning about pragmatics and EMI in ELF contexts 228 8.3 Methodological implications 230 8.4 Limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies 232 8.5 Final remarks 235 Appendices Appendix A Guideline for the diary study 239 Appendix B English elicitation task (Questionnaire 2) 241 Appendix C Coding scheme for the questionnaire-based interview study 246 Appendix D Coding scheme for the diary study 254 Appendix E Extracts from Isuzu, Mio, and Hana’s reflective essays References Index

273

261

258

Notes 1 Convention for transcription of audio data and translated data presentation @ () (word) [...] [word]

laughter empty parentheses indicate words unclear and so untranscribable parenthesised words are dubious hearing omission transcriber’s/translator’s descriptions

2 Participants’ written and oral quotations To indicate the quotes from the participants that are used within the text, I have put them in italics within the double quotation marks. All the extracts presented in this book were translated from the original Japanese by the author, unless it is specified as “Original in English”. The translation was validated by a bilingual colleague for accuracy and interpretation.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-204

Chapter 1 Introduction This book is about exploring identities of Japanese second language (L2) English users in the age of globalization in which English is used as a lingua franca. Intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca (ELF) is often portrayed as a collaborative dynamic where speakers effectively use strategies to ensure intelligibility and achieve mutual understanding. This portrayal of ELF is true for celebration of an ELF speaker’ s capability; however, it may convey the misleading impression that the ELF context provides an equal ground for all the participants to be able to contribute to mutual understanding. At the same time, beyond participants’ creativity and skilfulness in terms of linguistic and pragmatic practices, there are hidden issues, such as how participants’ identities are negotiated in prevailing power relations of the language and the issue of culture in intercultural communication though ELF. For further exploration of the ELF phenomenon, ELF speakers’ identities need to be understood in relation to sociocultural factors that may influence ELF communication and communicators because identities of ELF users are also negotiated through (non-)access to linguistic resources and interactional opportunities as well as the social context they are in. The idea for embarking on this project on identity came largely based on my personal experience of coming to consider myself as an ELF user or L2 English user while I was studying in the UK as a postgraduate student. During this personal journey, there was much of an inner struggle over who I am and what group I belong to, being an Asian student in a foreign country. Several months after I arrived at a British university, I came to realise I was more comfortable and confident speaking in English with other international students of Asian heritage. In contrast, when I had a chance to go out with students from Europe who were very fluent in English and native speakers of English (NSEs), I was intimidated and my confidence level dropped considerably. Then, I remembered an account that my former advisor in a Japanese university once shared with me. He said he felt more relaxed and enjoyed conversation in English with people of Asian background rather than with NSEs. He observed it was because he shared similar cultural backgrounds with Asian English speakers and both parties were non-native speakers of English (NNSEs). When I first heard his remarks, at that point, I did not quite pay attention to what he was talking about. Perhaps I had not engaged in enough interactional opportunities with various people back then. However, after a few years, there in the UK I came to realise what he meant and I began to share the same feeling. This feeling was reinforced when I encountered linguistic research https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-001

2

Chapter 1 Introduction

that considers L2 English speakers as essentially language-impaired. It left me feeling like I was “disabled” because I was merely a L2 English speaker. With these experiences combined, I started to become curious about my sense of self with respect to the English language and how the way I perceived myself affected my English language use. Around that time, I also knew that one of my flatmates from Taiwan felt stressed and unconfident with speaking out when she was surrounded by people she regarded as better English speakers than she was. I came to realise that foreign language (FL) or L2 learning and use could not always be characterised by learners/users’ grammatical, communicative and pragmatic competency and fluency but that a L2 user’s subjectivity and identity in relation to their L2 needed to be explored. It became my personal expedition as well as academic mission to investigate identities of L2 English users, especially Japanese L2 English users. This monograph aims to shed light on Japanese L2 English users’ perceptions toward the English language and its use based on their lived experiences, which influence their use of the language and positioning as ELF or L2 English users.

1.1 Background and the aims of the book Since the mid-1990s, research on identity with respect to an L2 has flourished and greatly contributed to studies in applied linguistics that see L2 learners as individuals with multiple and fluctuating identities. Throughout the process of learning and practicing L2 English, L2 users construct identities and negotiate those identities while engaging in interactions with others. Many early studies on identities of L2 learners have explored the experiences of recent immigrants who learn a new language to assimilate into a new community. For instance, Norton (2000) studied adult female immigrants in Canada from different countries. McKay and Wong (1996) and Miller (2000) investigated adolescent Chinese immigrants in a US and an Australian mainstream school, respectively. Others contributed to the research in non-immigrant contexts, but often targeted specific and narrower contexts compared to those immigrant contexts. For example, Jackson (2008) ethnographically researched Hong Kong university students’ border crossing, i. e., a context of short-term studying abroad. In a language classroom context, Duff and Uchida (1997) explored Japanese English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers’ identities at private language schools where they collaborated with native English speaking teachers, and Morita (2004) studied Japanese students’ identities and their academic socialization in a Canadian graduate school. These pioneering studies, needless to say, have established the importance of research on L2 learners’ identity in language learning in applied linguistics to this

1.1 Background and the aims of the book

3

day; however, their investigation mainly focused on opportunities for learners to speak with native speakers of the target language but not with other speakers of the language (i. e., non-native speakers or other learners of the language). Moreover, their research goals were often to investigate the learners’ accommodation to the target linguacultural norms and socialisation to the host culture. This does not seem to reflect the social reality that many interactions in English are now conducted regardless of the speakers’ physical location and/or linguacultural background, i. e., in an ELF context that goes beyond national or regional boundaries. Therefore, L2 English speakers’ identities need to be understood under the current global, regional and local use of English, which this book intends to bring to light. As issues of identity have caught much attention in L2 research across disciplines, similar interest has been growing in ELF-focused research. A number of ELF researchers now appreciate that ELF communication is relevant to ELF speakers’ identity construction (e.g., Baker 2009, 2011a, 2011b, 2012; Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2011) rather than merely serving communicative purposes (House 2003; Kirkpatrick 2007; Meierkord 2002). A wide range of studies on identities relating to ELF communication have been conducted, such as accentrelated identities (e.g., Jenkins 2007; Rivers 2011), English language teacher identity (Jenkins 2007; Pedrazzini and Nava 2011; Phan 2008), learner vs. user identity (Sung 2014; Virkkula and Nikula 2010), students’ identity formation (Phan 2009) and identity of ELF speakers from different linguacultural backgrounds, e.g., among Fins (Virkkula and Nikula 2010), Thais (Baker 2009; Phan 2008, 2009), Malays (Lee 2003) and Hong Kongers (Sung 2014). As was just mentioned, research into identity issues in ELF communication including in Asian contexts is emerging; however, a large-scale study focusing on identities of Japanese L2 English users with interest in the phenomenon of ELF has yet to come. Furthermore, little is known about what identities ELF users negotiate in their actual ELF use. Previously, several second language acquisition (SLA) scholars found how L2 learners’ pragmatic language use is affected by their subjectivity (e.g., Ishihara 2006, 2010; Iwasaki 2010; Shardakova 2013; Siegal 1996), revealing that L2 learners do not always wish to follow their target linguacultural pragmatic norms, and their subjectivity is key for their linguistic behaviour and underlies their choices of whether or not to conform to the target language norms. These studies urged caution against assuming supremacy of the native speaker (NS) norm in SLA research, and highlighted the importance of leaners’ identity, agency and voices in their L2 use and learning. The earlier studies, however, were mainly conducted based on intercultural interactions between NSs and non-native speakers (NNSs) of the language, not from an ELF

4

Chapter 1 Introduction

perspective. Thus, there arises a need to investigate what kind of pragmatic language use ELF speakers choose based on their different subjectivities when interacting in an ELF context. Such an investigation could help us deepen our understanding of identity negotiation during intercultural communication where ELF speakers do not share a specific “norm” because ELF speakers are from multilingual and multicultural backgrounds and they negotiate what is acceptable usage according to every communicative situation (Hynninen 2016). Such need is especially important because ELF research counters the monocentric view of English based on norms of NSEs, and supports usages by any English language users, including their local and global sociolinguistic repertories, depending on their needs. Such a pluricentric approach to the teaching and usage of English can empower learners and any speakers of English to contemplate their own varieties of English in use in a sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic reality (Jenkins 2006b). This is where pragmatic language use and expression of identity come to be associated (Kirkpatrick 2010; Morizumi 2009). Several ELF studies have linked pragmatic strategies of ELF users to expression of identities from an interactional approach. For instance, they showed that strategies such as code-switching (Cogo 2009; Kalocsai 2011, 2014; Klimpfinger 2009; Pölzl 2003) and use of idioms and metaphors (Fiedler 2011; Pitzl 2009) enable ELF interlocutors to achieve mutual understanding and to perhaps signal their cultural identity. The integration of L1 communicative norms into ELF conversation has also been discussed as a marker of speakers’ identity (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006). These studies unveiled ELF speakers’ ability to manipulate the language for particular pragmatic functions and suggested a potential link between language use and identity in ELF communication. However, the interpretations were made from researchers’ perspectives only. In other words, whether ELF speakers do indeed express their identities through the use of pragmatic strategies constitutes unknown territory. To gain more informed perspectives on the link between pragmatic strategies and speakers’ expression of identity through ELF, we need further investigation from an insider perspective explained by participants themselves. This book aims to address the issues of ELF speaker’s identity construction and its link to pragmatic language use in intercultural communication through ELF. Drawing on qualitative research among Japanese L2 English users, employing two methods to gather participants’ narratives (questionnaire-based interviewing and longitudinal diary observation), the monograph will show formation and negotiation of ELF speakers’ identities grounded in their lived and localized experiences in intercultural communication, and how the expression of identity

1.2 English as a lingua franca (ELF)

5

is reflected through their choices of pragmatic language use in an ELF context. The following four research questions will be investigated. 1) What kinds of identities do the Japanese L2 English users construct relating to the English language? 2) How do power relations emerge in ELF communication and influence the Japanese L2 English users’ identities? 3) How do the Japanese L2 English users’ identities reflect a feeling of cultural closeness with ELF interlocutors? 4) How do the Japanese L2 English users account for their deliberate pragmatic language use in an ELF context?

1.2 English as a lingua franca (ELF) The English language has become one of the most influential languages all over the world due to its broad use in computer science, business, commerce, international politics, mass communication and education, which is closely related to every member of the world community. In this modern era of the worldwide spread of English, the English language is no longer only for people who speak English as their mother tongue such as US Americans, British, and Canadians, which Kachru (1985) calls the Inner Circle, but also for those in the Outer Circle (e.g., India, Singapore and Hong Kong), where English has a role as an official language and people speak it as a L2, and for those in the Expanding Circle, where people learn it as a FL, including Japan. It is estimated that the number of speakers of English as their L2 outnumbers speakers of English as their first language (L1), and also that more than one third of the world population is using English in some aspects of their daily life (Crystal 2018). This indicates that NNSEs in L2 and FL contexts have greater and greater opportunities to communicate with people from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds, not only from Inner Circle but also from Outer and Expanding Circles. In this regard, the English language for intercultural communication serves as a contact language, i. e., a “lingua franca”, used among people who do not share a L1; hence it is called English as a lingua franca (ELF). In recent years, ELF is most commonly defined as “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option” (Seidlhofer 2011: 7). When it comes to conceptualising “people who do not share a L1”, whether to include NSEs in the scope of ELF has been a tricky issue, especially in the past. In the early ELF research, ELF was considered as “interaction between members of two or more different linguacultures in English, for none of whom English is the mother tongue” (House 1999: 74). Thus, NSEs were

6

Chapter 1 Introduction

excluded from the scope of ELF research, and communication through ELF was mainly regarded as between NNSEs (Firth 1996; House 1999; Seidlhofer 2001). However, contrary to the earliest definition of ELF as communication among NNSEs, as Jenkins (2007: 2) pointed out, situations where English is used as a common language such as business meetings, conferences and political gatherings often involve both NSEs and NNSEs. NSEs are also part of intercultural communication through English in various contexts; therefore, it is important that NSEs are not excluded from the ELF research unless NSEs do not represent a norm of ELF (Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2004). In other words, “E” in ELF does not represent English that, for example, a North American or British person speaks. All the interactional participants, including NSEs, need to develop the skills to adapt and adjust their linguistic and communicative practices to ensure effective and successful intercultural communication through ELF (Jenkins 2011), irrespective of a speaker’s linguacultural background and a level of proficiency (Jenkins, Modiano and Seidlhofer 2001:15). Thus English in ELF is rather considered as an additional language used for intercultural communication along with the speaker’s L1 and other languages they may use. In this sense, by definition most ELF speakers are multilingual (with perhaps the exception of monolingual NSEs), and ELF is a unique multilingual phenomenon (Jenkins 2015) or language in practice where multilingual participants utilise various linguistic and pragmatic strategies by relying on their multilingual and multicultural repertoire (Cogo 2009; Kalocsai 2011, 2014; Klimpfinger 2009; Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006) and through which ELF speakers can explore their identities. Considering multilingual aspects of intercultural communication in the contemporary globalisation, in this book, English as a lingua franca (ELF) means – borrowed from the most commonly acknowledged definition of ELF from Seidlhofer (2011: 7) and with the notion of English as a multilingua franca by Jenkins (2015: 73) – any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is available as a communicative medium of choice, although it is not necessarily chosen.

1.3 Theoretical standpoint on second language user In this book, I will use the terms “L2 user” or “ELF user” to indicate my research participants, rather than “L2 learner”. First of all, the term L2 learner often denotes people who learn the L2 in a classroom but not those who use the language outside the classroom. The term L2 user simply refers to a person who uses a language other than their L1 (Cook 2002: 1). Using this term allows us to recognise that a L2 user is not a “deficient native speaker” (Cook 1999: 185) but

1.4 The definition of native and non-native speakers

7

rather an active agent who uses the language in their own right. Moreover, it is imperative to acknowledge that language users are learners for life no matter what their first and/or second language may be (Canagarajah 2007). Thus it does not indicate that L2 users cannot be L2 learners. They can be both L2 users and learners, and the level of proficiency is not relevant (Cook 2007: 23) because both NSs and NNSs have competence in their respective varieties, though there is no limit to the development of their proficiency through experience and time (Canagarajah 2007: 925). It is true that some L2 proficiency is certainly required to use a L2. However, even with limited knowledge of L2, people can communicate successfully while acquiring further understanding of the nature of the L2 (Canagarajah 2007: 925) as well as developing skills for intercultural communication. Therefore, it is important to treat a L2 user as a legitimate speaker of the language rather than a failed NS (Cook 2007). All the linguistic resources of any speakers of English are potentially relevant for the regulation of English (Hynninen 2016: 11). Such a theoretical standpoint on “L2 user” accords fully with how ELF research conceptualises ELF speakers. ELF speakers are possessors of multilingual and multicultural backgrounds, who skilfully and effectively manage intercultural communication. Thus, all the participants in ELF communication are treated as legitimate speakers of English in their own right. I hope the choice of the terms, “L2 users” or “ELF users” reflects the standpoint from which I treat my research participants. Regarding my research participants, they, L2 users or ELF users, can be anybody who uses the English language in intercultural communication, for example, to serve English-speaking customers at a local café where they work part-time, to travel to non-English speaking countries and communicate in English with another passenger on a train, to correspond with business associates at work in Japan, and so forth.

1.4 The definition of native and non-native speakers Along with the conceptualisation of L2 users or ELF users explained in the previous section, it is important to explain where I stand on the use of such controversial terms: native (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS). It is commonly understood that, in layman’s terms, NSs are those who learned the language as their first language in their early childhood and developed intuitive competence in it, and NNSs are those who have learned the language as an adult or young adult and “lack” in NS sensitivity over the language. The dichotomy between NS and NNS, especially with an implication of NNSs as “deficient” language speakers, has long been problematized in applied linguistics (e.g., Cook 1999; Davies 2003; Ortega 2009; Ortega and Carson 2010; Pennycook 2012; Rampton 1995). Having acknowledged

8

Chapter 1 Introduction

the problem of such terms that may carry negative connotations for NNSs, I will use these terms for the sake of practicality, especially because use of these terms, NS and NNS, is still prevalent in the literature as ideological and social categories in socially oriented research, and it does not seem that other more suitable terms are widely used in the discipline. Therefore, with the careful intention, I will refer to NS and NNS as social categories, rather than as binary opposite classifications highlighting the respective speakers’ innate linguistic ability in the language or lack of it. In using the terms, I will never intend to emphasise the dichotomy, but rather question it. In the present study, NS refers to those who have learned the language as their mother tongue in infancy and use it as a dominant language in adulthood, and who may often be monolingual, and NNS refers to those who have learned the language as their second or foreign language in their (young) adulthood. It is important to emphasise again that when NNSs are referred to in the present study, it will never carry the slightest undertone of their being inadequate users of the language compared to NSs. NSE for native speakers of English, NNSE for non-native speaker of English will also be used under the same stipulation.

1.5 Structure of the book This monograph is composed of eight chapters, including the current chapter. Chapter 2 will review the relevant literature. In the first part, the theoretical and conceptual underpinning of the study and concepts such as identity, subjectivity, power relations and culture are explored in depth. In the latter sections, I review previous studies researching identity of L2 learners and users and present studies that have investigated the link between L2 users’ identities and L2 pragmatic use as well as ELF speakers’ pragmatic strategies. As further background, a brief theoretical review on pragmatics is also included. The last part of the chapter will consider the concept of imagined communities and its applications for L2-related identity and ELF research. Chapter 3 explains the research methodology of the present study that took a qualitative interpretive approach. The first section briefly re-states the purpose of the study and provides research questions. The second section introduces the research participants as well as the relationship between the research participants and the researcher in a qualitative inquiry. The third section explains the research design and methodology involving two methods: questionnaire-based interviewing and longitudinal diary observation that were employed for obtaining participants’ narratives of their lived experiences. Through their narratives, this qualitative inquiry aimed to understand the way participants create meaning in intercultural communication through ELF and connect these meanings to their

1.5 Structure of the book

9

sense of themselves and the social world around them. This section also outlines the nature of qualitative inquiry, the rationale for the choice of the specific methods and the procedure of data collection. The last section deals with how I analysed the data using the interpretive approach (Miles and Huberman 1994) by employing two methods: 1) cross-sectional data organisation by developing a coding scheme, and 2) non-cross-sectional data organisation, i. e., case studies. Chapters 4 to 7 present findings and discussion of the study. Chapter 4 reports the findings and discussion concerning Research Question 1) What kinds of identities do the Japanese L2 English users construct relating to the English language? The participants’ narratives reveal what kinds of roles the English language play in their past, current and future lives, and the way the English language affords the Japanese L2 English users the opportunity to construct new identities. In the latter part of the findings sections, several case studies drawn from individuals’ narratives in the diary study are presented with respective short biographies by focusing on how different diarists constructed identities through their experiences of engaging in ELF interactions. The final section discusses the way the English language is seen as symbolic capital and a site of identity construction for the Japanese L2 English users, and considers the notion of ownership of English from the participants’ point of view and an ELF perspective. Chapter 5 presents findings and discussion regarding the second research question: How do power relations emerge in ELF communication and influence the Japanese L2 English users’ identities? There are power relations that the Japanese L2 English users realise through their engagement in ELF interactions. The findings show how both equal and unequal power relations within communications in English can impact the Japanese L2 English users’ identities both positively and negatively. This chapter also includes three diarists’ stories as case studies, based on their narratives, depicting how power relations influenced their identity construction. The final section discusses what symbolic resources the participants see in the English language and speakers of it, and on how a recognition of symbolic resources affects their identity construction. In the third findings and discussion chapter, Chapter 6, the role of cultural awareness in ELF interaction will be explored. This chapter deals with the following research question: How do the Japanese L2 English users’ identities reflect a feeling of cultural closeness with ELF interlocutors? The chapter shows how the Japanese L2 English users’ narratives described their relationships with East Asian ELF users, including stories told by two diarists. It will also discuss formation of cultural grouping and construction of cultural identities. Chapter 7 presents the findings and discussion of the investigation into the link between ELF speaker’s identities and their choice of pragmatic language use in ELF communication. The relevant research question to be answered here is

10

Chapter 1 Introduction

Research Question 4: How do the Japanese L2 English users account for their deliberate pragmatic language use in an ELF context? The findings will be discussed by making connections to the findings presented in the previous three chapters (Chapters 4, 5 and 6) such as English-speaking self, the issue of power relations that underlie intercultural communication in English and cultural affinity among ELF speakers. Furthermore, short case studies of the participants in the questionnaire-based interviewing are presented to provide rich insights into the individual experiences and perceptions pertinent to the English language. The concluding chapter summarises the findings and discussion presented in the earlier chapters and offers some educational and methodological implications. Lastly, by acknowledging the limitations of the present study, I make suggestions for future study to better understand the possible patterns of social interactions as well as speakers’ identity construction in ELF contexts.

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens This chapter reviews the relevant literature. In the first part (Sections 2.1 to 2.2), the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of the study, including concepts such as power relations and culture from a poststructuralist approach will be introduced. In what follows, I will review previous studies investigating identity of L2 learners/ users, and then previous studies that investigated the link between L2 users’ identities and their pragmatic L2 use and pragmatic strategies employed in ELF interactions will follow. As an introduction to further background, a brief theoretical review of pragmatics is also included. Lastly, Section 2.5 reviews the concept of imagined communities and its applications for L2-related identity and ELF research.

2.1 Language and identity “Language displays its speakers’ identity” (Coulmas 2005: 171). In the past decades, there has been an increase in research into language and identity. The issue of language and identity has become a major focus of research in sociolinguistics. Researchers are interested in investigating the relationship between one’s sense of self and language, for example, in aspects of dialect, accent and social dialectal variations and language use like English as a means for communication, because “[a]s we speak, we reveal who we are, where we grew up, our gender, our station in life, our age, and the group we want to belong to” (Coulmas 2005: 173). Joseph (2004) also puts emphasis on the importance of recognising speakers’ identities in linguistic research and states, any study of language needs to take consideration of identity if it is to be full and rich and meaningful, because identity is itself at the very heart of what language is about, how it operates, why and how it came into existence and evolved as it did, how it is learned and how it is used every day, by every user, every time it is used. (Joseph 2004: 224)

As Joseph says “any study of language needs to take consideration of identity” (emphasis mine); this statement should also apply to L2 research. In fact, Norton Peirce’s (1995) pioneering work on identity and L2 learning fired up a surge of interest among applied linguists in investigating L2 and foreign language (FL) learners’ identities both inside and outside the classroom. For example, TESOL Quarterly issued a special number edited by Norton (1997) featuring language and identity that included five studies: Morgan (1997), for instance, discussed https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-002

12

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

the transition of social identity through teaching of contextual dependent intonation to Chinese immigrants in an English as a second language (ESL) classroom in Canada; Duff and Uchida (1997) explored Japanese and North American English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers’ sociocultural identities and beliefs in teaching the language and culture in Japan; Thesen (1997) delved into identity issues of English for academic purposes (EAP) students at a university in South Africa where sociohistorical and sociopolitical transition was eminent. Since then, identity has become one of the key concepts within applied linguistics research, and there still is a growing body of work on identity issues entailed in L2 learning. More manuscripts and edited works were published throughout the last two decades. To name a few which were published in more recent years, a book called Second Language Identities by Block (2007) dealt with a variety of issues of identity construction in different L2 learning contexts. He reviewed how learners’ individual identity emerged depending on sociohistorical and sociocultural conditions in three different language-learning contexts: adult migration, FL learning, and study abroad programmes. Other works include a study on hybrid identities of hafu Japanese (i.e., a Japanese person of mixed-racial background) by Kamada (2009), a narrative-based study on identity construction of Japanese college students in a Japanese EFL context by Miyahara (2015), and the effect of study abroad experience on identity of L2 learners (e.g., Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, and Brown 2013; Jackson 2008, 2010; Kinginger 2009; Patron 2007). Additionally, there are more edited books on identity construction in various intercultural contexts, entitled Researching Identity and Interculturality (Dervin and Risager eds 2015); formation of identity while learning an additional language in different contexts, entitled Identity Formation in Globalizing Contexts: Language Learning in the New Millennium (Higgins ed. 2011); and negotiation of identities in multilingual settings, entitled Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts (Pavlenko and Blackledge eds 2004). The quest of understanding identities of L2 learners and users became a pivotal subject of inquiry in applied linguistic research, to which this book intends to contribute further with attention to Japanese L2 English users and pragmatic language use from an ELF-oriented perspective. In the next section, I will turn to the theoretical foundation of identity research: poststructuralist approaches that are most commonly applied in the body of work including mentioned above.

2.2 Conceptual underpinning: Poststructuralist approaches to L2-related identity

13

2.2 Conceptual underpinning: Poststructuralist approaches to L2-related identity Poststructuralism is “a theory or a group of theories, concerning the relationship between human beings, the world, and the practice of making and reproducing meaning” (Belsey 2002: 5). The central concern of poststructuralism is “assumptions about language, meaning, and subjectivity” (Weedon [1987] 1996: 20). Language plays an important role in poststructuralism and is “the common factor in the analysis of social organization, social meanings, power and individual consciousness” (Weedon 1996: 20). Weedon further states: Language is the place where actual and possible forms of social organization and their likely social political consequences are defined and contested. Yet it is also the place where our sense of ourselves, our subjectivity, is constructed. The assumption that subjectivity is constructed implies that it is not innate, not genetically determined, but socially produced. Subjectivity is produced in a whole range of discursive practices – economic, social and political – the meanings of which are a constant site of struggle over power. Language is not the expression of unique individuality; it constructs the individual’s subjectivity in ways which are socially specific. (Weedon 1996: 21, emphasis in original)

In short, language and identity construction work hand in hand. Poststructuralism commonly views identity as socially constructed through language use and as existing in multiple forms in nature, and reflects that identity changes over time and space, and therefore is seen as a site of struggle (Omoniyi and White 2006: 2). Furthermore, for formation of identity, every human being has desires and basic needs to be positively identified in accordance with cultural group membership in any interactional episodes. Thus, identity is about “the sense of being acknowledged; a deep desire for association”, “a profound desire for protection, for security, for safety, for surety” (West 1992: 21). Kanno (2000) similarly describes the nature of identity as a desire to be included in what [individuals] perceived to be the ‘mainstream’ of the society and a need to assert their uniqueness. These conflicting desires – the desire to be included and the desire to assert one’s uniqueness – may be the nature of identity for all of us. (Kanno 2000:13)

As Kanno (2000) reminds us that the complexion of identity is often contradictory because identities are always partial given that they are situated in a given context, and respond to both the interaction and ideological configurations (Bucholz and Hall 2005). Thus, we may be able to enjoy identities that transcend our first language, ethnicity, or place of birth, at the same time identities are negotiated through existent social structures which can limit our choices (Canagarajah 2013: 198). Identities are constructed across a range of scales, and

14

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

there is an inherent contradiction in them and how an individual negotiate such conflicting desires in different interactional situations becomes central to understating the relationship between a language and a speaker’s identities. As briefly mentioned in the previous section, L2 researchers, such as Norton Peirce (1993) and Rampton (1995), started to take on board a poststructuralist view of language and identity in the 1990s, and since then studies on the identity of L2 learners have flourished and gained more attention in recent years in applied linguistics. They largely investigate social aspects of L2 learning and use, contributing to understanding of a L2 learner as an individual who has multiple, fluctuating identities rather than as a mass of different variables. The research on identities of L2 users from the poststructuralist approach can be categorized into three different lines of work (Pavlenko 2002). One is the strand that sees language acquisition as language socialisation (e.g., Jackson 2008; Kalocsai 2014; Kanno 2000; Morita 2000, 2004); another perceives language as a site of identity construction and symbolic capital (e.g., Block 2005; Kanno 2000; McKay and Wong 1996; Norton 2000; Norton Peirce 1995); and the third observes L2 users as agents who have multiple identities which are dynamic and changeable (e.g., Block 2005; Ishihara 2006; Kamada 2009; Kanno 2000; McKay and Wong 1996; Miyahara 2015; Norton 2000; Norton Peirce 1995). Having described the different types, nevertheless, Pavlenko (2002) concedes that these three lines of inquiries overlap with one another and cannot be categorically separated. They all explore how linguistic, social, cultural, ethnic and gender issues, and access to linguistic resources and interactional opportunities guides construction of L2 users’ identities, and how identities are established and re-established in the process of L2 learning and use (Pavlenko 2002: 283). The present study lies in these overlapping strands of the research inquiry on identity and L2 learning and use, but with more emphasis with the last two strands (i.e., symbolic capital, agency, multiplicity and dynamicity of L2-related identities), and extends it to explore Japanese L2 English users’ construction and negotiation of identities in intercultural communication through ELF.

2.2.1 Identity and subjectivity The quote from Weedon (1996) presented above states that language is a fundamental theme in poststructuralism and it is highly interrelated with identity or subjectivity. The term subjectivity she uses is one of the terms that portray poststructuralist conceptions of identity. Weedon’s feminist poststructuralism theory described women’s subjectivities and experiences of everyday life, which enabled us to attend to the practical implications within the patriarchal structures

2.2 Conceptual underpinning: Poststructuralist approaches to L2-related identity

15

of society. In that mode, Weedon (1996: 32) defines subjectivity as “conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding her relation to the world”, and poststructuralism proposes a subjectivity which is unstable, contradictory and in process, constantly being reconstituted in discourse each time we think or speak. In other words, subjectivity in the poststructuralist approach has three major characteristics: (1) multiplicity, (2) constituting a site of struggle, and (3) changing over time (Weedon 1996). This conceptualisation of subjectivity laid the key theoretical foundations in early studies on L2-related identities (Block 2007; Ishihara 2006, 2010; Norton 2000; Norton Peirce 1995; Siegal 1996) and still guides the notion of identity that is widely acknowledged in L2 identity research. Norton (1995), for example, avails herself of Weedon’s (1996) conception of subjectivity. What Norton (2000) describes as social identity refers to Weedon’s (1987) concept of subjectivity; thus the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Other researchers who are interested in the relationship between L2 learning and learners’ identity may use different terms depending on their focus of research. The term social identity was also employed by, for example, Gumperz and CookGumperz (1982), Miller (1999) and Norton (2000). The term subjectivity is used by such researchers as Ishihara (2006, 2010) and Siegal (1996); Kramsch (2003) used the term voice, Duff and Uchida (1997) drew on sociocultural identity, and De Fina (2006) employed group identity. Other terms often used also include subject position and self. These different terms are often exploited corresponding to what aspect of identity the researchers focus on, and some researchers consciously avoid using the term identity because it is often misunderstood as “the everyday word for people’s sense of who they are” (Ivanic 1998: 10–11) that does not necessarily carry a connotation of identity that is socially established and restrained (Joseph 2004). Among those various terms, I will employ the simplest term identity in this book, informed by the definition of social identity and cultural identity provided by Norton Peirce (1995) and Norton (2000). Norton gives a definition of social identity as “the relationship between the individual and the larger social world as mediated through institutions such as families, schools, workplaces, social services and law courts” (2000: 19), and the relationship must be understood with regards to the individual’s gender, class, race and ethnicity. Cultural identity is defined as “the relationship between individuals and members of a group who share a common history, a common language and similar ways of understanding the world” (Norton 2000: 19). In spite of employing the two terms differently with different definitions, as Norton (2000) herself acknowledged, both social and cultural identities hold similar characteristics in common, and they are interrelated and therefore, cannot be distinguished all the time (Norton:

16

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

2000: 19). Therefore, in the present study, I will refer to identity simply as a sense of who people are and how they relate to the social world (Norton 2000) while keeping in mind that identity construction is deeply associated with one’s relationship with the social and cultural world surrounding them. The plural form identities will often be used to denote multiplicity of identities. When one looks into somebody’s identity, they need to see the process of constructing identity; therefore identity is also about the process of identity formation and negotiation. In relation to this, I will also use the term sense of self to refer to one’s perception of oneself that may be relevant to them at a specific interactional occasion. Lastly, I need to clarify the underlying difference between subjectivity and identity. Subjectivity denotes “one’s view and perception of the world composed of individual dispositions such as values, beliefs, morals, feelings, and personal principles” (Ishihara 2006: 88). Subjectivity is a crucial concept to understand the process of how identity is constructed (Block 2009: 219); the two concepts are interrelated with each other, and no clear-cut distinction can be made to determine what subjectivity is and what identity is. (See Block 2009, for a more detailed explanation of how they differ based on his bibliographical review.) However, Block (2009) advises applied linguists to distinguish the two terms. He explained that, in short, subjectivity is a sense of self expressed through language use or interaction, thus something more ephemeral; on the other hand, identity is something more permanent that is constructed and negotiated through a certain process. Bearing the difference in mind, I will use the term subjectivity referring to one’s view of the world and sense of self expressed through language use or interaction that may influence the process of identity construction. When reviewing earlier literature, however, it will be cited as the original authors use it.

2.2.2 Language, the relation of power and identity Another key notion from poststructuralist perspectives relating to identity is the relation of power, and how it affects the construction and reconstruction of linguistic identity (Block 2007; Norton 2000; Jenkins 2007). Norton (2000: 7), in an investigation of the impact of power on L2 learning of immigrant women, defines the term power as “the socially constructed relations among individuals, institutions and communities through which symbolic and material resources in a society are produced, distributed and validated”. In this sense, power is not something people can possess (e.g., economic power itself), but is recognised by symbolic and material resources that one thinks the other processes.

2.2 Conceptual underpinning: Poststructuralist approaches to L2-related identity

17

Symbolic capitals/resources include assets such as language, the relationships with other people, educational background that may not necessarily be tangible. Material resources denote something visible and tangible such as money and property (Norton 2000: 7). When applied linguists talk about power relation with respect to construction of identity through language use, they often refer to Foucault (1984) on discourse and power and Bourdieu (1977) on the relationship between identity and symbolic power in linguistic practice. Following Foucault (1984), researchers such as Block (2007), Norton (2000) and Weedon (1996) have explained that a power relation is present at all times and all levels of human societies. Identities are constantly negotiated according to power relations both at the macro level of institutions such as the educational, political and legal systems and business corporations, and at the micro level of human activities such as interactions and encounters on a day-to-day basis among individuals who have different access to power (Block 2007; Norton 2000). One of the micro-level human activities, linguistic practice, can also be seen as a form of symbolic capital. [A]t the level of relations between groups, a language is worth what those who speak it are worth, so too, at the level of interactions between individuals, speech always owes a major part of its value to the value of the person who utters it. (Bourdieu 1977: 563)

In other words, linguistic practice manifests the structure of the symbolic power relation, and a language and its symbolic power always interplay with one another, for example, as sociolinguists investigate a choice of language (e.g., dominant vs. minor languages) and a choice of a standard variety or a regional vernacular. The choices made are often dependent on a power relation behind them in every context (Bourdieu 1977) because a linguistic variety and the practice manifest symbolic capital such as educational background, placement on the social mobility ladder and positions in the workplace (Block 2007). Thus, we need to respect how the power relation is structured in heterogeneous and unequal characteristics of a society where ethnicity, class, race, age, and gender of language users can both facilitate and constrain their identity construction (Block 2007; Norton 2000). The relations of power can affect identity construction both positively and negatively (Cummins 1996); in other words, it can either empower individuals so that they can build up subject positions favourable to competing discourses,1 or it can constrain individuals to develop tension and conflict within themselves, and

1 The term “discourse” in this book is used in Foucaultian sense: referring to a “set of historically grounded statements that exhibit regularities in presuppositions, thematic choices, values, etc.” (McKay and Wong 1996: 579).

18

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

subsequently it can enable them to resist the dominant discourse (Canagarajah 1999). This kind of power relation in linguistic practice also inexorably influences L2 users, into which I will delve more later in Section 2.3.3.

2.2.3 Culture, the English language and identity Culture also greatly influences one’s identity construction both at macro and micro levels of L2 English use. Similar to identity, the notion of culture is considered to be socially constructed rather than to be a priori defined categories based on, for example, national boundaries. They emerge and are observed among people who are involved in social interaction (Baker 2009, 2015). Within such a poststructuralist and interculturality2 (Zhu 2015) perspective, culture implies a “fuzzy set of basic assumptions and values, orientations to life, beliefs, policies, procedures and behavioural conventions that are shared by a group of people, and that influence (but do not determine) each member’s behaviour and his/her interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of other people’s behaviour” (Spencer-Oatey 2008: 3). Culture and identity represent a dynamic, fluid, and sometimes contradictory nature, and they are important in recognising how L2 English users communicate “in diverse and transitory” ELF situations (Baker 2009: 9). In intercultural communication through ELF, in which people from diverse linguacultural backgrounds participate, we can no longer view language and culture as being directly linked, or based solely at a national level: for instance, the English language as a representation of North American or British cultures (Baker 2015). There is no direct correlation between a target language and a target culture as implicitly assumed in traditional intercultural communication and study abroad research. Nevertheless, Baker claims that ELF communication should not be regarded as neutral from any form of culture (Baker 2009, see also Sung 2014). For instance, ELF speakers may sometimes wish to retain their L1 (first language)/C1

2 Interculturality is a research paradigm or perspective which primary concern is to seek to interpret how participants in interactions make (aspects of) cultural identities relevant or irrelevant to interactions through the interplay of language use and social relationship (Zhu 2015: 720) This paradigm defies essentialist perspectives of cultural identity and proposes that cultural identity is not always about one’s ethnicity and race but any membership categories that may be salient or relevant in a given situation. (Cultural) Identity can be aligned or misaligned depending on how one do (e.g., accept or reject) with self-oriented identity and identity ascribed by others. Participants in interaction need to negotiate whether and to what extend they would accept identities assigned by others (Zhu 2015: 73). The concept of interculturality offers a suitable framework for investigating the fluidity and complexity of (cultural) identities constructed and negotiated through participation in ELF interaction (Baker 2016: 342).

2.2 Conceptual underpinning: Poststructuralist approaches to L2-related identity

19

(first culture)-based identity, and at other times they may wish to express themselves as a metropolitan being (Baker 2009; Block 2005; Sung 2014). ELF essentially gives speakers a means to express themselves in a way that is more open and freer from particular cultural constraints (Baker 2009; Sung 2014). In other words, ELF speakers sometimes wish to belong to a wider global community, which is not directly relevant to any particular linguaculture; hence they can express their multicultural and multilingual selves. This multicultural self represents hybridity, which is sometimes local, and sometimes global. ELF speakers can take a situationally specific “third place” (Kramsch 1993: 210), and they can move in-between local, national and global cultures (Baker 2009). In this regard, culture is more like “culture-in-action” (Stokoe and Attenborough 2015: 89) or culturing where ELF speakers make meanings in their surrounding context with reference to the complexities of global and local use of English while negotiating their multiple identities (Baker 2009). Moreover, it is equally important to acknowledge prevalent discourses around the English language that may shape the culture in which L2 English users are situated, and ultimately influence formation of L2-related identity. Also following a poststructuralist perspective, a critical applied linguist, Kubota (2004: 28–39) views culture as dynamic, diverse and socially, politically and discursively constructed, and L2 and culture as products of struggle over political and ideological power. With attention to a larger scale of linguistic practices than Baker’s perspective, Kubota describes such political and ideological power as a discourse or culture of colonialism. McKay and Wong (1996) identified a discourse of colonialism as a widespread culture at a US school in which adolescent Mandarin-speaking Chinese immigrant students were learning. What McKay and Wong (1996: 583) call colonialist/racialised discourses manifest “a Euro- and Amerocentric attitude of superiority toward those parts of the world with which Western powers have held colonial, neo-colonial, or quasi-colonial relationship”. Within such a Eurocentric view of the discourse of colonialism, the global spread of the English language and its association with American and British global power are also intact. Moreover, their study revealed that factors such as physical appearance, racial traits, language usage, national origin, race, religion, and ancestry could also constitute a formula for construction of culture. People often use visible, audible and readable cues to guide in categorising others’ cultural grouping (Baker 2015; Zhu 2014: 205). McKay and Wong found that there were often cases of racialised remarks made about immigrant students such as Asians and Latinos who were visibly different from majority white American students, which undermined their English language learning ability and general mannerisms in the US educational settings. The study also presented an example of colonial mentality, i.e., “English proficiency and Westernized behaviour with

20

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

sophistication” (McKay and Wong 1996: 585), of a Chinese immigrant woman who worked at the school as an aide for Chinese-speaking students. As English was the language of Others (European-Western) for the Chinese and Latino pupils, there was an inevitable power relation between the two cultural groupings (Europeans and non-Europeans). This represents the discourse of colonialism, where the mentality of colonialism linked English proficiency, Westernized mannerisms and sometimes a particular ethnic group to greater power (McKay and Wong 1996). Their study shows culture as a discursive construct (Kubota 2004) where it is also constructed as a result of the prevailing discourse (such as discourse of colonialism when relevant) in relation to the English language and language learning.

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF While maintaining the poststructuralist and interculturality perspective of culture in mind, this section will review the current research on intercultural communication by considering how the relationships between formation of identity and culture and power are discussed.

2.3.1 The identity negotiation theory Ting-Toomey (2005) developed a theory of identity negotiation in intercultural communication from a psychological perspective. In her theory, identity is defined as “reflective self-images constructed, experienced, and communicated by the individuals within a culture and in a particular interaction situation” (Ting-Toomey 2005: 217), and which “we derive from our family, gender, cultural, ethnic, and individual socialization process” (Ting-Toomey 2005: 212). From her theoretical standpoint, every human being has desires and basic needs to be identified positively with accord to their own cultural and ethnic group membership in any intercultural communication episode. Her theory has a strong implication for research into L2-related identity in intercultural communication because she places emphasis on how one’s perceptions of one’s own and others’ cultures influence formation of one’s identity, and highlights successful identity negotiation among interactants as key to the success of intercultural communication. She points out that whether each speaker “can enhance identity understanding, respect and mutual affirmative

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF

21

valuation of the others” shapes the competence of the speaker’s identity negotiation (Ting-Toomey 2005: 217). Moreover, I find her core assumptions of the theory (Table 2.1) beneficial in understanding a speaker’s identity in intercultural communication because she incorporated psychological perspectives into the

Table 2.1: Core Assumptions of the Identity Negotiation Theory. 1.

The core dynamics of people’s group membership identities (e.g., cultural and ethnic memberships) and personal identities (e.g., unique attributes) are formed via symbolic communication with others. 2. Individuals in all cultures or ethnic groups have the basic motivation needs for identity security inclusion, predictability, connection, and consistency on both group-based and person-based identity levels. However, too much emotional security will lead to tight ethnocentrism, and conversely, too much emotional insecurity (or vulnerability) will lead to fear of outgroups or unfamiliar strangers. The same underlying principle applies to identity inclusion, predictability, connection, and consistency. Thus, an optimal range exists on the various identity negotiation spectrums. 3. Individuals tend to experience identity emotional security in a culturally familiar environment and experience identity emotional vulnerability in a culturally unfamiliar environment. 4. Individuals tend to feel included when their desired group membership identities are positively endorsed (e.g., in positive in-group contact situations) and experience identity differentiation when their desired group membership identities are stigmatized (e.g., in hostile out-group contact situations). 5. Individuals tend to experience interaction predictability when communicating with culturally familiar others and interaction unpredictability (or novelty) when communicating with culturally unfamiliar others – thus, identity predictability leads to trust, and identity unpredictability leads to distrust, second guessing or biased intergroup attributions. 6. Individuals tend to desire interpersonal connection via meaningful close relationships (e.g., in close friendship support situations) and experience relationship separations – meaningful intercultural-interpersonal relationships can create additional emotional security and trust in the cultural strangers. 7. Individuals tend to experience identity consistency in repeated cultural routines in a familiar cultural environment, and they tend to experience identity change (or at the extreme, identity chaos) and transformation in a new or unfamiliar cultural environment. 8. Cultural, personal, and situational variability dimensions influence the meanings, interpretations, and evaluations of these identity-related themes. 9. A competent identity negotiation process emphasizes the importance of integrating the necessary intercultural identity-based knowledge, mindfulness, and interaction skills to communicate appropriately and effectively with culturally dissimilar others. 10. Satisfactory identity negotiation outcomes include their feelings of being understood, respected, and affirmatively valued.

(Ting-Toomey 2005: 218)

22

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

theory. She highlights that emotions such as feelings of security, inclusion, trust, and connection within ourselves are constructed through communicating with others, and that these emotions significantly affect the extent to which one generates positive identification of self during intercultural communication. As remarked in an earlier section, identity construction is about the “desire for recognition” (West 1992: 21), and “the sense of being acknowledged; a deep desire for association” and “a profound desire for protection, for security, for safety, for surety” (West 1992: 21; Norton 2000; Kanno 2000) are important elements for one’s identity formation. Ting-Toomey’s (2005) theory effectively embodies such underlying notions of identity construction for the context of intercultural communication. The narratives of L2 users from several previous studies on L2-related identity (e.g., Jackson 2008) exemplify the way one’s experience of perceived unsuccessful intercultural communication is directly associated with their negative experience of not being acknowledged, thus failing to feel connected to and confident with other interactants. In situations such as in English speaking countries where East-Asian background students are likely to be a visible minority as well as to have a foreign accent in speaking, they often encounter experiences of being marginalised (Jackson 2008; McKay and Wong 1996; Miller 2000). For example, ethnic Chinese adolescent students in a mainstream school in Australia underwent cultural/ethnic identity reconstruction due to their experience of their positioning as a marginalised minority (Miller 2000). Similar anecdotes of perceived discrimination were reported by several students from Hong Kong in Jackson’s (2008) ethnographic study on study abroad and identity. Their experiences of perceived discrimination were often based on their ethnicity when they encountered upsetting intercultural incidents while staying in the UK. The students were newcomers and a visible minority in the host country, UK. Under such circumstances, one of the students, Cori, experienced a sequence of unlucky incidents (such as being stared at, being treated impatiently by a café worker, being treated indifferently and asked to repeat what she said with an annoyed look) in one day when she ventured out by herself to the town centre where she was staying. In her diary, Cori expressed her reaction to such incidents: “Did I deserve all these because of my black hair, my yellow skin or my Chinese accent English? I feel as inferior as a second-class citizen” (Jackson 2008: 117). Jackson discussed that the students including Cori who encountered such negative events positioned themselves as a powerless NNSE and a minority in the host society. Moreover, perceived discrimination jeopardised the identity of the students and consequently affected negatively their willingness to speak the L2. Those narratives from previous research also reveal that successful identity negotiation requires efforts of both communicators’ competence in identity

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF

23

negotiation. Ting-Toomey (2005) warns, “without collaborative effort, the host and the new arrivals may end up with great frustration, miscommunications, and identity misalignments” (Ting-Toomey 2005: 221). In order to secure successful communication, one needs to be competent or mindful about personal identity issues by increasing one’s knowledge base, attunement level and honesty in assessing one’s own group membership. When successful identity negotiations are accomplished by all the communicators, true success in intercultural communication can be achieved (Ting-Toomey 2005: 217). Despite the usefulness of Ting-Toomey’s identity negotiation theory for successful intercultural communication, the theory needs to be treated cautiously since Ting-Toomey seems to draw her theory from intercultural communication between two binary groups, i.e., in-group and out-group as in “the host” and “the new arrivals” based on pre-determined ethnic groupings or cultural boundary by geographical borders. Therefore, the theory is not attuned with the poststructuralist conceptualisation of culture as dynamic and fluid, as well as the nature of diverse multicultural interactions through ELF. When it comes to interactions in English, for L2 English users, the degree of their sense of belonging to a larger cultural/ethnic group can be fluid and dynamic because the communication is multicultural and often English is used as a lingua franca. Similarly, individual perceptions of cultural/ethnic groups may change, depending on who their interlocutors are. For instance, Jackson (2008) documented identity reconstruction when her research participants interacted with culturally dissimilar others.3 The female students came to be more aware of their cultural/ethnic Chinese identities through their experience of sojourning in the UK. Meanwhile, some of the participants in Jackson’s study expressed their resistant feelings to being mistaken as mainland Chinese or Japanese by the members of the host culture. It revealed that their ethnic Chinese identities and identities as a Hong Konger were overlapping and negotiated situationally and thus were not fixed conditions. Baker (2009) similarly showed Thai university students’ narratives comparing their own first (Thai) culture and other cultures that provided them with a more profound understanding of their own Thai culture. As these studies show, identification and expansion of a sense of self can occur through contacts and engagements in dialogue with Others (Baker 2016; Bakhtin 1986; Jackson 2008), which may vary situationally. Hence, when binary conceptualisations of culture in the identity negotiation theory by Ting-Toomey are handled with caution, it can be helpful for understanding

3 Jackson (2008) also based her study on traditional study abroad research which views the process of socialization from a home culture to the host culture, i.e., a pre-determined binary grouping.

24

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

how negotiation of cultural identity may become an important factor in L2 English users’ psychosocial perspectives and construction of their identity while they engage in intercultural communication through ELF (cf. Miyahara 2015). The next section will introduce the notion of investment (Norton Peirce 1995; Norton 2000, 2013) in L2 learning and use, which is also importantly connected with the outcome of success or fulfilment of identity negotiation in intercultural communication.

2.3.2 Identity and investment in L2 learning and use The notion of investment represents “the socially and historically constructed relationship of learners to the target language” (Norton 2000: 10), and it is closely connected to the on-going formation of a language learner’s identity. Norton (2000) argued that when learners invest in learning a language, they do so with the understanding that they will acquire a wider range of symbolic and material resources that come with it, and which in turn will increase the value of their own social and cultural capital and social power (Darvin and Norton 2015: 37). Thus, investment in language learning is also an investment in a learner’s own identity which is constantly changing across time and space (Norton Peirce1995: 11). Cummins (1996) also drew attention to the cycle of negotiating identities and investment in learning as a foundation to academic success of culturally diverse students. When students’ developing sense of self is affirmed and extended through their interactions with teachers, they are more likely to apply themselves to academic effort and participate actively in instruction. The consequent learning is the fuel that generates further academic effort. The more we learn, the more we want to learn, the more effort we are prepared to put into that learning. (Cummins 1996:2)

For many years, traditional SLA research has focused on interlanguage analysis with reference to the NS models as the norm, that is, to what extent a learner’s production is deficient from the NS norms and how much learners can approximate their performance to the NS model. Concerned with such an adverse approach to language learners, Bonny Norton, along with several academics (e.g., Ishihara 2006; Siegal 1996), rightly condemned the approaches within mainstream SLA research which have failed to conceptualise learners as individuals within a social context in which learners are situated, and advocated a need for investigation of learners’ inner voice (i.e., what she calls investment and social identity) in SLA research (Norton Peirce 1995; Norton 2000, 2013) to establish a comprehensible concept of identity where the integration between language

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF

25

learners/users and the context of language learning is facilitated (Norton Peirce 1995). In this regard, Norton Peirce (1995) and Norton (2000) raised a further question in the SLA literature that addresses learners’ affective factors such as motivation and individual differences (e.g., introverted – extroverted and inhibited – uninhibited) as pre-determined personal traits. She put emphasis on differentiating the conceptualisation of learners’ investment from motivation because instrumental motivation does not necessarily capture the contradiction between a learner’s motivation to learn English and yet their ambivalent desire to speak or practice the language. For instance, a learner may be highly motivated to learn the language; however, they may not invest or be willing to participate in learning if the practices are racist, sexist or homophobic (Darvin and Norton 2015: 37), or learners may feel uncomfortable talking to people whom they perceive to hold a particular symbolic or material resource. Therefore, affective factors that are often represented as fixed unitary personal characteristics (e.g., motivated – unmotivated and confident – insecure) might well be socially constructed in uneven power relations (Darvin and Norton 2015; Norton 2000). What Norton pointed out that the so-called affective factors in fact vary synchronically and diachronically and coexist in an individual in contradictory ways (Norton Peirce 1995), and thus it is important to understand L2 learners’ self-positioning in the wider social world or the historical, political and educational discourses they are situated in, and what conditions may influence L2 learners’ investment in practising the language or engaging in interactions. The interrelation between L2 users’ investment in learning, their willingness to speak and investment in identities would have great implications for any people who learn and use their L2 in any context. The present study, like Norton’s (2000) study, will mainly focus on interactional opportunities and experiences of adult L2 English users outside the formal language classroom. Their investment in L2 learning and use in various social environments is closely related to how they negotiate their multiple identities in different circumstances. Moreover, it is important to consider how inequitable relations of power are associated with L2 learning and use and affect leaners’ participation or investment in social interactions. Just as identity is fluid, multiple and a site of struggle, how much learners are able to invest in language learning is subject to the dynamic relations of power in different situations, and thus investment is complex, contradictory and in a state of flux (Darvin and Norton 2015: 37; Norton 2013; Norton Pierce 1995) rather than a product of fixed individual differences, to which I now turn.

26

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

2.3.3 Power relations in L2 use and intercultural communication As discussed earlier in this chapter (Section 2.2.2), linguistic practices, such as language choice, use of standard forms or vernacular, often manifest symbolic power and the structure of power relations. In terms of L2 use and intercultural communication, a language choice and the level of linguistic proficiency are equally related to power relations and ideological issues (Baker 2015). There can exist uneven power relationships between NSs and NNSs even if NSs are unaware of them. It is likely that NNSs sometimes acquit themselves inappropriately (e.g., showing deference exceedingly) because they see that they are in a disadvantageous position (Thomas 1983). One line of research investigating NNSs’ identity work was done by Park (2007), using Conversation Analysis (CA)4 to illustrate construction of NS/NNS identity in social interaction. Park elucidated ways that interlocutors co-constructed and negotiated their membership categories (Sacks 1972) through participation in ongoing interaction. Looking at interactants’ participation is a theoretical basis for understanding identity co-construction. NS/NNS membership categories can be observed within the ongoing communication via CA studies on NNSs’ talk by appreciating how participants’ identities are expressed and managed locally in the talk and what practice of talk might be involved (Schegloff, Koshik, Jacoby and Olsher 2002). Park (2007) scrutinised NSE-NNSE interaction and found an asymmetry in requestorrequestee identities and assessor-assessed identities that displayed the participants’ unequal distribution of knowledge with respect to the language being used with reference to grammatical and phonological forms and pronunciation

4 CA research is theoretically and methodologically grounded as a study of ordinary conversation discovering how members of a society produce a sense of social order. It derives from Garfinkel’s (1967) ethnomethodology that “focuses on the study of common-sense reasoning and practical theorizing in everyday activities” (Ten Have 1999: 6). Fundamentally, CA research interest is often restricted to the talk-in-interaction of participants who are members of the same “culture” and who use the same native language with the analysts. It is due to the fact that analysts share co-membership with the conversational participant’s linguistic and cultural community, and thus analysts have access to culturally based knowledge as a member of the same society and observe the conversational phenomena warrantable (Firth 1996). However, in more recent years, CA inspired the SLA approach observing NNSs’ naturally occurring conversation, and this has called more attention to the sequential organization of NNSs’ talk and practices as representing how participants carry out social action (Schegloff et al. 2002). Wagner (1996) argues that CA and CA-informed studies are able to complement the SLA studies that have been attempting to explicate learners’ social activity by observing naturally occurring non-native talk-in-interaction, especially because pre-designed elicited data can lose its validity as learners’ social activity.

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF

27

of English words. In a NS-NNS interaction where unbalanced power relations reside, there arises an issue of how participants come to perceive themselves in relation to each other. Even in cases of uneven power relations, the ways their asymmetric conversational practice were handled might have been a resource for their successful communication between NSE and NNSE (Park 2007). ELF-related studies have also shown that matters of shifting power relations and a language ideology have a crucial role in construction of new identity options in English for NNSEs. Early ELF research (which predominantly focused on interactions among NNSEs, e.g., Firth 1996; House 1999; Seidlhofer 2001) demonstrated that NNSE-NNSE communication tends to flourish in the absence of NSEs. House (1999) investigated how NNSE-NNSE interactions and NSE-NNSE interactions differed, presenting inherent characteristics of NNSENNSE interaction. In her experimental study on misunderstanding between German, Dutch, and Hungarian L1 speakers in an ELF setting, each participant’s interactional turn appeared to be short, which was opposite to the features of NNSEs’ verbose speech (i.e., using too many words or waffling) found in the previous research (e.g., Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1986; Edmondson and House 1991). House (1999) pointed out that interactants in NNSE-NNSE talk presumably felt secure and did not feel intimidated because only peer NNSEs are involved in the power free environment without NSEs’ presence. This finding contrasts with the features of NSE-NNSE talk where NNSEs felt insecure because they did not have automatic and free access to the language being used like their NSE counterparts (House 1999). Along with the characteristic of equal power relations in NNSE-NNSE interactions on the absence of NSEs, Jenkins (2007) raised another aspect of power relation in ELF communication: what she called an ideological undercurrent which has spread through significant portions of English language learning and teaching (Jenkins 2007: 201). English language teaching (ELT) is customarily based on Standard English representing American and British English as the norm for the teaching practice. Achieving NSE proficiency, even though that is unattainable and unrealistic, is considered the ultimate goal for learning. Thus, in such underlying beliefs, those who are more proficient in the language inevitably tend to get better acknowledgment and become dominant in interaction. What Jenkins (2007) referred to as an ideological undercurrent constrains teachers’ and learners’ choices and recognises the fact that many ELT teachers and L2/FL learners frequently compete with NSE competence that is regarded as superior to their own. Furthermore, NNSEs in intercultural communication often end up seeing themselves as unequal by ranking themselves accordingly, for example, by accent and proficiency. This is where power relations can come into play, influencing how speakers in ELF interaction negotiate their power

28

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

relations with each other (Jenkins 2007: 201). A similar phenomenon of power negotiation was also observed by Park’s (2007) CA study of social interaction involving one NSE and two NNSEs. The study showed us not only that NNSEs themselves co-constructed their NNSE identities with other conversational partners, but also there were occasions that a NNSE speaker resisted being collectively categorised as NNSEs along with other NNSE interactants at the same level because of the perceived differences in language proficiency. ELF users, regardless of whether they are NSEs or NNSEs, negotiate a power relation among themselves during interaction in an ad-hoc manner, and what or who bring about cues for negotiation of a power relation varies in each interactional process. Negotiations of power relations among L2 English users in intercultural communication through ELF often reflect complicated issues of language ideology in current ELT practice. Informed by the participants’ own voices, the present research exploring how power relations are recognised by the Japanese L2 English users during their engagement in ELF communication should add further perspectives on relations of power in the current ELF-related field. In what follows, I will review several previous studies on L2-related identities of Japanese users of English, shedding light on what kinds of cultural and power relations are involved in identity construction among them.

2.3.4 Understanding identities of Japanese L2 learners/users In the era of widespread global migration, the empirical research studies on identities of L2 learners and users have been conducted in various contexts and with participants of various backgrounds, as briefly mentioned earlier in this chapter. The studies provide better understandings of the relationship between L2 learners’ identity construction and each learner’s personal history in the given contexts, revealing identity as a multifaceted and multidimensional construct. This section focuses on reviewing four studies on the identity negotiations experienced by, in particular, Japanese users/learners of English who are the focus of my own investigation too. The four studies were conducted in four distinctive contexts, on kikokushijo (returnees), on migrants, on academic socialisation during study abroad and on students in an EFL context, which all reveal various dimensions of identity and Japanese users/learners of English. Kanno (2000) investigated bilingual and bicultural identities of Japanese kikokushijo (Japanese returnees who have spent an extensive duration of time abroad at a young age often due to the parents’ overseas assignments and eventually returned to Japan later) and how their ambivalent identity shifts across two languages (English and Japanese) in two different countries (Canada and

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF

29

Japan). The longitudinal study tracked four adolescent Japanese kikokushijo after coming back to Japan, focusing on their life stories of cross-cultural experiences. All four participants’ stories depicted that they saw different symbolic meaning in the two languages in the two different countries. On one hand, the minority language (Japanese in Canada and English in Japan) appeared as a representation of their uniqueness, and on the other, the majority language (English in Canada and Japanese in Japan) represented the main form of their participation in the respective societies. The story of one of the participants, Kikuko, revealed her experience of being isolated from NSEs in the Canadian school she attended, which led to her decreased motivation to interact with English speakers, thus having fewer opportunities. Consequently, Kikuko came to associate the English language with humiliation while residing in Canada. On the other hand, after her return to Japan, the English language started to have a positive symbolic meaning for her. She said “over there [in Canada] it’s normal that you speak English; but here it’s so nice because when you speak English, they look at you with admiration. You feel recognised” (Kanno 2000: 11). When it comes to her relationship to the Japanese language, for Kikuko, it was a means to overcome her negative relationship with the English language while residing in Canada. In particular, through attending a hoshuko (Japanese Saturday School) in Canada, where all communication including instruction was carried out in Japanese, Kikuko established a public identity as an extrovert, bright student during her attendance there over the weekend. This contrasted with her being an introverted ESL student in the mainstream Canadian school during the week. The Japanese language and the Japanese-speaking environment provided her a site to cultivate and maintain self-confidence. Another participant, Sawako, underwent a similar emotionally difficult experience associated with the English language in a mainstream school in Canada and positive attachment to the Japanese language at the hoshuko. However, for Sawako, who was not as proficient in Japanese as Kikuko, an experience of speaking Japanese in Japan led to a negative shift of her identity. She felt she had to conform to the pragmatic rule of using a honorific language (which is an essential convention demonstrating interpersonal relationships among speakers in Japanese) to seniors in the university society to which she belonged even though she did not value such pragmatic conventions of the Japanese language at that time. Kanno’s study appears to reveal that the two languages bore different meanings in the two countries for Kikuko and Sawako, and their bilingual and bicultural identities were fluid, showing conflicting characteristics. The narratives of kikokushijo may tell different stories from “ordinary Japanese” who have grown up in Japan and started to learn the English language formally at schools, but the ambivalent relationship with the Japanese and English languages constitutes a valuable

30

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

indication as to how to gain a picture of identity negotiation of an adult L2 English or ELF user who is also a multilingual and multicultural being. Another study of L2-related identity involving Japanese participants was Block’s (2006) study that looked at migration as a global flow of people.5 He saw London as a unique global multi-ethnic and multilingual city where many forms of immigrants gathered. One of the migrant groups he looked at was female Japanese graduate students living in London, and he explored how they positioned themselves as Londoners. Among five Japanese students, three of them had kikokushijo experiences at the earlier stages of their lives and thus, like the students in Kanno’s study (2000), experienced the transition of self-positioning as a Japanese and a non-Japanese after returning from abroad to Japan. According to the narratives about their lives in London, Block discussed how they portrayed themselves as expatriates (who have chosen to live abroad for an extended period of time, but who know that whenever they want, they can return home), or cosmopolitans (who immerse themselves in local cultures and practices, and carve out third place identities). In contrast to the three students, the remaining two did not have much cosmopolitan experience before coming to London. They created hybrid/transnational or even immigrant positioning by looking for better opportunities both professionally and privately in London, which continued even after their enrolments in respective graduate programmes finished. The two settled in London in a new nation state, but retained cultural and economic links with Japan and Japanese culture (such as working as a teacher at a hoshuko ‘Japanese Saturday school’ or as a clerk at a Japanese hairdresser) in London. All of the five students were commonly found to be carving out new subject positions in London, and they viewed English as a language of liberation and as the means to develop new femininities. Moreover, Block discussed that all five women showed some traits of what Kelsky (2001) called “internationalist women” who have an idealisation or longing for something Western and reject Japanese culture. Even though one of Block’s research focus points was female students’ selfpositioning from a feminist theory, the phenomenon may not be restricted to female L2 English users, but may provide wider implications for male L2 English users too. Block’s work depicted how people utilise L2 English or additional languages as their resources for positioning themselves as multilingual and multicultural beings in a given situation. It constitutes indications of how adult ELF users in my study may take advantage of L2 English to shape their sense of self.

5 This includes a short stay abroad, such as short-term study abroad; thus the length of stay is not important for Block’s conception of migration.

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF

31

Another example of the studies that explored Japanese L2 English learners’ identities is Morita’s (2004) in-depth longitudinal study on students’ socialisation in academic communities. The focal Japanese students were those who enrolled in linguistics or education related MA programmes in a Canadian university. Morita’s study successfully revealed that classroom communities are not static places, but dynamic ones where students’ participation and membership are negotiated through their co-construction of identity, competence and power, and exercise of their agency, by referencing a classroom community to Communities of Practice (Lave and Wenger 1991). Her three main findings are as follows. First, the students’ participation influenced and was influenced by negotiation of their sense of (in)competence in terms of L2-related linguistic knowledge and theoretical (academic contentrelated) knowledge produced in the classrooms. The students showed a desire to be recognised as a legitimate and competent member of the classroom community (Morita 2004: 583). For example, many of the Japanese students constructed identities as a less competent member of the classroom community due to their own acknowledgement of not sufficiently understanding lectures, the reading materials and class discussions as much as other classmates (including other L2 speaking and local NSE students) do. Such perceptions of themselves as lacking in competence made their participation more difficult because they felt they did not possess the qualities to actively participate in the classroom community. However, their sense of competence changed chronologically and spatially, and some experienced positive personal transformations during the study. Thus, participation, negotiation of competence and identities intertwine during the process of academic socialisation. Second, Morita found that the Japanese students’ silence in the classroom was caused by different reasons in different classroom contexts. There were multiple issues involved such as the student’s identity, instructor’s pedagogy, and power relations with an instructor and peer classmates. For example, one of the participants remained silent more in one classroom than the other because of her young age compared to other classmates. Her relatively young age meant for her less life experience, less academic background and thus less right to speak out, which compelled her to be silent. Thirdly, positioning of students was co-constructed within the classroom environment. The students showed their use of resources and strategies to develop a favourable position in a given classroom. However, the finding also showed that it is sometimes difficult to overcome a preestablished identity, especially one being imposed by a powerful member of a given community. For instance, one participant unsuccessfully tried to dispense with her positioning as a L2 “learner” or a NNSE foreign student that was imposed by her instructor (who had more power in terms of academic context).

32

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

This reveals how power relations in a specific community influence L2 users’ construction and negotiation of identities and their positioning as legitimate or less legitimate L2 users. Morita observed that “although many theoretical accounts of socialisation tend to assume that experts or peers assist newcomers, such assistance may not always be readily available to all learners” (Morita 2004: 598), pointing out a problem in Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning theory. Morita’s study dealt only with a classroom context; however, she looked at the classroom as a community, revealing multidimensional aspects of identity negotiation of L2 users in a given community. Thus, the findings essentially resonate with L2 English users’ construction of L2 identities in a wider community outside classrooms or academic socialisation. A sense of competence, self-positioning, imposed positioning and identities are always under negotiation and influence participation or the sense of membership L2 users seek in any communities. The last study I would like to review in this section is Miyahara’s (2015) study. Unlike many of the earlier studies that were conducted in ESL contexts, Miyahara’s study was conducted in a less examined site, i.e., an EFL context. Drawing on the theories of possible selves (Markus and Nurius 1986), situated learning (Lave and Wenger 1991), and imagined communities (Anderson 2006; Kanno and Norton 2003), Miyahara told the “stories of experiences” (Miyahara 2015: 36) of six Japanese EFL leaners at an English-medium university in Japan, and explored how learners’ emotions, motivation and agency are intertwined with formation of identity. Miyahara conducted multiple interviews with each participant over one academic year while these students were enrolled in a two-year intensive English language programme, which was the main source of their narratives. The interviews were supplemented with other data sources such as participants’ weekly reflections, students’ discussions in class, classroom observation and email correspondence during students’ study-abroad summer. With such an extensive set of data, Miyahara was able to look into students’ learning history from childhood, current learning situation at the university, and their vision of themselves for the future. By bridging students’ past, current and future orientation to the English language, the study elucidated the students’ attitudes toward the English language, a sense of self and emotions which changed across space and time. Two of Miyahara’s participants had relatively greater exposure to interactional opportunities in English from their childhood. It contributed to sustaining their ideal L2 self while they steered through both positive and negative L2 learning experiences. On the other hand, the other four had limited or no exposure to English speaking situations both in and outside the classrooms before

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF

33

their university study and saw English as a tested subject. They did not have a clear vision of ideal L2 selves and had a somewhat detached attitude toward the English language at the beginning of Miyahara’s study. However, two out of those four students came to see English as a medium of intercultural communication through their positive learning experience in the university, which subsequently helped develop and sharpen visions of their ideal L2 selves. On the other hand, for the other two who had less confidence in using English, the current learning experience did not help enough to generate ideal L2 selves for the future even though it helped to some extent to develop a positive attitude toward the English language. Although all students faced a similar new language-learning environment at university, how they interpreted and reacted to the L2 learning experiences varied. Emotions such as development of confidence in using English and enjoyment of learning were central to the individuals’ process of construction of L2-related identities. Individuals’ sufficient past L2 learning experience also contributed in part to developing the vision of an ideal L2 self. Miyahara’s study effectively depicts that individual’s sociological condition and emotional dimension of L2 learning. The process of identity construction and outcome of learning differ individually, informed by learners’ past experience, how they come to terms with the educational context and their future vision of themselves in relation to the English language. The study suggests a strong interrelationship between learners’ conceptualization of the English language and perception of themselves as L2 learners or users. The above studies were centred on Japanese learners or users of English in a variety of contexts. All revealed how research participants’ L1, L2, symbolic capital that a language represents, a learning history, lived experience, a vision for the future, and the situated context all intertwine with the way those Japanese users of English carved out a sense of self with the languages. Their trajectory or personal journeys of identity formation are all individually unique. Their longing for positive identification of themselves and a sense of acceptance in the situated context also played a major role in their negotiating positioning as, for example, a Japanese person, an English user, and a multilingual and multicultural being. Personal relationships with or orientations to the English language changed through time and space, which had an impact on formation of identities and future visions of themselves as L2 users. Moving on from the identity research in various Japanese contexts, the next section will set sights on how issues of identity are discussed in the current ELF-focused research.

34

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

2.3.5 English as a lingua franca and identity On identity in English as a lingua franca research A growing amount of ELF research has started to appreciate that ELF communication is relevant to ELF speakers’ identity construction (e.g., Baker 2009; Jenkins 2007; Virkkula and Nikula 2010), rather than merely serving communicative purposes (House 2003). For instance, in the ethnographic investigation of identity and culture in a Thai context, Baker (2009) highlighted that identity and culture are not pre-conceptualised or defined notions, but something constructed and reconstructed during the course of the social interaction through ELF (Baker 2009). Thai ELF speakers in Baker’s (2009) study told of their ambivalent attitudes towards the English language use and culture in their intercultural communication through ELF. For instance, even though they saw NSE norms such as pronunciation as adequate standards, they often valued local varieties of English, adapting English use to local needs by such means as code mixing, and they did not want to give up their L1 or Thai identity in their ELF interactions. Meanwhile, they set limits on how much they followed NSE norms and changed their behaviour to fit their own context when speaking English. This indicates that local and/or national identities can sometimes be a salient feature of ELF communication. ELF speakers may desire to retain and express their local and/or national based identities when using English (Baker 2009, Sung 2014). Similar findings are reported elsewhere: ELF speakers desire to preserve L1 identity, for example, through accent (Baker 2009, Jenkins 2007, Sung 2014) and pragmatic language use (Nogami 2018, Sung 2014), instead of wishing to be identified with NSE when communicating in ELF contexts. Their English-speaking identity operates alongside or in addition to their L1 or C1 identity, especially in order to fulfil needs for self-identification through ELF. In a European context, Virkkula and Nikula (2010) investigated how Finnish students’ identity changed during their study abroad in Germany where their main medium of communication was English (i.e., an ELF context). This qualitative inquiry, based on the participants’ narratives, demonstrated changes of the students’ identities before and after their cross-cultural encounters through ELF. Before studying abroad, the students focused their attention on their deficiency in their English language skills by referencing the NSE norm for “correctness”. At the same time, having had a general view of English as a language for communication with non-Finns, they were aware of a lack of access to English outside classrooms in the home country. After studying abroad, however, their concerns for correctness of forms diminished, and their views changed to a celebration of success in English communication for daily survival. Moreover, Virkkula and Nikula discussed that access to English speakers from other parts of the world enabled them

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF

35

to develop a sense of collective “we Finns” vs. other ELF users (e.g., Germans), and realised that “we Finns” had fewer obstacles in learning English compared to other nationals. This realisation facilitated the emergence of a new norm in their minds for comparison as English users in the ELF-speaking world. Iino and Murata (2016) reported a similar transition of university students’ identities in an English as a medium of instruction (EMI) setting in a Japanese university. According to their study, identity of jun-Japa (local Japanese students who have almost no previous experience of living abroad) was transformed from that of EFL learners to ELF users during their four-year EMI undergraduate course. Having been confident as EFL learners in the Japanese education system, they lacked confidence in ELF capability: the capability of knowing “how meaning potential encoded in English can be realised as a communicative resource” (Widdowson 2003:117) and the strategic ability to efficiently exploit all resources for language practices (Seidlhofer 2011: 189–190). The students, at the beginning, showed orientation to correctness based on the NSE norms, but then attempted to break out of the ingrained NSE based communicative values and constructed “Japanese flavoured ELF communication” (Iino and Murata 2016: 127) through their participation and learning in the EMI programme. L2 English users often gain new resources for identity building through ELF encounters, which help them to construct a new identity as users of ELF rather than as unsuccessful learners of English (Virkkula and Nikula 2010: 268–270; see also Iino and Murata 2016). Even though ELF provides platforms for ELF users to make positive self-identification, diversity of ELF communication and dynamism and flexibility of culture are often not appreciated fully by EFL teachers. Their identity as an EFL teacher and an ELF user seems to appear contradictory due to the culture and ideology surrounding the current ELT, which constrains teachers’ attitude toward ELF, to which I now turn. EFL teacher identity and attitudes toward ELF Conflicting and ambivalent attitudes toward the English language are ubiquitous, especially among EFL teachers, and they tend to show negative attitudes toward ELF as a legitimate, potential basis for ELT (e.g., Jenkins 2007, Pedrazzini and Nava 2011, Phan 2008). Views of EFL teachers on language often reflect their professional role, which is guided by the needs and desires of their students and students’ parents, as well as the national curriculum, which usually encourages the acquisition of Standard English. They may also be influenced by local expectations of a teacher’s role, for instance as a role model of social morality (Phan 2008). Their role as EFL teachers inevitably creates inconsistency in their attitudes toward ELF and friction in their identity as an EFL teacher and an ELF user.

36

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

The most extensive ELF-focused study on teachers’ identities is one conducted by Jenkins (2007) on accent-related identities. Seventeen EFL teachers of various L1 backgrounds were interviewed about their personal history and experience of their learning and teaching. Their narratives, which revealed their aspirations to reach NSE-level proficiency, demonstrate their desire of being acknowledged as competent and professional. Some participants showed appreciation of different varieties of English and referred to their own accent as part of their L1/C1 identity. Others displayed awareness of different varieties of English both in the inner and outer circles but did not seem to enjoy contemplating different varieties other than the “standard NSE model” as possible emerging models. In a similar vein, the participants disclosed that it was acceptable for others to have their own accents in ELF settings but not for themselves, which demonstrates their conflicting attitude toward ELF. Nevertheless, they reported slightly more positive attitudes when they spoke as an ELF speaker and not as an EFL teacher. That is, for some, retaining their own L1influenced accent was important for their identity. Others said they disliked their own accents, but still liked to retain them for their identity. However, they again expressed a strong admiration and desire to have an NSE accent, which indicates there was more of a tolerance of, rather than a fondness for, L1influenced accents (Jenkins 2007). Similar findings, but with more positive attitudes toward ELF accents, were reported in a smaller scale study conducted by Pedrazzini and Nava (2011) on teachers’ identities in Europe. The participants’ narratives revealed that having their own L1-influenced accents signalled what they had in common as ELF speakers, which created a shared commonality (Nogami 2018) and a shared sense of community (Pedrazzini and Nava 2011). Identity will continue to play a critical role in L2 English speakers’ attitudes toward their accents and thus toward ELF in the future (Jenkins 2007), especially because accents or prosodic features are the most obvious and recognizable aspect of speakers’ linguistic features. It is important for both EFL teachers and learners to be exposed more to different varieties of English, which can lead to better understanding of diverse (not only phonological but also other linguistic) features of ELF and how speakers identify themselves in English-speaking settings (Jenkins 2007, Iino and Murata 2016). Transition of Identities from a Learner to an ELF User Less like EFL teacher identity, ELF user’s identities tend to flourish as they are exposed to intercultural encounters through ELF. In Virkkula and Nikula’s study (2010) presented earlier, the Finnish students’ narratives about how they

2.3 Identities of L2 users and intercultural communication through ELF

37

viewed themselves in relation to the English language changed after their immersion in an ELF environment. Before the ELF-oriented study abroad experience, the students were more concerned with their inefficient linguistic ability, referencing NSE norms, but after the experience, they started to appreciate themselves as ELF users without taking NSE norms as the point of reference for intercultural communication. The study revealed that English learners gained a new mindset for identity-building through ELF encounters, which actually enabled the participants to construct new identities as users of ELF rather than as unsuccessful learners of English (Virkkula and Nikula 2010: 268–270). Phan’s (2009) study also provides a detailed account of identity construction among Asian students through ELF encounters.6 The ethnographical study on eight Asian international students studying in a Thai university revealed the process of their developing a sense of ownership of English for their own sake. The participants’ narratives disclosed how fruitfully ELF encounters fostered their sense of achievement as successful English language learners and intercultural communicators as well as their legitimacy as ELF speakers. Through their experiences in Thailand, they felt that they were in control of English, not controlled or colonized by English, whilst they adapted their English to suit their local needs. It also allowed them to realise that they were multilingual people who spoke proficient English along with their L1, as well as mediators of their L1/C1. The participants acknowledged the English language as a provider of opportunities for intercultural communication and as a gateway to get to know others in the globalised world. As previous ELF-oriented studies revealed, owing to exposure to successful intercultural communication through ELF, ELF users’ identities can thrive while building a sense of global citizenship, a sense of belonging to a local community, and an appreciation of their identities as multilingual/multicultural people (Kalocsai 2014; Nogami 2011; Phan 2009; Virkkula and Nikula 2010). In this section, previous studies on L2-related identity in several related disciplines were presented, focusing on social, cultural, ideological and psychological aspects encompassing identity construction of various individuals. ELF-focused, qualitative research has revealed ELF users’ perceptions and attitudes toward ELF from ELF users’ own perspectives, leading to better understanding of culture and identity in ELF settings (e.g., Baker 2009), the dynamic and fluid nature of ELF speakers’ identities (e.g., Jenkins 2007; Phan 2008) and their belonging to and the

6 Phan (2008) does not use the term ELF in her study; however the context is an ELF setting in which her participants from different Asian backgrounds lived and studied while using English as a means for intercultural communication.

38

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

formation of an ELF-resourced community (e.g., Kalocsai 2014). The next section will focus on how construction of identity is manifested or discussed with interest in linguistic or more specifically pragmatic aspects of L2 English use. As an introduction into it, first, I will briefly outline the study of pragmatics and intercultural pragmatics.

2.4 Pragmatic language use and L2 users’ identity through ELF 2.4.1 Pragmatics, speech act theory and intercultural pragmatics research There are mainly four areas that the study of linguistic pragmatics is concerned with. First, pragmatics is the study of speaker/writer meaning; second, it is the study of sociocultural and contextual meaning; third, it is the study of how more gets communicated than what is said (i.e., listener/reader meaning of a message); and fourth, it is the study of expression of relative distance (e.g., social closeness or distance among interlocutors) (Yule 1996: 3). In other words, pragmatics is the study of “meaning in interaction” (Thomas 1995: 23), that is language-in-use by a speaker/writer in various contexts and how a hearer/reader makes sense of what is said. In order to achieve a pragmatically successful communication, a speaker/writer needs to convey an appropriate message that can be effectively interpreted by a hearer/reader in the given sociocultural context, and hence to be pragmatically competent. For that competence, people need to increase pragmalinguistic knowledge and sociopragmatic knowledge (Thomas 1983; McNamara and Roever 2006; Roever 2004). Pragmalinguistic knowledge denotes knowing the linguistic resources for conveying a specific communicative act (Leech 1983; Thomas 1983). It is closely related to linguistic tokens and structures to convey specific pragmatic forces, for instances, use of downgraders (e.g., possibly, please, a bit) and upgraders (e.g., surely, right now), conventional expressions, and directness or indirectness of utterances (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989; Kasper and Rose 2001). Sociopragmatic knowledge is about knowing how pragmatic principles function in a specific culture, society, and language community (Thomas 1983: 96), and knowing what is rational social behaviour. To be pragmatically competent, furthermore, a speaker/writer must map their sociopragmatic knowledge on pragmalinguistic forms and strategies and be able to use their knowledge online under the constraints of a particular sociocultural context (McNamara and Roever, 2006; Roever, 2004: 284). The study of linguistic pragmatics often examines speech acts, deixis, conversational implicature, presupposition, politeness and conversational structure to investigate pragmatic knowledge or strategies of a speaker/writer, which are also the

2.4 Pragmatic language use and L2 users’ identity through ELF

39

principal topics for the study of cross-cultural pragmatics. Cross-cultural pragmatic research is centred upon the premise looking into different strategies used by L2 learners and comparing them with reference to pragmatic rule of NSs. Among the main topics of pragmatics research, speech act (Austin 1962; Searle 1969) is one of the oft-used methodological and analytical frameworks, which the present study is also partly concerned with. Speech act refers to utterances used to perform a certain act through words such as request, apology, complaint, invitation and so forth. When performing a speech act, one usually uses a set of possible strategies (Ishihara and Cohen 2010) or speech act sequences (Olshtain and Cohen 1983). For example, in order to apologize, one may express an apology (e.g., I apologize, I am sorry), acknowledge one’s own responsibility (e.g., It’s my fault), offer compensation (e.g., Let me get you a new one), explain or justify the situation (e.g., My mind was somewhere else) and promise of non-recurrence (e.g., This will not happen again). People may use a mixture of these strategies to perform an apology speech act in different orders, mix a few strategies or use just one of them (Ishihara and Cohen 2010: 8–9). Also such factors as directness or indirectness of the strategies, the use of softeners, and effectiveness/appropriateness of utterances are points of interest in pragmatic research because how a speaker conveys an appropriate and effective speech act differs contextually, culturally and individually. Similar to other disciplines in SLA research, a large amount of past research in the field of cross-cultural pragmatics focuses on NNSs’ linguistic or pragmatic competence within the dichotomy of nativeness and nonnativeness (e.g., Rose and Kasper 2001). The main focus in interlanguage pragmatics research has been on the L2 learners’ sociolinguistic or pragmatic competence or lack of it with reference to the idealised NS pragmatic language use as the norm. Researchers have largely argued that L2 learners’ insufficient pragmatic competence results from (1) transfer of politeness rules and formulae from L1, (2) a lack of appropriate L2 pragmatic knowledge due to being in the process of development, (3) educational transfer, and (4) overgeneralization of perceived L2 pragmatic norms (Ishihara and Cohen 2010). However, a number of studies also reported that even highly trained and advanced NNSs did not always follow preferred pragmatic norms of the target language (e.g., Cohen 1997; Kubota 1996; Siegal 1996), and started to question the validity of discussion basis in interlanguage pragmatics. For instance, in Kubota’s study (1996), focusing on investigating cross-cultural and interlanguage differences among American L1 English speakers, L1 Japanese speakers and advanced L2 learners of Japanese in their speech styles while making requests in a business setting, it was found that Americans’ L2 Japanese responses were often influenced by their American cultural values. For instance, in a situation where L1 Japanese speakers were found to be reluctant to share a

40

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

private matter as a reason for making a request, the American L2 Japanese speakers thought it was appropriate to mention a private matter as a reason. This may be considered as “negative transfer” of Americans’ L1 cultural values to their L2 Japanese production, and a reflection of the L2 speakers “lack” of Japanese pragmatic knowledge. However, Kubota’s follow-up interviews with the respondents revealed that American learners of Japanese did not follow the perceived Japanese speech style even though they were aware of the preferred sociocultural conventions in Japanese. In essence, they felt uncomfortable following the perceived NS norm, and thus intentionally diverged from it. In such cases, preceding discussions based on the presumption that NS pragmatic norms are the idealised modes for learners to acquire came to be questioned, and started to be criticised by L2 researchers who regarded L2 teaching and learning as sociocultural phenomena (e.g., Ishihara 2006; Hinkel 1996; Norton Peirce 1995; Norton 2000; among others), which raised the importance of investigation into the role of learner agency and L2-related identity in pragmatic language use, on which I turn my focus in the next section.

2.4.2 Research on L2 pragmatics and identity Challenging the “traditional” SLA research that idealises NS norms as a goal for L2 learners’ acquisition, several studies have focused on investigating the relationship between L2 learning/use and identity issues among learners/users with regard to pragmatic language use made by L2 learners. Hinkel (1996) examined the perceptions of and attitudes to L2 pragmatic norms and behaviours among NNSE students (including Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, Japanese and Arabic) in an American university, and how these perceptions and attitudes influenced their willingness to adhere to the target pragmatic behaviour in the American context. She administered a 10-point Likert scale questionnaire (N=240) asking about NNSE students’ recognition of appropriate pragmalinguistic behaviour in the US, their evaluation of accepted L2 pragmatic behaviour in the US, and evaluation and perception of self in L2 pragmatic behaviour, for instance, to what degree they like to conform to or diverge from the perceived norm. Despite a few flaws in terms of the methodological approach,7 the

7 For instance, the question items in the questionnaire were worded rather vaguely (e.g., “The rules of polite speech accepted in the US are very complex.”), and never focused on actual pragmalinguistic behaviour. Additionally, she also failed to define what “pragmalinguistic” behaviour is; therefore, throughout the questionnaire there are unclear and mixed ideas of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic behaviours.

2.4 Pragmatic language use and L2 users’ identity through ELF

41

discussion she offers certainly raises a question about the value of previous discussion on successful acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence as necessarily showing conformity to the target language norm. Hinkel’s questionnaire results indicated that NNSEs were not always willing to follow L2 polite speech behaviours because of their critical view toward L2 communities. They were likely to have regarded their own behaviours in L2 as more appropriate than that of NSEs even in the immediate community in America. They may have consciously applied their respective L1 rules of appropriateness to the L2 situation. Hinkel (1996) also found that although the respondents reported a great degree of willingness to conform to L2 pragmatic norms, the findings regarding their self-evaluation of their own pragmatic behaviour did not support this tendency. With attention to more specific pragmatic language use, Davis (2007) investigated Korean ESL learners’ resistance to L2 pragmatic routines in an Australian context. The combination of a quantitative and qualitative questionnaire survey revealed that Korean learners’ subjectivity led them to resist Australian situation bound utterances (SBU) (e.g., How are you going? as a form of greeting). Overall findings suggested that the Korean ESL students preferred North American English to Australian English. Their responses to the written questionnaire revealed that their resistance to Australian SBUs in fact resulted from a familiarity with North American English as the EFL norm in Korea, a familiarity with North American English pronunciation, and wider acknowledgement of North American English in the global context. On one hand, the learners reported resistance to the local Australian strategies, but on the other, they showed their willingness to accommodate to the local community norms while they were based in Australia. The learners’ shifting preferences in L2 styles in one specific context (e.g., in Australia) to another (e.g., outside Australia) revealed their agency in using L2. In sum, the ESL learners’ negotiation of their approaches to FL/L2 learning and use often stemmed from the political, cultural and ideological relations that the English language entails, such as their prior EFL instructions in Korea which targeted North American English norms, and the concept of a more internationally accepted variety of English. LoCastro (2001) also presented evidence of language learners’ resistance against accepting L2 pragmatic norms, in spite of their readiness to integrate into the target language communicative norms. Using group discussions, essay writing, and a questionnaire survey by Japanese EFL learners, she delved into the learners’ perceptions, attitudes, subjectivity and motivation toward FL pragmatic norms. The findings suggested that learners’ subjectivity contested the willingness to adopt the NS norms for linguistic action. Mainly, Japanese EFL learners had a positive view of English and the value of proficiency in relation to their self-esteem and their mental position in the Japanese society, i.e.,

42

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

future careers, and a prospect of studying and living abroad. However, there certainly was evidence indicating some resistance to learning some aspects of the L2. Many were in favour of retaining their own identities as Japanese, which suggested complete accommodation to the L2 pragmatic standard was regarded as inappropriate for them. Taking a more ethnographic approach, Siegal (1996) examined learner subjectivity in L2 learning and its role in the acquisition of L2 sociolinguistic competency. Through the observation of interaction between an Australian learner of Japanese (Mary) and her Japanese professor, as well as Mary’s language learning journals, Siegal demonstrated a fluid status of Mary’s perceptions toward the Japanese language through learning over time. For instance, Mary’s subjectivity was behind her resistance to acquiring a higher level of Japanese keigo (honorific language) usage. At one point in the past, she had a negative view towards gender specific repertoires of the Japanese language, which led her not to accommodate to native-like use of the language. Yet, later through the experience of delivering a formal speech in public, she came to understand or internalise the value and function of such language use, which prompted Siegal (1996) to argue that Mary’s identity as a proficient Japanese user guided to adopt the accepted L2 norms that she used to contest. As Mary’s case reveals, learners have conflicting needs, including pragmatic appropriateness, the prerequisite to get things done, and the maintenance of face and personal principles, at different stages and contexts of learning/using a L2. These facts need to be taken into account when discussing learners’ sociolinguistic competency (Siegal 1996: 374). L2 use needs to be considered as representing contextually and situationally dependent repertoires, which are largely influenced by identity and subjectivity. Ishihara (2006, 2010) was probably one of the first to investigate the relationship between language learner’s subjectivity and their interlanguage pragmatic use systematically to shed light on the impact of learners’ subjectivity on their pragmatic language use. Other past studies presented earlier (e.g., Davis 2007; Hinkel 1996; LoCastro 2001) looked only at learners’ perceptions and attitudes, but their language use was not corroborated with the self-reflections, or learners’ resistance to L2 norms were reported to have happened in one single case in Siegal’s (1996) work. Investigating L2 users’ lived experiences through their emic perspectives, Ishihara (2006, 2010) also found that L2 users often showed their resistance to conforming to the L2 community norms. One of her interviewees, Nobuko, a Japanese director of a US university volleyball team, who had lived in the L2 community for more than 20 years, expressed her resistant feeling towards the way the American student players talked to her on the volleyball court, for instance, when students asked her Do you wanna get the ball? (as a request to

2.4 Pragmatic language use and L2 users’ identity through ELF

43

her) in a casual manner. Nobuko found that such L1 English speakers’ pragmatic language use to someone older was irreconcilable with her identity due to her upbringing in a Japanese society which taught her to show respect to someone older and of higher status by using situationally appropriate language, e.g., honorific expressions. Therefore, Nobuko chose to “train” the American students sometimes by jokingly saying, Did you say “please” or “could you please”? even though she was aware that L1 English speakers did not need to concern themselves with such pragmatic language use. As a result of her “language training”, the students started to notice and take on board her implication and eventually changed their language use to conform more closely to Nobuko’s norms. Nobuko expressed her feeling of satisfaction with what she had done. The participants’ narratives like Nobuko’s in Ishihara’s (2010) study revealed individual cultural identity, beliefs, values, morals, personal principles, and feelings directed toward pragmatic language use of themselves and the others around them. Furthermore, her participants showed their sense of fulfilment through their own choices, which highlighted the necessity of respecting L2 users as multilingual/multicultural beings who also participate in a community and renegotiate social norms in the community they are situated. Ishihara (2006) in another study also documented how learners explained their deliberate pragmatic language use to accommodate to or resist the perceived FL pragmatic norms. Her research participants were advanced learners of Japanese. Their L2 Japanese speech act behaviour was elicited by oral discourse completion tests (DCT), and retrospective interviews and some follow-up email correspondence were conducted to tap into learners’ subjectivity behind their pragmatic language use. The participants mainly felt that they should follow the perceived FL norms in the host culture in Japan; however, voices of resistance to the FL norms were a fairly common phenomenon too. For example, some of the learners forced themselves to adopt the perceived FL pragmatic norms in order to meet NSs’ expectations even though they had gut feelings against them. Interestingly, among several participants, one participant of Chinese background demonstrated smoother acculturation to Japanese pragmatic norms compared to American nationals, explaining it was due to what he perceived as cultural similarity between Chinese and Japanese. This particular finding is interesting for understanding the way the L2 learners’ ethnic and cultural background may affect the extent to which a L2 speaker is willing to accommodate to the target language norm and how easy it may be. This raises further questions about how much difficulty or readiness Japanese L2 English users have in order to conform to the English norms which are to a large degree dissimilar to their L1 Japanese norms. Lastly, Iwasaki (2010) focused on the process of change in L2 Japanese pragmatic use (i.e., use of the polite and plain styled languages) and a development of

44

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

self in L2 in the study of five male North American learners of Japanese before and after their study abroad experience in Japan. The polite and plain styles of Japanese language vary depending on the degree of contextual formality and carry social and situational meanings. Iwasaki found some of the students’ shifted the style (elicited in the form of an oral proficiency test) before and after study abroad. Before the study abroad, all used a polite style addressing a teacher (which is expected in Japan), but after study abroad two of the learners used a plain form, which was not the most appropriate option. In other words, their style choice after their study abroad deviated from the targeted learning norms even though they were thought to have “acquired” the preferred NS norm before study abroad. The qualitative analysis of the interview data, however, showed that those two learners intentionally shifted their language styles in order to express their “selves” for specific reasons, such as not wishing to sound too distant to the person they talk to by conforming to the norm. Iwasaki reported that all of the students increased their understanding of the social meanings of the polite and plain styles during the study abroad in Japan; however at the same time, they gained their own voice to choose the styles they wished to use. There was substantial variation among the students as to what extent they chose to conform to the norms, if at all. The learners became active social agents deciding on what was most suitable for expressing their subjectivities in Japanese through their experience of living in Japan. Partially derived from speech accommodation theory (Beebe and Giles 1984),8 the studies of Siegal (1996), Ishihara (2006, 2010) and Iwasaki (2010) explored the link between identities/subjectivities of learners of L2 Japanese and their actual decision-making on pragmatic use in L2 Japanese. Thus, there is an interest for parallel research to be conducted in the case of L2 English users. Also, the earlier studies demonstrated the detailed cases of L2 learners’ resistance to the NS norms based on their subjectivities; nevertheless, other aspects of L2 learners’ pragmatic language use which are negotiated with their identities need to be investigated in order to gain more informed perspectives

8 The Speech Accommodation Theory (Beebe and Giles 1984) was developed to provide a better understanding of the relationship between linguistic and social variables in speech diversity seen in different social settings. With the social psychological perspective, the theory aims to explain the nature of L2 speakers’ language behaviour. According to the theory, in order to achieve this, it needs to be investigated with not only objective social variables (e.g., age, gender, and class) but also the “speakers’ own subjective attitudes, perceptions of situations, cognitive and affective dispositions” because “the like may interact to determine their speech outputs” (Beebe and Giles 1984: 5). Due to such cognitive and affective variables, L2 speech may converge to or diverge from the target language norm. People will attempt to diverge linguistically away from the perceived norm when they wish to dissociate personally from one another in an interactional encounter, and such divergence functions as the speakers’ repertoires.

2.4 Pragmatic language use and L2 users’ identity through ELF

45

on the link between identity and pragmatic language use. Moreover, the above three researchers investigated mainly the case of L2 learners interacting with NSs of the language and often in the “target” community. Considering the global spread of English and increased chances of interactions among people from various linguacultural backgrounds, it would appear that ELF perspectives also need to be incorporated in the research. An ELF-oriented investigation can enrich our understanding of the possible links between L2 English users’ identities, the relations of power and culture and their L2 pragmatic language use in this era of dissemination of the English language around the world.

2.4.3 Studies on pragmatic strategies through ELF and index of identity ELF-informed studies in the area of speakers’ pragmatic strategies pay attention to pragmatic motives (Cogo and Dewey 2006) and functional pragmatic meanings of some linguistic features in ELF interactions. They largely argue that ELF speakers’ use of some linguistic strategies reflects ELF speakers’ abilities to focus on pragmatic functions of the message (e.g., warranting mutual understanding, building solidarity, indexing cultural, multilingual identity) rather than grammatical accuracy or correctness in order to efficiently and successfully communicate with each other. One of the main pragmatic functions of ELF linguistic strategies is associated with achieving and ensuring mutual understanding (e.g., Firth 1996, House 1999, Meierkord 2002). Mutual understanding is not inherently guaranteed in ELF interactions because ELF speakers from different backgrounds need to negotiate various differences in communication; therefore, ELF speakers tend to work collaboratively during on-going interaction to achieve mutual understanding. For instance, ELF speakers often use a let-it-pass strategy (Firth 1996); in other words, they tend to go along with the flow of the conversation rather than explicitly attending to unintelligible sources of interaction, by overlooking some idiosyncrasies within a portion of interaction as long as a certain level of mutual understanding is assured. Moreover, it is widely agreed that non-understanding or misunderstanding rarely occurs in ELF interaction because ELF speakers often use pre-empting strategies to monitor each other’s understanding or signal misunderstanding effectively in order to resolve potential miscommunication (Kaur 2009; Pitzl 2009; Pullin Stark 2009). These strategies include clarification through a direct question, selfrepair (Kaur 2011), repetition (Mauranen 2006) and paraphrasing (Cogo 2009; Cogo and Dewy 2006; Kaur 2009). With these strategies, ELF speakers collaboratively deal with potentially problematic portions of communication to ensure that a

46

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

misunderstanding does not occur. The use of such strategies also represents ELF speakers’ ability to manoeuvre interaction in a pragmatically appropriate way. Another focus of research on ELF users’ use of interactional strategies is on their role of building solidarity or rapport among interactants. Cooperative repetition (Cogo 2009) and supportive strategies such as backchannelling (e.g., yeah, I see), nods, smiling, laughter and overlapping are used not only to promote mutual understanding but also to construct solidarity among ELF interactions (Matsumoto 2011; Meierkord 2000). Use of idioms and metaphors is also connected to creating humour among ELF interactants, and thus building solidarity (Fiedler 2011; Pitzl 2009). For instance, Pitzl (2009) showed the way metaphorical origins of idiomatic expressions might resurface in ELF, and how ELF users created new idioms such as we should not wake up any dogs referencing the metaphorical function of the supposed original Standard English idiom Let sleeping dogs lie (i.e., leaving the situation as it is). Such creative uses of idioms as metaphors are often used to increase interpersonal rapport by adding humour to the interaction in ELF contexts (Pitzl 2009). In a similar vein, Matsumoto (2014) showed how ELF speakers coconstruct humorous talk during interactions by skilfully employing teasing, joking, abruptness and contextual cues such as smiling and joking to achieve and maintain solidarity. Similarly, in the spoken interactions in a business context analysed by Pullin Stark (2009), bosses in business ELF interaction used humour as a powerful management tool to mitigate face-threatening acts (e.g., delivering criticism to their subordinates), to mitigate power relations as well as to increase solidarity. The study revealed that the use of humour facilitated the development of solidarity among interactants and fostered a feeling of belonging to the immediate group, such as a business corporation. Lastly, with flexible use of multilingual resources, ELF speakers are observed to collaboratively and creatively construct meanings in ELF interactions to signal speakers’ cultural, multilingual identities (Cogo 2009; Kalocsai 2009; Pitzl 2009, 2012; Seidlhofer 2009). For example, one strategy that is observed to have such a pragmatic function is code-switching. As an intrinsic, integral part of discourse practice in ELF interaction (Klimpfinger 2009: 367), code-switching is often used to signal multilingual identity and rapport among interactants to create a friendly atmosphere (Cogo 2009; Kalocsai 2011, 2014; Klimpfinger 2009). For instance, Klimpfinger (2009) found that switching from English to other languages was an intrinsic element of ELF interaction in her study of ELF communication (e.g., workshop discussion through ELF) at a European conference. The use of a speaker’s own L1 was found – in the form of a tag, exclamation, or word insertion into the utterance – to reference their homelands or special expressions associated with a specific culture. Also, the uses of other languages (LN: neither English nor a speaker’s L1) were also found to reference

2.4 Pragmatic language use and L2 users’ identity through ELF

47

a speaker’s familiarity and acknowledgement of the context where the interaction was taking place. ELF speakers blend in their cultural backgrounds (not necessarily their own L1/C1 background) and communicate their multilingual identity by switching to the language of identification and group membership, i.e., their own L1 as well as LN (Klimpfinger 2009). In addition to code-switching, integrating L1 communicative norms into ELF interactions is also linked to expression of a speaker’s cultural identity (Pölzl 2003; Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006). Pölzl and Seidlhofer, for example, investigated how Arabic ELF speakers made ELF their own and used English for the retention and signalling of their identity (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006: 152) in interactions. When they interacted in their own habitat (i.e., the setting which interlocutors recognize as their own), they frequently and effectively used L1 gambits, L1 communicative norms such as indirectness, mitigating strategies, high-rate of speech and a high amount of cooperative overlapping. The ELF speakers appeared to utilise contextually appropriate strategies and to “remain themselves” in the ELF interaction by using interactants’ shared knowledge, assumptions, beliefs and relationship between interlocutors (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006: 172) in the locally realised ELF interaction. We now know quite well about what ELF speakers do linguistically and what these linguistic features may function as, due to a significant development of research on interactional work or pragmatic strategies that participants in ELF interactions utilise, but we need to explore more where ELF speakers are situated, and why they perform linguistically as discussed in descriptive ELF research through exploring the process of ELF users’ identity construction in order to deepen our understanding further on ELF phenomenon. The majority of earlier research on pragmatic strategies in ELF interaction was based on their third-person observation of language use and its pragmatic functions (i.e., solidarity building, indexing cultural, multilingual identity). Thus, whether ELF speakers are indeed expressing their identities with the use of such strategies is unknown territory. There is a need for research investigating the link between pragmatic aspects of ELF use and speakers’ expression of identity from the participants’ own perspectives, which may provide further informed assessments to understand the connection. First-person narratives offer richer, more contextualised perspective and greater psychological insights (Oxford and Cuéllar 2014:180). Since Seidlhofer, Breiteneder and Pitzl (2006: 21) called for more “qualitative studies with a strong ethnographic element”, research investigating domains beyond ELF linguistic description is on the rise (as introduced earlier in this chapter e.g., Baker 2009, 2011, 2015; Jenkins 2007; Kalocsai 2009, 2011, 2014; Seidlhofer 2011), facilitating our understanding about ELF speakers themselves, the environment they are in, and sociocultural factors that may

48

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

influence ELF communication. Thus, there arises a need to investigate linguistic practices through ELF with attention to expression of speaker’s identities from participants’ emic or insider perspectives with emphasis on sociocultural and psychological elements. In what follows, I will introduce the concepts of communities of practice and imagined communities that have been applied more recently to ELF-orientated narrative-based research. These concepts view language learning and use as a form of participation in a community and thus facilitate understanding of how sociocultural and psychological elements are intertwined in ELF phenomena beyond the linguistic nature of ELF.

2.5 Imagined communities and ELF 2.5.1 Theory of communities of practice Lave and Wenger (1991) developed a theory of learning that sees learning as a situated process of participation in particular communities of practice. Communities of practice (CoP) refer to “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger 2006: definition section). In CoP, people mutually engage in a process of learning by sharing information and experiences; in other words, members of CoP learn from each other by co-constructing knowledge (i.e., joint enterprise). Subsequently, they “develop a shared repertoire of resources” such as experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems – in short a shared practice (Wenger 2006: introduction section). This social theory of learning has contributed to understanding not only the formal learning environment (e.g., schools and workplaces) but also informal learning (e.g., L2 learning outside classrooms) by acknowledging that learning is not just transforming a set of skills and knowledge from one person to another, nor processing them cognitively. Accordingly, the theory has drawn attention from L2 learning and SLA research (e.g., Muramatsu 2013; Norton 2000) to facilitate further understanding of L2 learning as learner participation in a wider world at large. This learning theory is also a theory of identity. Wenger states: Because learning transforms who we are and what we can do, it is an experience of identity. It is not just an accumulation of skills and information, but a process of becoming – to become a certain person or, conversely, to avoid becoming a certain person. (1998: 215)

Learning is also about being and becoming a member of CoP, which is also central to identity negotiation. In the CoP framework, Lave and Wenger (1991) used the term legitimate peripheral participation to express the process of newcomers

2.5 Imagined communities and ELF

49

becoming full/core members of a CoP by gaining necessary competence and membership. The newcomers or novices must be positively recognised as legitimate peripheral participants, which means they need access to other members of the community, information, resources, and opportunities for participation. Without such access and support from old-timers, they may be disempowered. This concept of participation has often been utilised in discussion of a learner’s socialisation to a L2 learning environment or a specific speech community. However, many L2 studies have pointed out that legitimate peripheral participation is not always afforded to L2 learners, for instance, when they are marginalised and do not gain positive support from old-timers or experts (Duff 2008; Haneda 1997, 2006; Kanno 2003, 2008; Kramsch 2006; Morita 2000, 2004; Norton 2000). Also in many learning situations, novice and expert are not clear-cut or fixed categories (Miyahara 2015). Thus, the concept of legitimate peripheral participation may not be fully informative for L2 learning situations where ideology and power relation intertwine, but nevertheless can be useful when discussing how positive participation into the CoP can be achieved by its members.

2.5.2 Communities of practice and ELF Employing the social theory of CoP (Lave and Wenger 1991), several ELF researchers have investigated the manner in which ELF is used to index and construct membership in ELF-related communities, such as Erasmus exchange students in Central Europe (Kalocsai 2014), business managers in Germany (Ehrenreich 2009), and English language teachers in Italy (Pedrazzini and Nava 2011).9 For instance, Kalocsai’s (2014) study examined the manner in which her participants created a community called the “Erasmus family”, which they belonged to and identified with. She observed the way in which the participants developed their own practices through mutual engagement (Wenger 1998), such as parties and trips, to build and maintain a friendship-oriented community. This construction and maintenance of the community became their collectively shared

9 A number of ELF scholars (e.g., Ehrenreich 2009, Kalocsai 2014) incorporated the concept of the CoP into their ELF research with caution. Meanwhile several ELF scholars pointed out that an ELF interactional context is often more fluid than in “communities” in Wenger’s sense because ELF speakers do not necessarily engage in a process of learning regularly by co-constructing knowledge nor develop a shared repertoire of resources for a common goal (Jenkins 2015: 61–62), but rather ELF takes place in “transient groups” (i.e, Transient International Groups) than in communities (Pitzl 2018).

50

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

goal, i.e., joint enterprise (Wenger 1998). Embarking on the joint enterprise, Kalocsai’s participants developed various linguistic practices through ELF, such as repetition, code-switching and use of humour to build solidarity and rapport among themselves. These linguistic practices were created jointly and exploited collectively among themselves and became their shared repertoire (Wenger 1998) in their CoP. The CoP approaches to ELF, such as Kalocsai’s (2014) ethnographic study, enable descriptive ELF and social theory to be merged. Linguistic practices among ELF speakers are connected to the understanding of what linguistic practices mean to ELF speakers and the negotiation of their identity. More research of this kind that combines the interactional approach to the linguistic nature of ELF and the narrative approach to ELF speakers’ identity and the environment in which they are situated will be indispensable for the further development of ELF research. However, in ELF communication, where language and culture are not inexorably connected (Baker 2009, Sung 2014), the sociolinguistic, fixed notion of a speech community, which embodies uniformity and regularity, becomes less relevant (Seidlhofer 2011). Instead, ELF speakers often create a form of culture or “space” through ELF that can be physically (Kalocsai 2014) as well as virtually and globally networked (Yashima 2009); and as my investigation will later reveal, intercultural communication through ELF is not always conducted by participants in one physical location all together, but often conducted virtually, e.g., via emails and social networking services. Also, how ELF speakers envisage their participation in the ELF speakers’ community and its relation to wider social world plays a critical role in L2/ELF users’ language use and L2-related identity construction. Thus, in the following section, a similar concept to CoP that implements the notion of imagination – imagined communities – will be introduced.

2.5.3 Imagined communities Deriving from the theory of CoP, the concept of imagined communities poses equally significant implications for L2 learning and intercultural communication through ELF. Imagined communities are “groups of people, not immediately tangible and accessible, with whom we connect through the power of the imagination” (Kanno and Norton 2003: 241). Communities can be constructed through the imagination of people who perceive themselves as part of the group. This contrasts with CoP (Lave and Wenger, 1991), which conceptualises learning as a result of direct engagement in a community where members of the community interact regularly. Engagement refers to physical involvement in a mutual process of meaning making. Later, Wenger (1998) further suggested that not only is

2.5 Imagined communities and ELF

51

engagement the mode of belonging to a CoP, but also imagination is another way of belonging.10 Imagination denotes “a process of expanding our self by transcending our time and space and creating new images of the world and ourselves”, which should not be confused with fantasies and withdrawal from reality. “Imagination in this sense is looking at an apple seed and seeing a tree” (Wenger 1998: 176). Wenger’s notion of imagination was inspired by Anderson ([1984] 2006), who first coined the term imagined communities. Anderson argued that the invention by capitalists of printing newspapers in vernacular languages, rather than in languages of privilege and power such as Latin, enabled people to see themselves as members of a nation state. Anderson called such a notion of nation state imagined communities because “the member of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the mind of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson 2006: 6). The concept of imagination underscores “the creative process of producing new ‘images’ and of generating new relations through time and space that become constitutive of the self” (Wenger 1998: 177). This mode of belonging (i.e., through imagination) to a community transcends the actual physical engagement in the community or interaction with the members of community, which equally relates to L2 learning and intercultural communication. Norton (2001) connected the notions of imagined communities with the process of L2 learning and use. She proposed that different L2 learners imagined and had a desire to have access to future affiliation with different imagined communities. Their future affiliation with imagined communities had an impact on the learners’ current learning of and investment in the target language. In other words, investment in current learning meant investment in their identities and their future affiliation in the imagined communities. Their vision of future self and current learning was closely connected. For example, some participants in Norton’s study (2001) at times felt most uncomfortable interacting in English with people who they deemed to be already members of the imagined communities they wished to enter in the future, because the “old timers” were perceived to possess symbolic capital that they had yet to possess. Thus, “learners’ imagined communities are best understood in the context of their investments in the target language” (Norton 2001: 167).

10 As the third mode of belonging to the CoP, Wenger (1998) suggests “alignment” which refers to the mode of being connected to CoP through the coordination of participants’ energies, actions and practices (Wenger 1998: 179).

52

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

Norton was mainly concerned with individual learner’s imagined communities, but Kanno (2003) applied the concept of imagined communities to examine institutional visions in her ethnographic research in four schools in Japan. The four schools, which varying numbers of bilingual students attended, reflected different economic capital of students’ parents. She was interested in how each school envisaged imagined communities for their students and for their future participation in the community, and examined policies and practices of each school. The four schools had different visions of Japan and the rest of the world, the Japanese language, the English language and other languages (which were L1s for some students). For instance, one privileged international school showed a clear priority to the English language over the Japanese language because of an unspoken understanding that students in the school would be members of the elite international society. In contrast, a Japanese public school did not provide L2 Japanese students any support to maintain their L1 because the school believed that the non-Japanese students’ assimilation to Japanese culture and society and acquisition of the Japanese language would be most important for them to secure their future in Japan. Kanno discussed each school’s collective vision and institutional practice for bilingual students’ future membership in the imagined community, which ultimately influenced students’ identities. Pavlenko (2003), in turn, examined to what extent classroom discourse played a role in shaping students’ affiliation with imagined communities, and how learners’ affiliation with imagined communities affected their positioning as L2 speakers. Her participants were students in an MA program in TESOL teacher education for pre-service and in-service teachers. Pavlenko identified, in the students’ autobiographies, three imagined communities the students sought and claimed membership in, which were an imagined community of NSEs, that of NNSEs/L2 learners and that of multilingual speakers. These three kinds of imagined communities depicted two different discourses: one of NS/NNS dichotomy and the other of bilingual and multilingual speakers. First, Pavlenko identified the community of NSs or the discourse of native speakerism. In this discourse, NSs are represented as of monolingual white middle class and they are considered the only legitimate group of speakers and the owners of the language. Such a limited notion of the NS standard served as an implicit learning target for the students. They felt invalid or invisible, saw themselves as failures for not being able to acquire “native” competence whatever it means, and struggled to acquire membership in the imagined community of NSEs. Pavlenko’s analysis implied that seeking membership in this community was unreasonable because the students would never be “monolingual white middle class NSEs” and created a negative impact on the students while interacting with NSEs and on their careers as English teaching professionals. Another community where the participants

2.6 Summary

53

sought and claimed their membership was a NNSE/L2 learner community that was also informed by the discourse of NS/NNS dichotomy. This community also portrayed L2 learning as an endless pursuit of “native” competence that was not a positive alternative for L2 speakers’ identities either. The findings indicated that the participants at the beginning of the MA programme did not know, except for the discourse of NS/NNS dichotomy, of other options that could prove the possibility of expanding their identities as L2 speakers. However, during the MA programme, the students were exposed to contemporary theories of bilingualism and multilingualism through classroom reading and debates on the notion of native speakerism. Such exposure offered them new options for imagining their professional and personal identities as L2 users. In particular, Cook’s (1992, 1999, 2007) notion of multicompetence affected the students positively and they started to embrace a new identity option as members of an imagined community of multicompetent L2 users rather than as “failed L2 learners”. Imagining their membership in this community helped them to reframe their own and others’ (for example, their future students’) ability. Reimagining themselves as multicompetent L2 users can allow L2 speakers “not only to view themselves positively but also to transmit these views to others and to engage in active attempts to reshape the surrounding contexts” (Pavlenko 2003: 266). The concept of imagined community enables us to focus on the individuals who participate in a community through imagination. How an individual L2 learner (Norton 2001; Pavlenko 2003) and an educational institution (Kanno 2003) envisage a learner’s participation in the future community affects the development of a learner’s sense of self and investment in learning or their learning trajectories. Moreover, the concept is useful for ELF-oriented research because for many ELF users, the community of ELF users is more imagined than real. There is no fixed ELF users’ community as a speech community per se (except when investigating a specific group of ELF users, e.g., Kalocsai 2014; Ehrenreich 2009; Pedrazzini and Nava 2011). ELF users often try to connect to a community of ELF users by envisaging their participation or affiliation in the community, which I intend to depict throughout this book.

2.6 Summary This chapter presented a review of previous literature to build a foundation for the narrative-based investigation of the present study on L2-related identity, pragmatic language use and ELF. First, I provided the theoretical underpinning of the present study. Second, I introduced previous research on L2-related identity, concentrating on how power relations and notions of culture intertwine

54

Chapter 2 Language, identity and second language users through an ELF lens

with L2 learning as well as with language use in an ELF context. Third, with special attention to the relationship between identity and pragmatic language use, earlier studies in the areas of SLA and ELF were reviewed. Last, I introduced relevant literature on the concepts of Communities of practice and imagined communities that engage in language practice as participation in a certain community that influences a speaker’s construction of identity. In the next chapter, I will detail the research design and methodology for this narrativeoriented endeavour to understand L2-related identity. I will also outline information about the research participants, the data organisation and analysis of the data.

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use This chapter is dedicated to elucidating the research design and methodology.11 The first section briefly re-states the purpose of the study and poses research questions, in addition to presenting the methodological approach employed in the current investigation. The second section explains the recruitment process used to engage the research participants, as well as the relationship between the participants and the researcher in the qualitative inquiry. The third section explains the research design and methodology involving the two methods – questionnaire-based interviewing and longitudinal diary observation – that were employed to obtain participants’ narratives of their lived experience relating to L2 English learning and using. This qualitative inquiry aims to understand, through their narratives, the way participants create meaning in intercultural communication through ELF and connect these meanings to their sense of themselves and the social world around them. This section also outlines the nature of qualitative inquiry, the rationale for the choice of these specific methods and the procedure for data collection. The last section deals with how the author analysed the data by developing a coding scheme, using an interpretive approach (Miles and Huberman 1994).

3.1 The study: Central questions and qualitative inquiry Drawing on qualitative interpretive research that employs two methods to gather participants’ narratives (questionnaire-based interviews and longitudinal diary observation), the present study explores the identities of Japanese L2 English users, how their identities with respect to L2 English are shaped in the surrounding environment, informed by their lived experiences, and investigates the relationship between their identities and their pragmatic language use from the participants’ emic perspective. The following four research questions are investigated. 1) What kinds of identities do the Japanese L2 English users construct relating to the English language?

11 Ethical approval of the projects for the present study was granted by the Departmental Research Director, the Faculty Ethics Committee and the University’s Ethics Committee at University of Essex. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-003

56

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

2)

How do power relations emerge in ELF communication and influence the Japanese L2 English users’ identities? 3) How do the Japanese L2 English users’ identities reflect a feeling of cultural closeness with ELF interlocutors? 4) How do the Japanese L2 English users account for their deliberate pragmatic language use in an ELF context? Qualitative research tends to begin with assumptions (Creswell 2007: 37), and is emergent in nature. The focus of research “is narrowed down only gradually and the analytic categories/concepts are defined during rather than prior to, the process of the research” (Dörnyei 2007: 37). Moreover, it usually deals with words rather than numbers. It “is not simply learning about a topic, but also learning what is important to those being studied” (Rubin and Rubin 2005: 15). Qualitative inquiry puts emphasis on people’s lived experience, and aims to understand the meaning of human action in events, activities, processes and experiences, in other words, their assumptions, perceptions, presuppositions and prejudgements. It also seeks to connect these meanings to the social world around them (Miles and Huberman 1994: 10). With this regard, the qualitative approach helps understand and describe such complex issues as L2 English users’ identities in relation to the social world by which they are surrounded. The approach taken to this qualitative study is interpretivism (Miles and Huberman 1994: 8). This approach denotes analytic strategies and methods to understand people’s individual and collective thinking and action, which has layers of meaning (Minichiello et al. 1995). In this approach, it is commonly understood that a researcher and those who are researched are collaborators in interpreting meanings of human action. Miles and Huberman (1994: 8) provide a clear description of this stance of the interpretive approach: Researchers are not more ‘detached’ from their objects of study than are their informants. Researchers, they argue, have their own understandings, their own convictions, their own conceptual orientations; they, too, are members of a particular culture at a specific historical moment. Also they will be undeniably affected by what they hear and observe in the field, often in unnoticed ways.

The qualitative interpretive approach considers the subjectivity of the researcher is a half of meaning-making, along with that of the other half, the researched, who also have their own agendas and orientations. Thus a qualitative investigation is about and for the participants as well as with the participants (Norton 2000: 23).

3.2 Participants

57

3.2 Participants 3.2.1 Sampling data Sampling in qualitative research is often smaller in scale, and proceeds according to what is relevant in cases being studied rather than their representativeness (Flick 2009; Mason 1996). First of all, the main criterion in sampling for the present study was that participants should be Japanese L2 English users who are able to communicate in English to some extent, and who have had intercultural experience through using English (e.g., experience of living or studying abroad, or of taking an English as a medium of instruction course). Because my research topic focuses on looking at the participants’ identity construction in relation to their L2 English use, this criterion was crucial. The other criterion was the frequency of contact they have with English use in personal, social and educational contexts. The selection of the participants was based on those who are engaged in English language-related activities as frequently as possible (i.e., at least twice a week or preferably more). This criterion was more important for selecting participants for the diary study, as the nature of the diary study relied on the participants’ English language use on a day-to-day basis. In order to gain a broad picture of Japanese L2 English users, I was interested in those who are living in Japan and actively using L2 English (e.g., their work involves a substantial need for English language use) or autonomously practicing their English (e.g., attending courses on translation, working voluntarily as a translator in the community), as well as those who have been living in the UK where I was located to conduct this research. Therefore, an a priori determination of sample structure (Flick 2009: 115) was Japanese L2 English users in two contexts: those living in Japan and those sojourning in the UK. Therefore, a roughly equal number of participants were to be selected from both contexts for questionnaire-based interviewing and the diary study.

3.2.2 Sample selection and recruitment With regard to Japanese L2 English users living in the UK, the sampling selection was conducted in the university where I was also studying, and thus there was no doubt of any of them having a fairly good command of English by the fact that they were living in the UK and attending their respective university courses, which suggests they were using the English language on a daily basis. Therefore, the selection of the participants was solely based on the availability of participants for both the questionnaire-based interviewing and the diary

58

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

study. First, I asked people in my social network whether they were willing to participate in either one of the studies. Four agreed to participate in the diary study, and two agreed to take part in the questionnaire-based interviewing. In order to find more participants, I sent an individual request to several Japanese students to whom I was introduced by some of the participants. Five more agreed to participate in the questionnaire-based interviewing. Even though I had not met many of them before the investigation, because of our similar status as Japanese students in the same British university, I believe that they regarded me as a fellow comrade rather than just a stranger, which is a beneficial aspect in qualitative research as it means that the researcher is in the same field with the researched, and both the researcher and the researched share common experiences as international students in a British university. Recruiting participants who lived in Japan was carried out more purposively to meet the main criteria of sampling because, in the Japanese context, the contact with the English language is often limited to classroom practices including language lessons at university and/or at a private English language school. Therefore, I initially made contacts with people within my social network who fulfilled the requirements: such as those who had studied abroad for a year or two, and who used English daily as part of their work or who tried to use English regularly. Three agreed to participate in the questionnaire-based interviewing, and three others participated in the diary study. I recruited the rest of the participants who lived in Japan by various other means. They were all undergraduate students majoring in international studies in a university where I used to study for my first master’s degree. The first recruitment was conducted in January 2009 when I was given an opportunity to talk to two students whom my MA supervisor introduced as potential participants. Both of them had attended an English-medium peace study programme in the previous summer at their institution. One agreed to participate in the diary study, and the other agreed to take part in the questionnaire-based interviewing. The second recruitment was only for the diary study. I sent a request letter to a group of students who were enrolled in a preparatory intensive English language course for the English-medium peace study programme in the summer of 2009. During the peace study course, they would have many opportunities to engage in intercultural communication. In the letter, I introduced myself as an alumnus of the university and explained about my research, the diary study, recruitment and incentives for participation. I left a blank space at the bottom where they could put down their name and contact details if they were willing to take part in the study. Among them, three people responded to the letter and two participated in the diary study. The third and final recruitment was conducted in the summer of 2009 just before the actual data collection started. One participant was

3.3 Methodological design

59

introduced to me personally by a friend of mine who tutored her in English. As I heard that she had studied abroad before and had been learning English eagerly, I thought she would be an ideal participant for my study. She willingly took part in the questionnaire-based interviewing. The rest of the participants were recruited from a group of students who took an applied linguistics course that my former MA advisor taught. The advisor kindly provided me an opportunity to talk in one of his classes, and I introduced myself and about my research. As part of my talk, I also talked about general life as an international student in the UK, about learning the English language, about pursuing postgraduate study and so forth. Among those students in the class, three students participated in questionnaire-based interviewing. Those three students were also to attend the English-medium peace study course in the coming summer in 2009. Because I was an alumnus of the university, I felt that the students did not regard me as an outsider, but as a direct senior to them as some of them called me senpai,12 which indicates that they regarded me as an insider. All the participants who agreed to participate in either questionnaire-based interviewing or the diary study were given a written consent form prior to their participation. The informed consent forms explained briefly about the aim of the study, secure data storage, confidentiality and anonymity of the participants and their affiliations. Table 3.1 below provides brief biographic information of the participants who took part in the study. All the participants were assigned pseudonyms in order to protect their anonymity. I preferred to use a fictitious name rather than alphabetic initials because I wanted to treat them as individuals with names, and it suits the topic of the study exploring human identities.

3.3 Methodological design Identity is dynamic phenomenon; thus methodology for investigating identity should also be dynamic in theory as well as in practice (Hansen and Liu 1997). Moreover, researchers should not rely on one type of research method, but should try to bring different data collection methods together. Bearing this in mind, two different methods were used to approach identities of Japanese L2 English users in the present study. The two approaches are (1) the questionnairebased interviewing involving linguistic elicitation tasks and a follow-up faceto-face interview, and (2) the longitudinal diary study observing participants’

12 The term is often used for addressing a senior/older member of the same affiliation by junior/younger members.

60

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

Table 3.1: The background information of the participants.* Data Collection Method

Participants Age Gender Location Status (Pseudonyms)

 F

Japan

BA -yr student

Australia,  mos

 F

Japan

BA -yr student

Canada,  mos

Nina

 F

Japan

BA -yr student



Mutsumi

 F

Japan

BA -yr student



Fuyuka

 F

UK

MA student

UK,  yr+

Hiromi

 F

Japan

BA -yr student



Umi

 F

Japan

BA -yr student

Canada,  yr

Yoshito

 M

UK

PhD student

UK,  yrs  mos

Kaori

 F

UK

BA -yr student

UK,  yrs

Tae

 F

Japan

English teacher

UK,  mos

Naofumi

 M

Japan

PhD student

UK,  wks Australia,  mo Malaysia, . yrs

Yoriko

 F

UK

BA -yr (exchange student)

UK,  mos

Motoya

 M

UK

BA -yr student

UK,  yrs

Takeo

 M

UK

LLM student

UK,  mos

Tomomi

 F

UK

BA -yr student

UK,  yrs

Isuzu

 F

UK

PhD student

UK,  yrs

Yayoi

 F

UK

PhD student

UK,  yrs

Miyu

 F

Japan

PhD student/　 English instructor/　 Administrator

US,  mos

Natsumi

 F

Japan

Interpreter

UK,  mos

Questionnaire- Takako Based Interviewing Hitomi

Diary study

Location and Length of Studying Abroad

3.3 Methodological design

61

Table 3.1 (continued) Data Collection Method

Participants Age Gender Location Status (Pseudonyms)

Location and Length of Studying Abroad

Hana

 F

Japan

Office worker

UK,  mos US,  mos

Kazusa

 F

Japan/ France

BA yr student

France,  mos

Mio

 F

UK

MA student

US,  yrs UK,  yr

Musashi

 M

Japan/ UK

BA yr student

UK,  wks

Hikari

 F

Japan

BA yr student

 mos

*The information was accurate at the time of the data collection.

journals based on their day-to-day English language use. The questionnairebased interviewing was conducted to closely approach the relationship between participants’ pragmatic language use in English and their L2-related identities in a systematic way. Meanwhile, the longitudinal diary study was designed to get in contact with the participants’ day-to-day L2 use and their identities in environments where they are situated. Application of the two different approaches would enhance understanding of the dynamic issues of identity of the participants and their L2 English use. As in this investigation, the integration of different data sources distinguished by the use of different methods, time, place and person (Denzin 1989), in other words data triangulation,13 is a strategy used to enrich the understanding of the phenomenon under scrutiny (Flick 2009). In the next section, I will first describe what a diary study is about and the procedure of

13 Triangulation involves the use of multiple methods and sources of data generation. Dörnyei (2007: 61) points out that “if we come to the same conclusion about a phenomenon using a different data collection/analysis method or a different participants sample, the convergence offers strong validity evidence”, and it helps to reduce the effect of researcher bias in analysis and interpretation of the data. The present study comprised the two different methods: the diary observation and the questionnaire-based interviewing (triangulation of methods) with different participants (triangulation of data) in order to deal with research questions from different angles, and in a polygonal way (Mason 1996: 149).

62

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

the diary study of this investigation, followed by an explanation of the questionnaire-based interview study.

3.3.1 Diary study In this longitudinal diary study,14 I aimed to explore in-depth insights into the identities of the Japanese L2 English users based on their daily experiences and opportunities of English communication. I was interested in acknowledging how they perceived their own thoughts and feelings regarding their everyday English language use. The personal positions that L2 learners hold towards the L2 and culture, and their opportunities for interaction and their participation in different societal domains, are increasingly recognised as a significant force in language learning. As a prime data source for learners’ own perspective on their language learning experiences, diary studies have a particularly rich potential for translating this theoretical orientation into research methodology (Kasper 2000: 334–335). Diary observation as qualitative research A diary is defined as “a document created by an individual who has maintained a regular, personal and contemporaneous record” (Alaszewski 2006: 1). Diaries have been applied in a range of social science research on their own or in combination with other methods. In historical and biographical research, diaries provided important information for the developmental process of life histories, political history and social history. Ethnographic and naturalistic research has also used diaries as a source to gain an insight into other cultures and to explore the taken-for-granted aspects of social life. In experimental and survey research, diaries have often been used to grasp primary understanding of a person’s social reality from an emic perspective. Diaries distinguish themselves from other research methodology regarding the participant-directed feature; for example, the participants can decide the topic, the form of writing and timing of entries outside the researcher’s presence (Alaszewski 2006; Corti 1993). Therefore, there is less intervention from the researchers in diaries as data compared to other methods such as

14 The longitudinal research design that I have implemented in the diary observation can potentially enhance the validity of the conclusion drawn from the data because it can record various types of interactions that the participants have engaged in and any changes over time (Duff 2006 as cited in Dörnyei 2007: 62).

3.3 Methodological design

63

interviewing. Furthermore, according to Corti (1993) and Alaszewski (2006), such self-completion diaries can be advantageous in the following three aspects compared to other data collection methods. First, a diary is a good alternative source for interviewing for events that are easily forgotten and that are difficult to remember precisely. Second, it is suitable for collecting information about which may be too sensitive to consult face-to-face or which involves hard-to-reach groups or activities. Third, diaries can be a propitious source for participants’ behaviour and experiences on a day-to-day basis.15 The use of diaries in second language research with a social perspective In L2 research, a number of researchers have used a diary study as a method to investigate the process of L2 or FL learning. Among those, diary studies have investigated learner strategies and individual differences with introspective analysis of diaries written by the researcher themselves (e.g., Bailey 1980, 1983; Schumann and Schumann 1977), classroom experiences including teaching practice of teachers-to-be (e.g., Fukazawa and Nozawa 1995), immigrants’ (e.g., Norton Peirce 1993) and sojourners’ (e.g., Jackson 2008; Siegal 1996) views of L2 learning. In particular, diary studies are employed in L2 research from a social perspective (e.g., Jackson 2008; Norton Peirce 1993; Siegal 1996) For example, in a study of relationships between social identity and L2 learning of adult female immigrants in Canada, Norton Peirce (1993) employed a diary study as part of her longitudinal case studies. The diary study was used to explore the women’s language learning experience both inside and outside the classroom, such as what kinds of language contacts they have, living in Canada as an immigrant, and the extent to which the opportunities for interaction influence the learners’ sense of self. Similarly, Jackson (2008) used diaries as part of her ethnographical case studies of female Hong Kong university students’ border crossing experiences, viewed from a sociocultural perspective. The diary study was employed during the students’ five-week sojourn in the UK, for students to make their observations on each day’s activities, including inside and outside of the classroom, and to describe their feelings about their experiences. The present study was originally inspired by Norton Peirce’s (1993) diary study as she puts emphasis on the significance of a diary study that enables us to reflect on (1) the diarists’ language learning experience both in the classroom

15 However, diary observation as a data collection method is time-consuming in terms of both collecting and analysing data because the researcher needs to re-read the entries many times to find regular patterns. It also heavily relies on the willingness of the diarists to keep the diaries regularly and truthfully. Such issues can be drawbacks of applying diaries as a research method.

64

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

and outside the classroom including at their workplace and home and their social life, (2) their thoughts, feelings and perceptions concerning different situations of English language use with speakers of the language who have various linguacultural backgrounds, and (3) what kinds of interactional opportunities they have with different people in their daily lives. These aspects of a diary study guided the investigation of the present study. Design and format of the diary study This diary study was designed based on the guidelines recommended by Corti (1993) and Alaszewski (2006). There are three main recommended principles that are relevant to my study. The first is to provide a clear set of instructions on how to complete a diary entry, which should also stress the importance of recording events and activities as soon as possible after they occur. Accordingly, I created a sheet of instructions that clearly stated the purpose and objective of the diary study, how to keep diaries (e.g., procedure, frequency and format), and when to send a diary entry. As the main objective of the diary entries, the diarists were asked to keep note of occurrences, actions and events which were conducted in English and which surprised them or struck them as unusual, and to critically observe such incidents. In particular, they were asked to investigate any opportunity of interacting in English, and also to reflect critically on their interactional engagement with the interlocutors. The diarists were allowed to write a diary entry either in Japanese or in English, and code-switching was also allowed as they were encouraged to express themselves in the most comfortable manner possible. (See Appendix A for the guidelines for the diary study provided to the participants). Second, it is recommended that a model example of a satisfactory completed diary entry should be included in the instructional materials given to the participants. Accordingly, I created two diary entry samples: one written by me, and another adopted from interview data presented in Ishihara’s work (2006). Both examples were written in Japanese with small numbers of English words mixed in them. However, the instruction noted that the diarists have an option to write either in English or Japanese, as mentioned above. The third piece of advice advocates that researchers should provide strict guidelines on what to include and what not to include in an diary entry. I accordingly provided a what-to-include and what-not-to-include list in the diary entry template. In the what-to-include list, I reminded the participants again to include the time, the place, the event, who is involved, and the diarist’s feelings and thoughts on the matter being described. In the what-not-to-include list, I emphasised not to include a list of what they learned such as vocabulary, phrases or grammatical points.

3.3 Methodological design

65

Additionally, Corti (1993) suggests that a diary study in combination with another methodology such as follow-up interviewing can be one of the most unfailing practices for obtaining information that a researcher needs. Followup interviews enable us to clarify and enrich understanding of the data relating to the participants’ diary entries. Following Corti’s (1993) recommendation, the present diary study did not fully rely on the information gained from participants’ diary entries themselves but also depended on follow-up e-mail correspondence with each diarist. Follow-up e-mail correspondence rather than interviewing was chosen for several reasons. First, e-mail correspondence seemed more practical than conducting interviews with diarists each time they make diary entries. Second, e-mail correspondence enables the maintenance of recurrent message exchanges between the researcher and the researched. Regular e-mail correspondences can be beneficial not only for obtaining more profound information but also for encouraging participants’ motivation by providing feedback on their diary entries. These regular contacts with the participants help the researcher establish a good relationship with the participants too. In terms of the format, I chose an open free text format that allows participants to record events, activities and experiences in their own words, which affords ample opportunity to analyse the data qualitatively compared to a structured diary (Alaszewski 2006; Corti 1993). Data collection procedure First, the instruction pack (described in the previous section) was sent to each diarist by e-mail and they were asked to read through the instructions in their own time. At the same time, I set up an informal meeting with each diarist. At the meeting, I talked over the diary study instructions again to clarify all the important aspects, and the diarists had a chance to ask questions on anything they were unsure about. Where it was possible, face-to-face meetings were held in a café over tea. Where it was not possible, especially with diarists living in Japan, I arranged an Internet phone meeting. Their diary entries were made in a Microsoft Word file and the diarists were asked to send each of their diary entries via e-mail to me as an attachment. After I received a diary entry, I read through it several times in order to understand what was the important matter in the diary entry, and what issues could be delved into more by asking further questions in relation to my research questions. For most of these occasions, the participants were asked to clarify or expand on issues that had been raised in the diary entries. In those cases, I asked questions such as “Could you elaborate more on what you felt in this event?”, “Do you mean this in that . . . ?” and so forth. I made those further inquiries,

66

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

using the comment function of MS Word. The file with my questions was sent back to the original diarist by e-mail, and then the diarist responded to my questions. This email exchange procedure continued throughout the course of the diary study with each diarist. The diarists were asked to make a diary entry at least once a week. Some diarists kept the diary regularly, and others did less regularly for various reasons. When I did not receive an entry from a diarist for a while, I sent a mild reminder. However, unfortunately, as the diary study proceeded, the frequency of diary entries decreased. Originally, the study was planned to continue for six months, and I hoped to receive at least twenty diary entries from each diarist over this time. However, as mentioned earlier, the frequency of diary entries became so low that I asked some of the participants to continue diary keeping for slightly longer. At the end of the diary study, I eventually gathered 138 diary entries from 10 diarists over the period of eight months; however, I decided to exclude one diarist who provided only eight diary entries because of inefficacy compared to other diarists in the main study. Therefore, the data that were used for the further analysis were 130 diary entries from nine diarists, with the individual’s diary output ranging from 12 to 20 entries.

3.3.2 Questionnaire-based interviewing Questionnaire-based interviewing was conducted in order to approach the relationship between the participants’ pragmatic language use and their identities in a systematic way. This method involved administering three questionnaires (1. a background information survey, 2. an English elicitation task, and 3. a Japanese elicitation task) and a follow-up semi-structured interview with each participant. The language elicitation tasks (one in English and the other in Japanese) employed the form of a discourse completion test (DCT), where the participants were asked to fill in the form in the way they would respond orally to a particular communicative situation (e.g., requesting, complaining or refusing). Each scenario was carefully designed to elicit somewhat long responses to see how the speaker manipulates linguistic expressions depending on the situations. The scenarios were designed based on previous studies on cross-cultural pragmatics such as Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), Trosborg (1995) and Tanck (2004). In the present study, the participants were asked to respond to each scenario in both cases of when they would speak to a NNSE (either an East Asian or West European ELF speaker) and when they would speak to a British English speaker (i.e., NSE). The last part of the method, i.e., interviewing, was the principal method to gain a depth of insight into the link between speakers’ pragmatic

3.3 Methodological design

67

language use and their subjectivity and identity, and thus the participants’ responses on the three questionnaires were largely treated as the interview prompts. The design of this study was inspired by Ishihara’s (2006) work in which she explored the connection between L2 learners’ subjectivity and their L2 English use, in particular where she observed L2 learners’ resistance to pragmatic norms of American English. By applying multiple methods (role-play speech elicitation tasks and retrospective interviews), she emphasised that such systematic approaches can provide us with a deep insight into learners’ perspectives. Hence, a similar multimethod design, sequential questionnaire surveys followed by semistructured interviewing, was applied in the present study. Interviewing as a method of qualitative inquiry What are qualitative interviews? Rubin and Rubin (2005: 4) explain that: [q]ualitative interviews are conversations in which a researcher gently guides a conversational partner in an extended discussion. The researcher elicits depth and detail about the research topic by following up on answers given by the interviewee during the discussion.

Interviewing is a useful qualitative research method when we need to understand people’s experiences and reconstruct what has happened during events where we did not participate (Rubin and Rubin 2005: 3). Interviews can provide indirect representations of people’s experiences and an account of their views and perceptions rather than offering direct experiences or a fact of the event (Silverman 2006). A rich, profound and detailed description about a topic is sought in interviews. The relationship between an interviewer and interviewees is seen as collaborative in interviews (Miles and Huberman 1994). An interviewer is not merely a gatherer of information given by an interviewee, but they share the time and space through the process of interaction with an interviewee, and jointly seek and shape topics being discussed. An application of the interview method as a main tool of inquiry would be a benefit for exploring the complex issues of L2 English speakers’ identity and subjectivity behind their pragmatic language use. Material design and data collection procedure Questionnaire 1: Background information This questionnaire aimed to grasp the participants’ history of English language learning and use and the opportunities they have of English language use where they are situated. The question items included biographical information, educational background, second/foreign language learning background, language

68

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

contact, experience of living abroad, the extent of English usage, self-judgement on the various aspects of their own English language use, and the degrees of contentment in communicating in English. This questionnaire was given to the participants as soon as they had agreed to participate in the project, and they sent the file back to me by e-mail after completing it. The questionnaire helped me understand the person better ahead of the further investigation. Especially, queries about what kinds of opportunities they have in terms of use of English and the extent of English language use, and their comfort level of using English were found particularly useful at the time of interviewing. Questionnaire 2: English elicitation task As the second stage of the investigation, the participants were asked to complete an English elicitation task. This questionnaire (Appendix B) aimed to elicit the participants’ production of pragmatic language use in English in a particular circumstance. The written discourse completion test (DCT) was chosen as the format of this questionnaire. A DCT is a useful method to acknowledge a speaker’s pragmalinguistic knowledge and sociopragmatic knowledge when carefully designed (Kasper 2000). Hence, the DCT is extensively employed for various practical reasons16 in interlanguage pragmatics research to compare pragmatic language use by NSs and NNSs, and in cross-cultural pragmatics to compare linguistic behaviour of native speakers17 of two or more different languages. However, it is necessary to note the drawbacks of employing DCTs in linguistic research. First, any aspect of authentic conversation such as the turn-taking system, conversational organisation, conversational features of speech such as pauses, paralinguistic or nonverbal elements in communication (e.g., tone of voice and facial expressions) cannot be observed in a written questionnaire (Kasper 2000). Second, it is difficult to understand how much the written elicitation responses can represent what the respondents would actually say in spontaneous conversation.18 In spite of these

16 Practically speaking, it allows the researcher to collect the elicited data efficiently and relatively easily from a large number of respondents at one time. It also allows effective comparison of social and linguistic strategies cross-culturally. Besides, such strategies in one language by NSs and NNSs can be compared efficiently. Theoretically speaking, a researcher is able to control the contextual variables (e.g., speaker-hearer relationship, gender, social distance, etc.) of the elicitation scenario depending on what is being researched. 17 See Kraft and Geluykens (2007) for detailed definitions of cross-cultural, interlanguage, and intercultural pragmatics. 18 In order to overcome such shortcomings of application of written DCT, role-play or oral DCT have often been employed in cross-cultural research because it can overcome some limitations of the written elicited task, i.e., lack of elements of conversational interaction.

3.3 Methodological design

69

downsides, I relied on a written DCT because the importance of the present study was not on investigating how the participants actually would behave linguistically in more authentic conversation, but rather on exploring what the participants explain about their linguistic behaviour in a certain situation. The participants’ responses to all the questions were treated as the prompts for the follow-up interview to draw out their perspectives on the English language, its use, and their subjectivities and identities. The English elicitation task, Questionnaire 2, included nine speech act scenarios, each with a description of the situation and context in which the interaction takes place, followed by a blank space in which the respondents filled in one turn of a brief dialogue. Each scenario was designed to manipulate the response with the aim of eliciting a particular communicative act. I asked the participants to fill in what they would say orally in a certain speech act19 (Austin 1962; Searle 1969). As in the instruction, the questionnaire asked the participants to write down what they would convey orally in each given speech act situation in English, and at the same time the participant was free to opt out from articulating a speech act if they thought that they would not say anything in a particular situation. The length of their responses was not specified, meaning they could write as long or as short responses as they wished. The questionnaire included 18 columns in total to be filled in, which comprised nine realistic speech act scenarios, and each scenario designated the conversational counterparts in two kinds, one who is a British English speaker (i.e., NSE), and the other who is a NNSE (East Asian or West European). Therefore, there were 2 blanks to be filled in each scenario. One example is shown below in Table 3.2, which shows the Question Item 3A and 3B. In the example 3A, the interlocutor was specified as West European (as well as question items 5B, 6A, and 9B in the rest of the questionnaire); however, in half of the scenarios it was specified as East Asian (i.e., question items 1A, 2B, 4B, 7B, and 8A). These distinctions were formulated to observe how the participants’ pragmatic language use would vary depending on their conversational counterparts

However, employment of role-play DCT would be problematic in the present study because of the practicality of hiring conversational partners representing a different social status (e.g., professor, stranger, and friend) from different linguacultural background (e.g., British, East Asian, and West European), and how I would choose such representatives. It was more important to understand how each participant perceived each interlocutor with a different background and how their perception appeared to influence their identity as English users and their pragmatic language use. 19 Speech act refers to actions performed via utterances. For instances, people perform the act of requesting, apologising, complaining, etc. via use of a language.

70

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

Table 3.2: An Example of Question Item in Questionnaire 2. 3A. You are studying in a West European country. You missed a lecture yesterday because you went to see off one of your friends who was moving to a foreign country. In order to catch up with the lecture, you need to know what was covered in the last lecture. You will talk to one of the classmates (West European; the same gender as you) to borrow his/her lecture notes. You approach the classmate.

You:

3B. What would you say if you are a university student in Britain and the classmate is British? You approach the classmate.

You:

from different linguacultural backgrounds. Such issues as symbolic resources and power relations could influence the participants’ pragmatic language use depending on to whom they would speak. In this questionnaire, a British interlocutor was chosen as a representative of NSEs, and an East Asian and a West European were selected as a representative of NNSEs. The two variations of NNSEs were designed to investigate the effect of perceived cultural affinity with an interlocutor on their production of pragmatic language use. Speech act scenarios on the DCT Each scenario was designed carefully to fit both Japanese and English speaking environments, so that the situation could happen to anybody living in Japan or other parts of the world. The three types of speech act: request, complaint and refusal were chosen for the questionnaires because they are all highly facethreatening acts (Brown and Levinson 1987) in genuine social situations. Facethreatening acts carry a potential risk of losing face for both sides of interactions, i.e., a speaker and a hearer, which may lead communication into a possible failure (Brown and Levinson 1987). Therefore, a speaker needs to engage a hearer and have linguistic negotiation skills in order to reach a mutually satisfactory

3.3 Methodological design

71

resolution. Each DCT scenario involves a relatively high degree of imposition that is designed to elicit a longer response, but not too imposing to say anything. It makes it possible to elicit not only the head act (i.e., the main utterances of the speech act: requesting, complaining and refusing) but also other utterances including downgraders, upgraders, initiators, supportive moves and so forth. By bringing out longer responses, it enables us to uncover the extent to which a speaker negotiates in communication and find differences and similarities compared to responses from other sources. Moreover, each speech act (request, complaint and refusal) comprised three different scenarios where an interlocutor represented varying parameters of social power and social distance with regard to the speaker. First, the interlocutor (the receiving end of the conversation) has a superior or higher status and potentially socially distant relationship with the speaker, for example, professor and supervisor. Second, the interlocutor is equal in status and socially distant to the speaker, meaning a relative stranger including a neighbour and an office administrator. Third, the interlocutor has equal social status with the speaker, such as a friend and a classmate.20 All the nine scenarios were intended to sound as authentic as possible. The speech act request scenarios were designed to meet the following criteria: (1) the requestee has no obligation to comply with the requested act; (2) the requester has no right to oblige the requestee to abide by the request; 3) the requestive situation is not too difficult to take an action for the requester (Trosborg 1995: 219). The request scenarios used for the present study were (a) asking a neighbour’s permission to park a car near their premise, (b) asking to change the date for the scheduled meeting with a supervisor, and c) asking a classmate to borrow lecture notes. The complaint scenarios were cases in which some kind of potential offence was given to the complainer (Trosborg 1995). The person or the party who caused potential offence came in three different roles (professor, flatmate and stranger) in relation to the complainer. The scenarios were (a) complaining to a flatmate about noise at night, (b) complaining to a professor about an apparent mistake of term essay scoring, and (c) complaining to a neighbour about their dog’s barking late at night. The refusal scenarios involved refusing acts initiated by an interlocutor, including a request, an invitation and an offer (Tanck 2004). The scenarios were designed to be situations where a potential refusal may come across with slight difficulty. The actual scenarios chosen for this questionnaire

20 There is some degree of difference in social distance between friends (more intimate) and classmate (less intimate). However, the purpose of the present study does not focus on how varying degrees of social distance between communicators would influence their linguistic choices; thus “friends” and “classmates” were used in the same category.

72

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

were (a) refusing a request by an administrator to give a public speech, (b) refusing an invitation by a professor for a group dinner, and (c) refusing an offer by a friend of homemade cake at a gathering. Questionnaire 3: Japanese elicitation task This questionnaire (Questionnaire 3) was a Japanese translation version of Questionnaire 2, the English elicitation task.21 In all scenarios, conversations were to be carried out in Japan while conversing with a Japanese interlocutor in their L1 Japanese. Therefore, unlike Questionnaire 2, each scenario had only one blank to be filled in. The order of the scenarios in this questionnaire was randomised, and differed from that in Questionnaire 2. This Japanese questionnaire was sent to each participant after I received and confirmed their successfully completed Questionnaire 2. This was done so deliberately in order to avoid direct linguistic transfer from their dominant L1 Japanese to L2 English that may arise from repeating a similar task. Pre-interview preparation and a follow-up interviewing After receiving all of the successfully completed questionnaires, I analysed each participant’s responses on the questionnaires as a preparation for a follow-up interview session. Questionnaire 1 helped me understand the participant’s background and personal history in terms of English language use. I highlighted several aspects of their responses so that I could ask more about specific matters in detail during the interview session for better understanding of the person. Regarding Questionnaire 2 (English elicitation task), and Questionnaire 3 (Japanese elicitation task), I examined each response sequence in terms of the following three segments that comprise a speech act sequence: alerters, head act and supportive moves (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989). Alerters refer to “elements whose function is to alert the hearer’s attention to the ensuing speech act” (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989: 277) for example, excuse me and addressing the hearer by name or title, or both. Head act refers to “the minimal unit which realises a speech act; it is the core of the speech act sequence” (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989: 275) such as, in the case of a request, can I borrow your lecture notes? Supportive moves denote external segments to the head act occurring either before or after the head act (Blum-Kulka, House and

21 The Japanese translation was validated by a native speaker of Japanese and then by the participants of the pilot study.

3.3 Methodological design

73

Kasper 1989: 287). For instance, I’d like to ask you something . . . as preparatory to an upcoming head act; I missed the lecture last week because . . . as a reason, explanation and justification; and I will return it to you within an hour as a device to reduce the imposition on the hearer are all considered as supportive moves. The three segments of speech act helped me acknowledge differences and similarities within the participants’ responses in two kinds of English sequences (one addressing a NSE and the other addressing a NNSE) and Japanese sequences. In particular, the presence or absence of alerters, directness of the head act, and different kinds of supportive moves guided me to identify similarities and discrepancies between the sequences. When there were any discrepancies in the speech act sequences directed toward a NSE and a NNSE, I closely examined how they differed. Also, their English responses were compared with their Japanese responses in terms of the three segments described above. I took notes on all the similarities and differences in each scenario, and used them to guide the interview. During a follow-up interview, I wanted to hear the participant’s perspectives on their own responses to the questionnaires as well as on how they perceive themselves as an English language user. I sought to shed light on the relationship between their pragmatic language use and negotiation of multiple identities. The form of interview applied in the present study was a semistructured interview, which is also called a focused interview (Minichiello et al. 1995). With this form of interviews, a researcher has a broad topic that needs to be covered; however, there is no fixed wording or order of questions. Further interview topics were developed through the course of the interview. Needless to say, the focus of the topic and issues being discussed were essentially linked to the research questions of the present study; however, I as an interviewer was able to guide interviews with greater flexibility in this semi-structured interview format than in a structured interview (Minichiello et al. 1995). Each personal interview was conducted a few days after receiving the participant’s successfully completed questionnaires. All interviews were conducted in the participants’ L1, Japanese, so that they could feel more relaxed discussing their inner thoughts, beliefs, perceptions and experiences. Most of the interviews were carried out in a private, quiet room in a university setting. For some occasions when the interviewee did not have access to a university’s facility, interviewing took place in a cafe over tea. All interviews started and ended with ordinary conversation talking about life in general and smoothly moved up to the main topic of the interview. Engaging in small talk appeared to be beneficial for both parties (i.e., the interviewer and an interviewee) to feel relaxed. The participants seemed to have enjoyed asking me questions about my research and life in general in the UK. For myself, it proved worthy to build a

74

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

good interpersonal relationship with the participants. The interview sessions were in the range of 90 minutes to 150 minutes depending on how much an interviewee would have liked to talk. The average duration of the data itself (where it was related to the study, excluding ordinary conversation, at the beginning and the end part of each interview) was approximately 45 minutes. Topics in each interview session were mainly questions based on a participant’s responses to the three questionnaires. The interview topic started with clarifying the responses given as the background information, for example information about the number of their English-speaking friends, and about the kinds and the extent of opportunities for English use they had. Additionally, I delved into their responses on when they feel comfortable and uncomfortable communicating in English. After that, I asked three specific questions about their sense of self in relation to their bilingual (Japanese and English) characteristics. One was “Do you have an English-speaking self and Japanese-speaking self?” and/or “Do they differ from each other in any sense?” The second was “What does the English language mean to you?” And the last was “Is the English language part of you?” These questions arose as I continued to review literature during my data collection. Asking such questions helped me understand the person by connecting their responses on the above questions and responses regarding their reasons for their pragmatic language use. The third part of the inquiry in the interview was about issues related to their responses to the English and Japanese elicitation tasks (Questionnaires 2 and 3). They were asked to explain their intentions and reasons for their pragmatic language use. For this part of the interview, a printed set of their responses, both English and Japanese versions, were presented to them, so that they could review their own responses by themselves. Depending on the participant’ responses in each scenario on Questionnaire 2, the English elicitation task, they were asked to provide reasons for their pragmatic language use when there were any discrepancies in their responses between items A and B where an interlocutor’s background differed within the same scenario (e.g., item A: a NSE interlocutor; and item B: an East Asian or a West European English speaker). After a comparison of their English responses on items A and B, they were asked to compare them with their Japanese responses. Again, I asked them to provide reasons if there were marked similarities or differences in their responses in Japanese and English. Sometimes their comments reflected what they had said earlier during the interview regarding their background information and their sense of self. All the interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for the later analysis. The main focus of the analysis was on the data collected in the interviews in order to investigate identities of the Japanese L2 English users and how their negotiation of identities may be observed in their pragmatic language use in

3.4 Analytical framework and data organisation

75

English depending on their interlocutors’ linguacultural backgrounds. Now, I turn to an explanation of the analytical frameworks I employed in the present study.

3.4 Analytical framework and data organisation The two data sets (from questionnaire-based interviewing and the diary study) were organised and analysed following two approaches. One was by coding (i.e., cross-sectional data organisation) and the other was by conducting a case study (i.e., non-cross-sectional data organisation). Coding (or indexing and categorising) is a method and a process of organising and reducing the collected data to help researchers get a clear sense of the coverage and scope of the whole data. Also, it helps researchers maintain distance from an impressionistic view which limits the capacity for analysis (Mason 1996: 112–113). By organising the data through coding, it enables the researcher “to locate and retrieve issues, topics, information, examples and themes which do not appear in an orderly or sequential manner in the data” (Mason 1996: 113). Creating a coding scheme is about creating a consistent system for indexing the whole of the data set to support analysis, explanation, argument and theory building. In order to do so, researchers need to decide how to go about their analytical activity, and decide what is relevant and what is not, to develop their explanations and arguments. Codes that emerge from the data are applied systematically and consistently to a chunk of words, phrases, sentences or paragraphs of the data. The chunk of coded data can be treated as “unfinished resources” (Mason 1996: 115) that can be used for further analysis. This coding method helped answer the research questions where I aimed to find common phenomena across the data set. Another method for organising data is non-cross-sectional data organisation (Mason 1996) or a case study. Rather than looking at the data with “the same lens across the whole” (Mason 1996: 128), it guides a search for particular elements of the data where it is too complicated to be categorised by coding or it does not appear cross-sectionally. This method can be used in addition to the coding method, so that researchers can establish “explanations based on two alternative ways of ‘slicing’ the data set” (Mason 1996: 129). A case study within the data set is one example of non-cross-sectional data organisation, which “allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events” (Yin 1989 as cited in Mason 1996: 129). In order to identify principal aspects of particular and holistic elements of the data, the researcher should have a clear organising principle just as in the creation of coding categories such as coding within a case. It is common in qualitative research to use

76

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

both approaches by coding and non-cross-sectional data organisation concurrently to grasp the complexity of social process (Mason 1996). In the following section, I will describe how I organised the data, (including data preparation, developing a coding system, individual case studies and synthesising data) for the further analysis to develop discussion in each data set (questionnaire-based interviews and diary entries). The diary study was a longitudinal study; thus the data collection took longer than the questionnaire-based interviewing. Therefore, I started analysing the interview data, first. In what follows, I will explain the analysis procedures for the questionnaire-based interviews, followed by that of the diary study in the same order the analysis proceeded.

3.4.1 Analysis of questionnaire-based interviews I now explain how I carried out the analysis of the data from the questionnairebased interviewing. I will describe the analytical process in chronological order, explaining how I approached the analysis. After I conducted each interview session, the interview data were transcribed and stored separately for each participant along with their responses to the three questionnaires. Four interview sessions, which were picked randomly, were translated into English from the original Japanese for the purpose of checking the validity of my analysis. A bilingual colleague validated the translated interviews for accuracy and interpretation.22 As the first step to gain a grasp of the data as a whole picture, I created a summary sheet annotating the data in a Microsoft Excel file from the initial readings of the data. This summary sheet listed all the participants’ pseudonyms, their responses on the key questions (e.g., personal meaning of English and sense of self in two languages) and the presence or absence of description of key themes of the research (e.g., power relations, and feelings of cultural/ethnic affinity with an interlocutor). Also, it summarised their responses on the elicitation tasks. In the English responses, it showed whether they chose the same or different pragmatic language use when speaking to a British as opposed to an Asian/European speaker of English. This summary was cross-checked with the participants’ own explanations in the interview about their intentions and reasoning behind their pragmatic language use. There were often cases in which the participant chose different pragmatic language use between when addressing a NSE and a NNSE interlocutor, but without any intention or a specific reason. Also, there were some

22 This was conducted to ensure “the factual accuracy of the researcher’s account” (i.e., descriptive validity) (Maxwell 1992: 285)

3.4 Analytical framework and data organisation

77

cases in which they chose the same or very similar pragmatic language use toward both a NSE and a NNSE interlocutors, but the reasons behind their pragmatic strategies were significantly different depending on the interlocutors’ linguacultural backgrounds. When their responses on the elicitation task and their explanation in the interview were incongruent, I kept a record by following their accounts because the participants’ intention and reasoning for their linguistic choices was the most important factor for this investigation on identity. This summary sheet helped me grasp a sense of the data as a whole, and guided future data presentation. I then wrote each participant’s short individual profile while my memory was still fresh from each interview session. In this profile, I described briefly their educational background, their personality, their relationship with learning/using English and so forth. These individual profiles were later expanded to individual case studies during the course of data analysis. In order to obtain more insight regarding possible common features across participants’ cases, and to check if there is any consistency across the participants’ pragmatic language use (e.g., differences in their pragmatic language use between addressing British and Asian/European interlocutors) and their reasoning behind them, I created data units containing examples of a few participants’ pragmatic language use and the reasons behind them. After observing the data units comprising some participants’ data sets, I did not find any general consistency between pragmatic language use and the reasons behind them across the data. For example, two participants’ pragmatic language use looked similar (e.g., more direct force of utterances to a Briton and less direct to an Asian/European) but their respective reasons for doing so were noticeably different. After finding out there were no noticeable systematic links between pragmatic language use and the reasons behind them across the participants, I stopped this process of data organisation. Then, I decided to focus more on each participant’s explanations about their pragmatic language use and their life stories behind their reasoning. Also, by the time I had sorted my data, I realised there were no clear or distinctive group differences between participants who live in the UK and in Japan in terms of their pragmatic strategies and their reasoning underlying them. Through this process of data preparation, I gained clearer insight into the data and the study in terms of what is and what is not relevant. This data preparation and organisation was an important activity before I started to develop a coding scheme, which I will explain in the next section. Developing the coding scheme In order to discover appropriate codes for my study, the development of the coding scheme was a prolonged and cyclical process. Coding categories were

78

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

generated from the data in a fairly grounded way, but not entirely. Mason (1996: 120) notes that “(y)ou need to ensure that you are categorising in a way which will produce the right kinds of data slices or bags from your data set”, and this is achieved by creating “a mechanism for moving back and forth between your intellectual puzzle, your research questions, and your data, so that you develop your indexing categories through process of interaction” with the data. Accordingly, my coding schemes were also formulated to some extent from the conceptual framework and the research questions of my study. This was particularly so at the early stage of creating codes. The method to create initial codes begins with producing a provisional start list, which derives from the conceptual framework, the research questions and reading of interview data (Miles and Huberman 1994: 58). My provisional start list arose from the concepts related to my research questions, and then some ideas grounded in the data itself were added to the list, as by this stage I had already read the data on many occasions and had a general understanding of the data. The initial list included codes such as “reasons for pragmatic language use”, “symbolic resources”, “negative or positive effect of power relations”, “sense of sharing”, “sense of self”, and “categorisation as ‘others’” . With the start list, I carried out a trial run (Mason 1996) using a few interview transcripts. Once I began a trial coding, I started to discover the structure of coding categories was not as workable as it seemed. During this process, I also started to add additional codes, thus the coding scheme started to look even more disorganised and confusing for further coding procedure and retrieval of the data. Therefore, I reorganised the coding system in a way it would be more workable. The new coding system helped me add more codes that were taken from the data itself in a systematic and more workable way; thus it became more standardised and consistent for further application of the codes. The trial runs were attempted numerous times until I had constructed a near final list of coding categories, a definition of the codes, and an application instruction (Mason 1996); however, the coding categories remained open for small additions and minor alterations until the end of the coding process. During this process, I always had a list of codes, which could be altered when necessary, and the printed interview data. I began highlighting chunks of words, phrases, sentences or whole paragraphs, and applied a code to a relevant portion of the data (sometimes more than one code for the same piece of data) and wrote it in the left side margin. I particularly felt more comfortable working on paper rather than using MS Word Comment function (which I used for the final stage of coding) at this stage so that it was easier for me to compare between different individual’s interview transcripts and to see the coding categories were appropriate across the data. The final list of the coding categories

3.4 Analytical framework and data organisation

79

was divided in two sections. One section was used for the portion where interviewees talked about their pragmatic language use on the elicitation tasks and the related issues. The other section was for the other parts of the interview (often at the beginning and end of an interview). The final version of the coding scheme is shown in Appendix C. The aim of such a coding process was to aid further analysis. The phenomena I was interested in appeared to be complex issues and the analysis was an intricate process; thus the coding method assisted me to build an explanation of the phenomena being observed. After coding all the interview materials,23 I sorted the coded items by each code and put in the MS Excel file in order to view the narratives under the same code easily across cases. The highly relevant codes that came under the same theme of the investigation (e.g., “power relations” and “symbolic resources”) were listed in the same file for easy retrieval of the data and comparison. This facilitated understanding of the relationship between each code and interpretation of the phenomenon in depth. The themed categories were also cross-examined with the sorted data according to the same or similar codes of the diary study (see below) for data triangulation. Individual case studies (non-cross-sectional data organisation) As mentioned earlier, the analysis process was cyclical. By the time I came up with a tentative final version of the coding scheme, I had read the whole interview data numerous times with an analytical mindset. During the process, I appreciated that the coding approach would be helpful to establish an explanation of the topic being observed across the participants; however, I also realised that I would

23 In order to evaluate the reliability of my research, the following procedure was taken to determine the degree of inter-rater reliability. First, the second coder (intercoder) was asked to look through the coding scheme carefully and to understand it well. The opportunity to clarify the definitions of the codes was given. Second, the researcher and the intercoder had a trial session to code two diaries and check the intercoder was comfortable and confident to apply codes independently. After the intercoder independently coded, we compared the codes. The decision was either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ decision to the codes we both assigned. The researcher’s supervisor (Dr. Good, University of Essex, 2011) independently coded three interview transcripts with the coding scheme, and 86 percent agreement was reached. Reliability refers to “the degree of consistency with which instances are assigned to the same category by different observers or by the same observer on different occasions” (Silverman 2000: 188). In other words, reliability can be ensured by intercoder agreement (Creswell 2007; Dörnyei 2007; Silverman 2000), for instance, “the coding of interview transcripts by asking a second coder to code separately a sizable part of the transcript (either using the researcher’s coding template or generating the codes him/herself) and then reviewing the proportion of agreements and disagreements” (Dörnyei 2007: 57).

80

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

miss out each individual participant’s perceptions and identities that come from their respective unique lived experiences and personal histories. I then decided to write an individual case study for each participant (non-cross-sectional data organisation). The reading of individual interviews was guided by the tentative list of the codes discussed above. Even though the coding was not exhaustive, it helped me identify a deviant case, if any, and what was the most important and salient issue for each participant’s identity construction. Having identified certain sensemaking issues within each individual case, I wrote a small chapter of a profile on each individual. This process was again helpful for the final stage of coding and further analysis because I had to read each interview transcript closely. I obtained an even more extensive and systematic sense of the phenomena in my study, as well as uncovering what the more specific and particular aspects were for each individual in relation to L2-related identities. The shortened versions of each participant’s case study are presented in Chapter 7.

3.4.2 Analysis of the diary data When I completed the diary data collection, I had already started the process of analysis (coding) of the data from the questionnaire-based interviews. Therefore, the early stage of the analysis process (i.e., how to organise the data for further analysis) such as a development of coding scheme with a start list, a trial run of coding and finalising the coding scheme, informed the analysis of the diary data. As the data collection for the diary study proceeded, I kept a record of the diary entries in the MS Excel file by listing each diarist’s name and pseudonym and the date of each diary entry. After scrutinising the data by reading and rereading diary entries, I provisionally identified the main themes or subjects (sometimes more than one) in each diary entry. Most of the diary entries were the stories of one or two topics or themes; thus it made more sense to me to treat each diary entry as a chunk of data because their stories as a whole were something meaningful. The tentative title (themes and topics) on each diary entry was listed in a MS Excel sheet for future retrieval of the data. The main themes of narratives that were found included those such as “sense of self”, “sense of sharing”, “symbolic resources”, “power relations”, “investment” and “pragmatic language use”. Titling was informed by the list of the codes which had been already established for the data analysis of the questionnaire-based interviews, but it was not completely so because some of the themes were unique to the diary data. Assigning the provisional titles in each diary entry helped me find common or individually unique themes across the diarists, and develop a further systematic list of codes (see the coding scheme for the diary study in Appendix D) as well as individual case studies.

3.5 Summary

81

After coding all the diary entries,24 I sorted them by codes in order to interpret the phenomenon in depth. The diary entries sorted under the same codes were gathered together and examined closely to explore the phenomenon by synthesising different diary entries within the same category. The task of synthesising data was conducted by memoing and referring back to a hard copy of diary entries. The diary items with the same thematic codes as those of the questionnaire-base interviews were examined together for triangulation of the data too. Individual case studies (non-cross-sectional data organisation) Similar to the analysis process of the questionnaire-based interviews, after I finished identifying themes and subjects in each diary entry, I realised the salient elements and themes for identity construction that arose from each diarist differed individually. Thus, I wrote up a comprehensive case study on each diarist in order to fully understand narratives of each diarist. When establishing a case study, I looked for important themes (i.e., codes) influencing and negotiating their identities related to using and learning L2 English for each individual diarist. Moreover, I wanted to understand how they positioned themselves as an English user based on their day-to-day English use. This was a valuable practice because it facilitated the capture of the complexity of individual experiences and its link to their positioning and identity negotiation. Because this non-cross sectional data organisation, i.e., case study analysis, emerged as the most compelling stories of individual participant’s identity negotiation with respect to the English language, I decided to present each case study as stand alone findings in each findings chapter, along with the other findings derived from analysis by coding.

3.5 Summary This chapter detailed the methodological approach for the present study step-bystep, including the background of qualitative inquiry, the sampling strategies, the design of research methods, the data collection procedures and the manner of data organization and analysis. The process of data analysis was discussed in order to strengthen the trustworthiness and transparency of the study. The 24 For the evaluation of degree of reliability for the analysis of the diary data, I have asked one of my PhD colleagues, whose research was also qualitative research, to code ten complete diaries independently with the coding scheme I generated. The same procedure as explained in Note 23 was followed for this process. We arrived to establish 82 percent agreement on the codes on the diaries.

82

Chapter 3 Exploring ELF users’ identities and pragmatic language use

following chapters (Chapters 4 to 7) will discuss the findings achieved by the means of the data collection and analysis explained in the present chapter. Each chapter will include the findings and discussion that were achieved by crosssectional data organisation as well as findings that were arrived at through noncross sectional data organisation, i.e., each participant’s case study.

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self Chapters 4 to 7 present the findings and discussion. First, Chapter 4 reports the findings and discussion concerning Research Question 1: What identities do the Japanese L2 English users construct relating to the English language? The participants’ narratives reveal how the English language plays an important role in their past, current and future lives, and provides the opportunity to construct new identities. Also, several individuals’ narratives from the diary study are presented with respective short biographies to focus on how different diarists formed identities through their experiences of engaging in ELF interactions. The chapter examines the English language as a source of a symbolic capital and a site of identity construction, and considers the notion of the ownership of English from the participants’ point of view and an ELF perspective. From their experience of engaging in intercultural communication through ELF, the participants constructed new and alternative identities which they embraced. For these Japanese L2 English users, the English language became a language of their own.

4.1 Value of the English language This section describes the findings regarding what value the Japanese L2 English users identified in the English language and what English meant to them at the personal level. The participants’ narratives reveal their subjectivities on what value the English language has for them.

4.1.1 The English language for intercultural communication For those who have been learning and using English for an extended period, the language starts to bear significant meanings for their lives. The English language is not merely a foreign or second language for them to learn. The participants see the English language plays a significant role as a medium for communicating with other English speakers regardless of where they come from. English is a recognised international language or a World Lingua Franca in this modern world, not the language of a particular nation. One of the participants, Motoya, commented explicitly that the English language is detached from the language of Britain or America and the culture around those countries: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-004

84

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

Extract 4.1 It is more like a tool for me personally to speak to a variety of people than something about English culture. I think it is more robust than that. (Motoya interview)

Similar to Motoya’s perception, 11 out of 15 participants also stated that English is a tool for intercultural and international communication, and that is where the value of the English language lies. For instance, Hiromi stated: Extract 4.2 English is a tool for having communication with foreigners, and it is an attractive language. Through English I can speak to foreigners whose culture and religion are different from mine. (Hiromi interview)

The English language is not only a means for intercultural communication, but it provides opportunities for the participants to expand their horizons and worldviews. The interaction in English with people of varieties of background brings them ample opportunities to get connected to the global world. Extract 4.3 After all, English is really important as a tool for communication. If I could speak English [better], I would be able to exchange views with varieties of people, and be able to know many things. It opens up the world. Yeah, that’s it, English [does]. (Mutsumi interview)

The participants reflected on the importance of learning English and were aware of what opportunities are brought by their current and future ability to use English as a means for intercultural communication. Developing such ability allows more doors to open to access the wider world. This kind of awareness works as an incentive for learning, and they become even more enthusiastic about continuing their learning. Extract 4.4 English is, umm, up to now, up to high school, it was English for tests, but after coming to the university, there have been more opportunities to work by using English, and then, I started to feel that it is “a language” [not a school subject] and I have hoped to be able to use English. After all, it is a language used globally. Now I think that “studying English” does not mean that it ends at one point, but it needs to keep going. (Hitomi interview)

The participants most often affirmed the value of English when they talked about their actual engagement in lingua franca communications, especially with non-native speakers of English (NNSEs). They appreciated the fact that there is a common language they can use to communicate with others who do not share the same first language. English is a “convenient” language and they appreciated the significance of English as an international language. At the same time, through experiencing successful communications through ELF, they were

4.1 Value of the English language

85

able to positively identify themselves as English users. The following extract from Mio’s diary entry describes this aspect well. Mio travelled to Italy to see her friends after her study in the UK. During the trip, she had opportunities to communicate with many people through ELF. She recounted: Extract 4.5 [A]s a visitor in Italy, I really appreciated that many people spoke English and I could communicate in English. I do not think that Italian people or Japanese people in general must learn to speak English for their visitors[’] sake, and I believe it is important that any visitors in any country should respect the language of the country. But English is the language that people in the world speak, and I don’t know if prevalence of English is good or not, but it is at least useful for communications among different countries. (Mio Diary 14: 2009-10-6, Original in English)

The importance and the value of English are recognised as the fact that it is a language that many people around the globe speak, and is a means for intercultural communication. This bears personal meaning for the participants and is developed through their gradual exposure to interactions through ELF. For them, English and being able to speak English give them access to the globalised world. Thus, the process of learning and using English is not just about knowing another language and sociocultural aspects which may come with it, but rather, about being able to participate in the wider social world through the language (Phan 2009). Such access to participation in the English-speaking world is clearly seen as something symbolic, something in which the Japanese L2 English users invest their time and effort to gain. When they actually engage in ELF interactions, it strengthens the value of English they have already appreciated.

4.1.2 The English language as their own language For many of the participants who have learned the English language for their own personal development, they start to take ownership of the English language as their own. Umi expressed the meaning of “English is part of myself” as follows. Extract 4.6 Interviewer: Well, you said, you feel that [English is] part of your self. In what sense, do you feel it is part of yourself? Umi: Not my mother tongue, but, how do I put it, I feel it is close to my mother tongue. (Umi interview)

Umi appreciated this sense of English-speaking self only when she was outside Japan where English became the main medium of communication. The more they have opportunities to engage in intercultural communication through ELF,

86

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

the more they recognise the English language as an integral part of themselves, i.e., as their own language. Some of the participants lacked direct experiences in communicating in English, and thus were hoping to have more participation in the English-speaking world25 equipped with what they perceived as better competence. On the other hand, among those who got more exposure to using ELF for intercultural communication, many interviewees (seven out of 15) explicitly expressed that English had become an integral part of themselves. For example, Takeo expressed how English became a part of himself after coming to the UK to pursue his master’s degree in human rights. Extract 4.7 Well, when I was in Japan, I didn’t have any opportunities to speak in English, so I didn’t feel something like English is part of myself. But, after all, after coming here, there are lots of things to do in English, like communicating with people in English, thinking in English, and writing in English. That’s why I think English has become part of myself. (Takeo interview)

Takeo further revealed that English would continue to be part of himself after his study in the UK. Extract 4.8. I think [English] will be part of myself. Well, I’d love to keeping using [English]. Now I came here, and am studying a variety of things [through English]. (Takeo interview)

Like Takeo, other participants found that using English in everyday life during their study abroad certainly triggered acknowledgment of English as part of themselves. No matter where the participants are located, inside or outside Japan, once they acknowledge English as part of themselves, they believe that English will still be part of themselves in the future regardless of whether they use English for their study, hobby or work. The English language no longer denotes just a means for intercultural communication, but connotes substantial importance for each individual’s life and identity. Takako’s narrative, for instance, conveyed the matter noticeably. Extract 4.9 Takako: English is it? Oh, after all, probably I like it very much. Like, I watch movies, and try to read those books. It is not my mother tongue, but very, umm, I don’t know how to put it. Yes. But, it makes up much of my life.

25 English-speaking world/communities does not refer to countries where the first language is English, but refers to the world in which any speakers of English (regardless of being native or non-native speakers) participate.

4.1 Value of the English language

87

Interviewer: As a second language, in yourself? Takako: Yes. I don’t know how to describe what it is, but just a quick note to tell [you] that [English] plays a great part in me. (Takako interview)

Through use of English, the participants internalised English as their own language in their own right. English bore importance for their personal sense of self to the degree that life without English was unimaginable for them.26 Similarly, Tomomi told her story about why English was part of herself and how it influenced the process of her growing up during her late teens and early twenties. Extract 4.10 After graduating from high school, I have been living here [in the UK] for four years now. And the four years from the age of 19 to now 22, during these four years the English language has developed me as a person. Like, as my English improved, I’ve felt that I’ve grown up a bit. So, I think [English] is part of me. […] English is, umm, something that makes me mature. It is one of the tools for communication, but because of my ability of speaking English, I make more friends, and I can make friends who I couldn’t have done if I were speaking only Japanese in Japan. After all, I could make different types of friends. As my English has improved, it has expanded very much of the range of communication I have. So as my English improved, I have stepped up very much. Thus, I think that doing English means making myself mature. (Tomomi interview)

The value of the English language was even more meaningful for some of the participants’ lives, and they saw English as a companion for life. They appreciated what English brought to them and how it influenced their life as they were growing up as a young adult. Kaori, who also informed me that English immensely helped her with becoming who she is now, said; Extract 4.11 English is, ehh, ummm, right. It is a friend who has taught an attitude of mind as I have lived for 18 years up to now. (Kaori interview)

The significance of the English language is not only as a tool for intercultural communication and a gateway to the wider world of English speakers (Phan 2009), but also as something more personal to them, and many of the Japanese L2 English users considered English as part of themselves and a good friend or comrade with whom they grew up to become who they are and who they will

26 On the other hand, there were five participants who could not regard English as part of themselves. The obvious reason addressed by them was because of their self-perception of insufficient English proficiency. For instance, as Hiromi put it: “‘English is part of myself’ means that this person speaks English fluently and has a speaking ability to communicate in daily life without any trouble. So, I wish I could say that English is part of myself, ideally, but now I cannot say so”. (Hiromi interview)

88

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

be. They perceived that English gave them their own voice in their own right along with their L1 Japanese. Their views and belief about themselves (i.e., subjectivities) are profoundly related to the English language and intercultural communication. What we need to bear in mind is that my participants were not returnees or anybody who was born into a bilingual environment, but were like any regular students around us who are in the ELT profession. The way some language learners embrace a foreign language or second language to this level may need to be celebrated more in formal education.

4.2 Sense of English-speaking self Following from the previous section, I delve more deeply in this section into what the English language brought to the identity construction of the participants. Regardless of whether the participants considered English to be part of themselves or not, they seem to have constructed identities with respect to L2 English which were different from their identities related to their L1 Japanese.

4.2.1 Being the “real me” The findings show that the participants clearly bore a sense of themselves in the L2 English. They often enjoyed a different sense of self from that of Japanese. They were in favour of such an alternative sense of self that could give them a chance to be a different person when speaking English.27 Extract 4.12 Hitomi: I like it [speaking English] more compared to myself when speaking Japanese. Extract 4.13 Tae: My English speaking self is firmly an ideal self.

Moreover, Takako said that her English speaking self is comfortable. The sense of English-speaking self that many of my participants held appeared to be something positive. Tomomi’s narrative shows in what sense she liked her English-speaking self and how that was confirmed by an ELF speaker with whom she worked. She said,

27 Some participants expressed that their sense of self in English tends to be an “introverted” and “quiet” self because of their lack of fluency and inability to freely express their ideas in English.

4.2 Sense of English-speaking self

89

Extract 4.14 I think I’m a merrier person when I am speaking English. […] When I enrolled in an internship this summer in Japan, there was a Korean lady who can speak both Japanese and English very well. I had some opportunities to talk with her both in English and Japanese. At that time, she said to me “Tomomi is better when speaking in English. I can appreciate the real Tomomi when you are speaking in English.” And she also said “I can see when you are speaking in Japanese, you look like you behave in a certain way.” And so, I thought that is the case from another person’s point of view. I’m more cheerful, kind of. I thought I could be real me when it is “English me”. (Tomomi interview)

Tomomi herself recognised that her sense of English-speaking self (what she called “English me”) bore a somewhat more cheerful personality than her “Japanese me”. In this case, her subjectivity on sense of English-speaking self was even more reinforced by another person’s comment about her characteristics when speaking in English. Similar to Tomomi’s narrative, many other participants compared their English-speaking self and Japanese-speaking self, and revealed they preferred their sense of English-speaking self. They seemed to enjoy alternative identities when speaking English, which enabled them to convey ideas that they could not or should not express in Japanese. As speakers of Japanese, they are – or have to be – aware of how they need to behave linguistically and non-linguistically in a Japanese-speaking context. Extract 4.15 There is something like I have to behave politely when I speak Japanese. I feel more at ease speaking in English when I talk to somebody older. There aren’t things like a use of honorific languages [in English] and I just should speak politely at least. (Tomomi interview)

In Japanese-speaking contexts, speakers are required to use relevant language forms such as honorific expressions and the appropriate level of polite languages according to the situation and the interlocutors’ status. Such characteristics of Japanese linguaculture seemed to put some kind of constraint on the participants’ sense of self. They tended to feel that they ought to conform to the Japanese social norms in order to be considered proper in a Japanese context. For instance, Umi and Naofumi reported similar viewpoints as follows. Extract 4.16 Umi: [when speaking Japanese] I tend to feel that [expressing my opinion and feelings] is rude. So, I often become reserved.

90

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

Extract 4.17 Naofumi: In Japan, yeah, you are like you have to suppress your feelings. So, that appears in the Japanese language, right?

The participants sometimes felt that their Japanese-speaking self was confined by the rules of the society and restricted by an expected mannerism and a specific use of the language. They felt that such rules are restrictive for selfpresentation and self-expression. In contrast, they felt that the English-speaking self set them free from having to adhere to the taken-for-granted norms of Japanese linguaculture. They consequently got pleasure from this alternative identity in an English-speaking self, which could separate them from being a Japanese person. Hikari’s narrative in her diary noticeably depicted her Englishspeaking self as an alternative identity. The English language allowed Hikari the right to be an individual emancipated or liberated from Japaneseness. Extract 4.18 I [when speaking in English] can exercise my abilities more than ever. Me when speaking in English, I feel like I am out of the category of Japanese. By English, I can be an individual, a human being rather than a Japanese person. And I can say things straightforwardly, so it’s refreshing. Also, I can let my real self out […]. In Japan, nails sticking up are ready to be hammered, but outside Japan, I feel like I can go headlong without caring about such nonsense. (Hikari Diary 9: 2009-08-08)

Many participants seemed to have a sense of English-speaking self, which tended to represent an ideal self. This was often detached from being an “always-behave-appropriately” Japanese-speaking self, which is somewhat restrictive for expressing a real me because of the heavily hierarchically oriented Japanese society’s linguacultural norms.

4.2.2 Being outspoken The participants’ narratives also reveal that they perceived that the English language enabled them to express themselves, in other words their opinions and feelings, more explicitly. Similarly to the findings above, being able to be outspoken in English is contrasted with their Japanese-speaking self. For instance, Naofumi said in his interview that he has to conceal his feelings when speaking Japanese, but his English-speaking self is independent from such supressed feelings; thus he tends to speak straightforwardly in English. Extract 4.19 When speaking in English, your feelings get exposed because you become straightforward, right? The feeling? So, I was comfortable in Australia and in Malaysia, for

4.2 Sense of English-speaking self

91

example. The reason is, after all, there are few Japanese around me, and I can say things straightforwardly in English. It is a society where people wouldn’t understand you if you don’t speak straightforwardly. It’s like it’s not right if you don’t express yourself? So, it was comfortable to live, yeah, comfortable to spend time [in Australia]. (Naofumi interview)

Naofumi enjoyed his English-speaking self because he could be outspoken without worrying about others’ feelings too much like he would normally do in Japanese. He felt liberated when speaking English in non-Japanese communities. At the same time, speaking straightforwardly in English, as described in his narrative, derived from his perception of linguacultural aspect of English. He perceived that English speakers or NSEs often express themselves explicitly, and this perception about the English language was typically shared by other participants too. Six more interviewees also revealed that they bore a similar perception of English linguaculture. It seems that the participants accordingly constructed English-speaking selves as people who can express themselves more openly. Umi’s narrative also explicates, Extract 4.20 I realised that many people from English speaking countries tend to express their own feelings. And so, I feel I can say things [candidly] in English. (Umi interview)

Some participants revealed that such a perception of English linguaculture was developed through their English language education. For example, Takako explained that her perception of English was constructed through educational input, particularly, comments by NSE instructors at a private English conversation school. Extract 4.21 On occasions such as speaking to the instructors, or going out with them, well, they kept telling me that I have to express myself clearly, not like in a typical Japanese way of saying like “anything is fine”, that kind of things. I wouldn’t insist on my opinion in Japanese, but well, like when I speak English, well, when I’m with these people, although I do care about the other’s feelings, when I face them, it’s good to be explicit, like saying opinions such as “I like it” or “I don’t like it”. (Takako interview)

The participants’ perception of English linguaculture was often influenced by their encounters and experiences of having interactions with NSEs, as well as by their English language education and media influences such as watching Hollywood movies. Based on my own experience as a learner of English, I remember a number of EFL instructors (both Japanese local and NSE teachers) said to me “English is a

92

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

direct language”. This strong message did stick in my mind and was ingrained in my use of the English language for a long time before I became interested in pragmatics. I believe that many Japanese learners of English in all likelihood share this perception of the English language. Their lived experiences lead to how they come to perceive characteristics of the English language, and to hold somewhat fixed views of English linguaculture. The participants seem to have constructed English-speaking selves rooted in this learnt perception about how English should be spoken. Accordingly, they often presented an Englishspeaking self when speaking English. Regardless of whether their perception of English was always appropriate or not, they apparently developed another persona in English, which released them from the constraints of Japanese hierarchical social structure and language use according to their status in society. Thus, they took pleasure and benefit in exploring alternative identities when they are in English-speaking situations.

4.3 Becoming a multilingual subject: In the midst of different linguacultures As the Japanese L2 English users develop identities relating to the English language, it starts to influence their L1-related identities.28 As presented above, Tomomi and Kaori spoke about how learning English played an important role for them to mature as a person. In much the same way, their newly developed English-speaking self influenced their Japanese-speaking self. Kaori told her story about how her identity as an English speaker had changed the way she behaved in a Japanese-speaking environment. Extract 4.22 Kaori: […] I was told that my personality has changed when I went back to Japan. Interviewer: Oh, really? Kaori: Well, it was like “you used to speak more softly before”. @@@@ and I was like “did I?” Interviewer: So does it mean that your English-speaking-self has an influence on your Japanese-self? Kaori: Oh, it does more than a little. Yes. Japan. Before coming here, well, umm, polite honorific language use in Japanese requires us to use expressions and phrases

28 I have used the terms Japanese identities, L1 identities and Japanese self to refer to L1-based identities. It does not necessarily represent an objectively defined category, but denotes their subjectivities (e.g., moral views, perceptions, individual principles, and beliefs), which derive from their upbringing in the Japanese society.

4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1

93

concerning the other side too much, right? Well, I play the koto ‘a Japanese traditional musical instrument’. Interviewer: Un? Kaori: Koto Interviewer: Koto. Yes, Really? Wow. Kaori: Well, I’ve played it since I was a child. I was drilled into the use of honorific expressions [at the koto lessons]. So no matter what you feel, even though you know the topic, you don’t talk about it directly, but you approach it in a roundabout way, which is a rubbishy way of speaking. This habit has changed more or less after coming here [to the UK]. Well, it is sometimes necessary to speak euphemistically, well, occasionally. In different cases, I learnt that it was necessary to speak clearly and convincingly. I think it has affected my character formation [of me who grew up in Japan]. (Kaori interview)

While English became part of them, as well as while they developed identities as English speakers, their English-speaking selves merged into the first language-related identities too. As much as the participants enjoyed an identity as an L2 English speaker that separated them from their Japanese sense of selves, the sense of self in English did influence their Japanese selves too. The boundary between English-speaking self and Japanese-speaking self sometimes became fuzzier as the participants developed into a multilingual communicator.

4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1 This section provides individual stories of identity construction relating to the English language: how each diarist viewed the English language, and how their experiences in ELF encounters have affected the ways they positioned themselves. It includes a short biography and narratives from Mio, Musashi, Kazusa, and Hana, revealing the most salient and robust factors for construction and negotiation of their multiple identities relating to ELF communication, and how they saw and positioned themselves as English users in situated contexts.

4.4.1 Mio’s Story: From socialisation with an ESL context to appreciation of ELF Mio’s narratives tell a unique story about a dramatic change in her sense of self with respect to the English language from one context to another. She was an MA student majoring in human rights at a British university when the diary study started. She completed her first degree at an American university, and

94

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

lived there for five years before coming to the UK. Because she lived in the United States for a longer period, she was more comfortable with American English compared to British English. She said, Extract 4.23 I don’t know if it’s a fact, but British English and American English were very different for me. (Mio reflective essay: 2009-12-14)

She wrote two diary entries observing differences between American and British English. Although she was more accustomed to American English, she did not refuse to learn expressions that are specific to British English, but tried to learn something new and to accommodate to British English during her stay in the UK. The main aspect that influenced her identity negotiation relating to the English language seemed to stem from the differences in her lives in America and England. Her narratives tell about her life experiences in these communities and the sense of being or not being a member of the two different communities, which portrayed a comprehensive story about the changes in how she viewed herself in relation to the English language. Extract 4.24 Maybe, I simply prefer America, I think. For example, I have an intention to go back to America and live again, but I don’t think that I want to come back and live in the UK so much. If the UK is a “foreign country” for me, America is more like “my country”, which is close to the feelings toward Japan. At least, in America, I never got distressed about obvious pain of not being able to make myself understood, nor being unaccustomed. (I’m sure there were lots of worries, but I never blamed the environment or the language.) So, since I had been in America for the first time when I was a high school student, memorising and learning English meant more like increasing new knowledge rather than acquiring a new language. However, after coming to the UK, the feeling of being in a foreign country got stronger, and I started to regard English as my “foreign language”. And, since I came to the UK I have developed the sense of being extremely bad at English. Perhaps, English itself in the UK and the US do not differ as much as I think, but because I have different feelings and perceptions toward each country, I started to take English as the “second language”.29 Come to think of it, it’s a strange story, but I was influenced by differences in the environmental and cultural aspects of the UK and the US. Whether I felt a member of the society or not is a big deal. In the English Town of C, I felt like I was in a “box” called a university, and didn’t have the sense of living in the local town. People with whom I had contacts were only non-British students. They were not locals. In a sense, there was a barrier between me and Britain or British people. As I mentioned earlier, in the American Town of D, I often mingled with local people, and often had opportunities to come into contact with life

29 Mio does not differentiate “foreign language” and “second language”.

4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1

95

outside the university. I thought Town D was my second hometown, and I had people around me telling me so too. Although there were warm and friendly people in the UK, and I didn’t have anybody I disliked in particular, I couldn’t get accustomed. […] That’s probably because of the closed atmosphere of the British university, and because I couldn’t get familiarised with the English town of C itself. At the beginning, I wanted to accustom myself to Britain and the university, so I participated in various things, but I couldn’t relate to it very well in the end. (Mio reflective essay: 2009-12-14)

Her narrative explains that her relationship to the English language was greatly affected by her sense of being or not being a member of the respective communities. In America she had plenty of opportunities to mix with local students and local people who lived in the town around the university. She never felt that she was treated any differently as an outsider because she was an international student. She felt the community warmly welcomed her and what she did was only to immerse herself in this environment: Extract 4.25 When I was in America, there weren’t many international students around me. So, what I had to do was just to acquire English, and I did it very naturally without thinking too much. (Mio reflective essay: 2009-12-14)

Her life in America and learning of English reflect socialisation to the target community. Her life in general and English language learning in America was a situated process of socialisation. The newcomers to the community like Mio must be positively recognised as members, which means she needed access to other members of the community, information, resources, and opportunities for participation. She indeed had all the support from the community members and she was blissfully engaging in socialisation to this community by, in part, developing the English language skills. Her narrative reflects the process of newcomers becoming full/core members of the community by gaining competence and membership. Also, learning is about an experience of identity and the process of becoming a certain person as a member of a community. Based on this idea, Mio’s English language learning as part of participation to the community was central to her sense of English-speaking self in the US. In contrast, in England, she never felt that she was part of the immediate local community outside the university. As seen in Extract 4.24 she said, “In the English Town of C, I felt like I was in a ‘box’ called a university, and didn’t have the sense of living in the local town.” In this situation, a local community like the one she participated in the US did not exist, but there was a different kind of community. Her academic and social circles in the UK comprised mainly non-British students; there was a community of international students. In order to participate in this community, she needed to re-negotiate her identity in relation to the English

96

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

language. She was an apprentice user or learner of English in America where there were masters. Developing English language skill was a subconscious activity for her as she socialised into the community in the US. However, in the UK, she gradually lost that identity that she developed in America. Extract 4.26 I had been using English somehow without thinking anything. I was surprised when I realized I was just using English. On the positive note, I was using English naturally. I know I’m not particularly good at using English nor like a native speaker, but I never thought I was bad at English nor had any memory of struggling to use English. [Since I came to the UK] I had to study a more academically challenging subject in English, and my classmates and those with whom I shared the flat were nonnative English speakers. I could share the feelings of difficulty of using a foreign language with them. This let me have many opportunities to perceive English as a “second language” for me. (Mio reflective essay: 2009-12-14)

With unfamiliarity toward British linguaculture and a lack of contact with local people who could have welcomed her as a new comer to their community (as shown in Extract 4.24), she started to consider use of English more difficult. Realising English as her second language seem to have been caused by her sense of detachment from the British local community. She started to develop a different sense of self with respect to the English language in the new environment where other members of the community were almost exclusively NNSEs. On a positive note, she was able to share feelings toward English as a second language with her non-British friends and course mates. Even her friends whom she perceived as near-NSEs often expressed their difficulties in speaking in L2 English, and such events made her realise that English was a second language for her as well. Thus, realising English as her L2/foreign language was not entirely negative. It probably provided an affirmative influence on her to be able to share difficulties of being a second/foreign language speaker with her flatmates and classmates, recognising “shared non-nativeness” (Hülmbauer 2009). During her study in the UK, she had more opportunities to participate in ELF interaction, through which she developed an appreciation toward English as a means of intercultural communication between people who do not share a common language as their first language. The following extract depicts it well (see also Extract 4.5. for similar accounts). Extract 4.27 After I traveled to these countries, Czech and Italy, I saw many people studying English as the second or third language, as they feel that they need to be able to understand English. Unless they are native speakers of English, everyone has to study the language if they wish to speak. At least these people and me (or Japanese people) have the same goal, which is acquiring and developing an ability of understanding English.

4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1

97

It makes me glad. Also because of English I could speak to a person I met by chance in Italy, who is from a different country such as Czech Republic. […] I am glad and happy that I can communicate with the non-native speakers in English. I feel that I am lucky, because I don’t have to necessarily learn the language of the people to communicate. (Mio Diary 16: 2009-10-04, Original in English)

With increased exposure to ELF interaction at the British university and European cities, she developed an appreciation toward ELF. The experiences of engaging in successful ELF interactions endorse the status of English as a lingua franca itself as well as how L2 English users position themselves as an ELF user (Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey 2011). Mio’s sense of self in relation to the English language differed greatly according to the different circumstances she was under. Her narratives revealed her socialisation process as a new comer to the local community in the American context and extensive exposure to the ELF communication in Britain and Europe, which reflects a change of her sense of self with respect to the English language. ELF encounters provide a platform for new identity construction (Baker 2009; Iino and Murata 2016; Jenkins 2007; Sung 2014; Virkkula and Nikula 2010). Mio seems to have started to construct a new identity through various ELF encounters. However, unfortunately, the diary study came to an end just when she started to appreciate English as a lingua franca, so the trajectory of her new identity formation in relation to English is not known any further.

4.4.2 Musashi’s story: Idealisation of the West Musashi’s case study is about his investment in English language learning, which is related to his admiration for the West and NSE ability. The English language represented something Western and international for Musashi. He was the only male participant on the diary study, and was in the third year at university in the department of international studies at the time of the diary study. He had a great investment in making sure he got as many opportunities as possible to use English in Japan. Learning the English language and becoming a better user of English was his unfailing ambition for his better future. He did not voice any explicit thoughts about his motivation for learning English for a better career in the future; instead, it seemed that his motivation was rather intrinsic. He hoped to be somebody who could communicate with anybody from the world, making the best use of his ability. Prior to the diary study, he did not have experience of staying abroad; however, he reported having a wide range of English-speaking friends (100 plus) from all over the world. In the previous year when he was in the second year at university, he attended a competitive English medium of instruction (EMI) peace study programme held at his university. Most of the

98

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

Japanese attendees from his university were in the third year or above; therefore, attending the course in his second year indicates that he was a high achiever. During the diary study, he gained a chance to study in London for the first time in his life during the upcoming summer vacation. He was pleased about his luck because he only got the chance by means of an informal lottery and was looking forward to going to London.30 In many of his diary entries written pre- and mid-study abroad, he expressed his irritation about Japanese people’s communication behaviour, which he perceived as subtle, less verbal, and distant, but showed his admiration toward more “open” Western culture. In one diary entry he made an observation on how sociable American people are, as compared to Japanese people. Extract 4.28 There is not a barrier for communication with Americans, or I don’t see it much. […] I saw one of the [American] guys [who are the UN staff working in Hiroshima] at a bar in the city centre. He was looking at me like “I’ve seen you before.” Because I remembered him, I said “Hello” to him. The conversation started like “did we meet before?” and we had a pleasant chat for a while. In another occasion, an American priest and his wife, who are regular customers at [the café] which I work part time, spoke to me with a wonderful smile. Whenever our eyes meet, conversation starts straight away. If the other side was a Japanese, both sides would find it hard to talk, and I probably wouldn’t initiate talking. However, [with Americans] I can speak light-heartedly for some reason. I think it is because I don’t feel barrier to them. Why is it? I think it’s because, in particular, the first eye contact, and the greetings like “Hi!/Hello!” ease each other’s tension. Courteous Japanese means taking interpersonal distance to some extent. (Musashi Diary 5: 2009-07-28)

Similarly in Diary 2, he expressed his frustration with his Japanese customers at the café where he worked because of their lack of effort to communicate verbally with others. For example, when he called to a customer who ordered a cup of café-latte, most Japanese customers would not respond to the call verbally by saying something like “that’s mine”, but rather would turn their gaze on him or convey a certain nonverbal message to him. Some other Japanese just would take the drink without making eye contact or saying anything. He did not like it because it lacked personal communication between him and his customers. He explained why he felt like this, as follows.

30 The opportunity came up to him by winning an informal lottery when his supervisor’s personal correspondent in London offered a few places to students in a discounted English language course. The supervisor decided to give an equal opportunity to every applicant who was under his supervision. Musashi picked one of the right straws and got a place, which was going to be his first ever study abroad.

4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1

99

Extract 4.29 I sometimes have felt angry toward Japanese people like “enough is enough, Japanese people!” because of it [: not communicating verbally]. It’s ok about “culture of sensing” but I hope they behave accordingly. (Musashi Diary 2: 2009-06-18) Extract 4.30 I am a kind of person who wants to have communication with various people. Therefore, I often feel uncomfortable with the Japanese people’s character of exclusive interpersonal relationship. (Musashi Diary 5: 2009-07-28)

In contrast to his view toward Japanese customers’ mannerisms, he showed his favourable viewpoint toward those of foreigners, by whom he means Westerners. Extract 4.31 Foreign customers indicate their intentions positively like “Oh, it’s mine”, it’s easier for me and there are less mistakes made. It’s very clear. (Musashi Diary 5: 2009-07-28)

The following extract from Diary 3 presents an episode when he interviewed an international student who was currently studying at his university confirmed his disgust toward the communication style of many Japanese people. Extract 4.32 I was interviewing foreigners who live in Hiroshima for my class assignment. […] I interviewed an international student. She lives in a dorm, and she told me about communication with Japanese students. I have an image that foreigners are relatively sociable and whenever there is an opportunity, like when your eyes meet with theirs, they would start talking to you, they are as frank as that. But she says, “I don’t know whether I can join the group of Japanese.” and “It’s hard to join them”. […] International students are the minority group here and I can understand they become reserved. So I think the root of this problem lies with Japanese students. […] There should be some kind of communication between them. I just don’t understand it. (Musashi Diary 3: 2009-06-28)

Musashi’s case clearly depicts what internationalisation is generally perceived in Japan. Referring to Kelsky’s (2001) work on Japanese women looking for alternative identities that were in some ways Western, whom she called “internationalist women”, Block (2006) also discussed transnational identities of cosmopolitan Japanese women living in London. According to Kelsky (2001) and Block (2006), internationalism often involved idealisation of something Western, which was usually associated with English-speaking white people and rejection of Japanese culture. In both studies, it was discussed as a phenomenon and identity work among Japanese women seeking alternative feminism in internationalisation. However, it also seems to apply to Japanese males looking for international and transnational identities like Musashi. During his sojourn in London, he again expressed idealisation of something foreign, i.e., Western.

100

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

Extract 4.33 I always go out with a group of people on the weekends, but we are not always the same members. Somebody who I don’t know often comes and joins us. Like a friend’s friend. I haven’t experienced such expansion of group circles in Japan, so I get excited but got surprised at first. Knowing “Oh, this person is coming too.” on the spot is an everyday occurrence. The most surprising event was when my friend asked me saying, “Would you like to go out? There will be 4 more friends of mine.” This hardly happens in Japan, like going out with 4 new people even though I only know one person. I find it very attractive about foreigner’s characters of being good at expanding a circle of people. I wish Japanese would be as open as them. (Musashi Diary 7: 2009-08-27)

His transnational identity seemed to reflect a lesser degree of rejection of Japanese culture compared to the Japanese women living in London in Block’s (2006) study. It was rather he hoped that ordinary Japanese people would become more of an internationalist like him and Westerners (who like to communicate with other people). Rather than totally rejecting Japanese culture, he advocated making changes to “inappropriate Japanese behaviour”. Along with his admiration of such a quality of the Westerners, his perception toward a NSE as the standard for the English language learning was subtle but noticeable. His diary entries sometimes show his focus on his inability to understand others and his lack of vocabulary with reference to NSEs as the norm. The following diary entry depicts his rather fixed views on NSEs as the ultimate norm. Extract 4.34 I’ve been communicating every day with many English speakers with different accents who came from all over the world since I came to London. This is quite hard. There are so many people who speak with very heavy L1 accent, and they even don’t hesitate speaking like that. I started to get used to them to some extent now. […] I often wonder why they don’t try to improve their pronunciation. Do I care about pronunciation too much or don’t they care enough? I don’t know. (Musashi Diary 6: 2000-08-27)

He continued his diary entry as follows, but there appears a small change in his perception toward various accents. Extract 4.35 I’ve said to my classmate once “Because your English is so heavily accented, I cannot understand you from time to time”. But this guy responded laughing and said, “Hahaha, well, when I speak in my mother tongue, I pronounce like that, so I cannot help it”. I don’t think like “I don’t care about pronunciation any more” but I thought “oh, is that the way it is?” […] I never thought people should sound like a NSE, but I thought that’s what I wanted to sound like, well, I still do. But I realized I shouldn’t mind so much. (Musashi Diary 6: 2000-08-27)

As mentioned above, he had a large number of English-speaking friends all over the world, including from his participation in the EMI peace programme and one-month study abroad in London where English served as a lingua

4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1

101

franca. His perception toward NS English as the standard had been so strong and consistent that various ELF encounters had not affected his views on the English language very much. This may be explained by the notion that short or limited exposure to ELF encounters does not affect learners to shift their fixed views on the English language. Overall, it did not seem that his study abroad experience made as dramatic an impact on shifting his identity work as other studies (e.g., Jackson 2008) have reported. It may be due to the fact that, as he admits himself, he was an individual who was oblivious to issues coming from surrounding circumstances in relation to English use. Even now, he may still have fixed views on the English language linked to something Western that he admires. I wonder whether his views on Standard English would have changed drastically if he had stayed in London for a longer period or had undergone more exposure to ELF communication. Keeping this interest in mind, I now turn to the next case; Kazusa showed how she developed identity as an ELF user when she studied abroad and went through various intercultural experiences through ELF for a more extended period.

4.4.3 Kazusa’s story: Transition of identities as a learner to a user through ELF experience This case study of Kazusa epitomizes her trajectory of identity construction in relation to the English language. Specifically, we can observe her identity shift from that of an English language learner to an English language user pre- to mid-study abroad in France. The change of the study environment from Japan to France allowed her to experience extended intercultural communication through ELF first hand and gradually influenced her relationship with the English language. She was a third year university student majoring in Japanese economics and accounting when the diary study started. She voluntarily put herself forward to participate in the diary study when I recruited participants from a group of students who were to attend an intensive EMI peace studies seminar31

31 This course is the same EMI peace study programme that was mentioned in Musashi’s case study earlier in this chapter. Every year, the seminar draws together many undergraduate (and sometimes postgraduate) students from universities all over the world. About 25 Japanese students from the university were chosen to attend based on proficiency of English, application form, and recommendation by a supervisor of the students on the faculty. The course was designed to discuss issues about conflict and peace in the world. The course was seen as an opportunity for the local Japanese students to be able to immerse themselves in an English speaking environment.

102

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

in the coming summer. Among the Japanese participants that year, Kazusa’s English proficiency was among the best and she was a motivated student. Every year, prior to the peace studies seminar, the university organises an intensive English language preparatory course, and there she appeared to be a confident English user compared to her Japanese peers. During the preparatory course, she was comfortable speaking in English in front of her peers, and was happy to take on a role as a leader prompting a feedback session. When she did not get an immediate reply from the peers, she reacted as follows: Extract 4.36 I knew that few would initiate to speak out in English, so I thought, “that’s exactly what I thought.” (Kazusa Diary 3: 2009-06-07).

Following an instructor’s suggestion, Kazusa stated her own opinion first. She was capable of speaking her opinion in front of her peers without hesitation. She acknowledged her position as a better English speaker than her peers at her university. Nevertheless, her perception of her own English proficiency was relatively low. She was always worried that her English language ability was not good enough. She often expressed difficulty in choosing the most appropriate and “correct” vocabulary and in speaking fluently and spontaneously. She was aware that she could make herself understood among her Japanese peers, but not necessarily outside the classroom. Extract 4.37 I can make myself understood because it’s among Japanese students now, but I know that my English is certainly incorrect and is Japanese English. So, I’m worried about whether the participants from overseas would understand me during the actual peace programme seminar. (Kazusa Diary 2: 2009-06-06)

She saw the upcoming peace programme as a gathering of a community, where English speakers come and discuss academic issues, which differed from practising English in language classrooms. She was concerned that she needed to be a better English speaker in order to be accepted as a capable speaker of English by other non-Japanese participants, who were representatives of English speakers at large. She had a desire to be acknowledged as one of those members. Her desire to enter the wider world of English users was connected to her investment (Norton 2000, 2013) in learning English. She reflected on her own English use and on a perceived lack of competence with reference to English users outside the classroom, and thus a need to invest in further improving her proficiency to be a member of the imagined community of English users, i.e., the future peace study programme. Right after the peace programme started, she did face difficulty in fully participating in the community of English speakers. She talked about a

4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1

103

discussion session in which she could not contribute as much as she had hoped because she could not figure out how much and when she should speak out. Even though she faced such difficulties, she was still positive about her future participation and further investment in learning. She commented, “I’ll try harder from tomorrow” in the diary entry of the first day of the peace programme (Kazusa Diary 7: 2009-07-28). On the last day of the peace programme, she still faced difficulty expressing what she wanted to say in a discussion session; however, she volunteered to serve as a chair of the group, determined to be actively involved in it (see Extract 5.10 in Chapter 5). This diary entry shows that her investment in learning and participation in the community were significant. Whenever she encountered, for example, interactional opportunities with somebody who spoke better English than she did, she was empowered by the experience and wanted to invest more in her learning. Her investment in learning English was about investing in her ideal future L2 self (Dörnyei 2005, 2009). Her ideal L2 self represented her aspiration as a proficient L2 English user in order to be a full-fledged member of the imagined community of English users. Soon after the summer peace programme, she flew to France to study at a university as an exchange student. For the first half of the year after her arrival in France, she mainly studied the French language. Her diary entries often depicted that the English language played a role as a resource for students who were not proficient in French; in other words English functioned as a lingua franca among those students. In this environment in France, she was a learner of French and a user of English in the multicultural environment. She often had opportunities to communicate through ELF because non-French students around her were not good French speakers and preferred to speak English to her. In the following extract, Kazusa talked about an instance when she had a conversation in English with a non-native speaker of English in France. Extract 4.38 When I spoke to a girl in French who lives in the same flat, she responded in English. I thought she was French but actually is a Romanian (age: 20–25) who came to study at the X University with the Erasmus programme. […] I ended up speaking to her in a mixture of English and French. But I didn’t feel indebted to her particularly because I could make myself understood to her. It was also perhaps because she spoke English relatively slowly, and I could see that she was really listening to me and understood me. I could speak calmly because she listened to me with a smile. (Kazusa Diary 12: 2009-10-13)

Because of the fact that her interlocutor was a NNS of English and French, I was curious how that influenced what she felt. In response to my inquiry why she could speak to the Romanian student calmly, Kazusa explained as follows.

104

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

Extract 4. 39 That fact that she is not a native speaker of French didn’t matter, but the fact that she is not a NNSE affected me. Even though I speak incorrect English, she is the same in that sense, so I could speak without feeling nervous.

Another example is about a day in France when she met an American student through one of her friends. Extract 4.40 We’ve been speaking in French at first, but she cannot speak French very well either, so we spoke in English in the end. It was very easy to talk and the conversation grew lively. I was worried a bit where I could have made myself understood well, so I asked her whether it was ok or not, she responded and praised me “Not a problem at all. Especially pronunciation is good.” I was very happy. (Kazusa Diary 11: 2009-09-15)

Kazusa expressed her enjoyment of participating in conversation through ELF. It seems that she was no longer focusing on correctness of the forms but rather focused on successful communication on both occasions. At times, her narrative exhibits her concerns for linguistic correctness and her identity as an English learner appears, but not to the degree she showed pre-study abroad. To recap, during the preparatory English course and the peace study programme, she clearly positioned herself as a learner of English. She had a great investment in learning English and in a future ideal L2 self (Dörnyei 2005, 2009). For her ideal L2 self, in other words, to become a member of English speakers’ community, she thought she had to develop her L2 English competence. Thus, she was always concerned about the extent to which she needed to improve her proficiency, which in turn demonstrates her own positioning as a L2 English learner. On the other hand, after she moved to France, in the context where English served as a lingua franca among students, she was no longer a learner of English, but rather a user of English.32 When situated in this context, she no longer concerned herself about improving her English language skills in terms of lexical and grammatical correctness. Her view seemed to have changed to enjoyment of successful communication, and she probably gained a new outlook for new identity construction through ELF (Virkkula and Nikula 2010). Her identity as an unsuccessful or under-developed English learner seemed to have shifted to that of an English user in the situated context. On a final note to her case study, when she encountered an ELF environment in Japan through the two-week peace study programme, her narrative did not show an identity shift to becoming an L2 user. This could indicate that people

32 This is perhaps because her learner identity was shifted to being a learner of French.

4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1

105

might need to experience an extensive amount of successful intercultural communication through ELF in order for an identity as an ELF user to thrive. It is unfortunate that I could not follow Kazusa after she completed her study in France and went back to the Japanese university to observe whether her identity changed back to that of English learner again or kept prospering as an ELF user.

4.4.4 Hana’s story: Imagined community of ELF users in a business context Hana’s case study shows her negotiation of identity through her engagement in ELF communication in a business context in terms of pragmatic language use and participation in a virtual business community through ELF. Hana was in her late 20s and worked in an office of an international food trading company in Japan. She had been a keen English language learner especially throughout and after her undergraduate studies. She belonged to the English Speaking Society at university and had a regular meeting with a university English language instructor along with some other classmates once a week to practice English. During her undergraduate studies, she participated in a three-month English language-learning programme at a British university as a member of a group sent from her university. A year later, she went to an American university as an exchange student for 10 months, which she thoroughly enjoyed. It was thus natural for her to look for a job where she could employ her English language skills after graduating from university. When the diary study started she had already worked in the international food trading company for about five years. Her diary entries mainly depict her daily email exchanges in English used as a lingua franca and her occasional face-to-face ELF interactions with business associates from all over the world. Through her diary entries, we can witness her learning trajectory of the pragmatic aspects of language use through ELF in a business context. It involves her realisation of and resistance to others’ pragmatic language use, and her effort to create opportunities for a shared practice with others, indicating her participation in an imagined community (Anderson 2006, Kanno and Norton 2003) of business ELF users. In Extract 4.41, she showed her resistance to the message she received from an Italian business partner because it sounded too business-like. Extract 4.41 I received a reply from the Italian man (50s) with whom I exchange messages about twice a month. Normally, he would start a message with a greeting such as “Hello. How are you?” but [this time] he got down to business straight away, and wrote “Attached is the document you required”. I wondered why. Perhaps he was busy, but from the recipient’s point of view, it felt cold. Because I haven’t actually met him face-toface, I didn’t feel friendly toward him. (Hana’s Diary 7: 2009-07-23)

106

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

She felt uncomfortable after receiving such an unsociable message and perceived that she was not being acknowledged as a person with feelings. She continued to describe how she would normally respond to such an email. Extract 4.42 Before getting down to business, for example, when it’s after the weekend, and if there is something trivial to say like “How was your weekend? I hope you had a good weekend,” the message shows the writer’s personality, and I can feel a sense of closeness. When I receive such [friendly] messages, I tend to prioritise replying rather than waiting until later. (Hana’s Diary 7: 2009-07-23)

In the following diary entry she wrote about an occasion that she received a message from a different person. Contrary to the event described above in Diary 7, this writer included something interpersonal in the message, which made Hana appreciate again how important cordial email messages are, especially to reflect the writer’s personality. Extract 4.43 After the holiday, there were many emails from overseas in the inbox. Most of the messages were just about business matters or contained a simple greeting such as “Hope you are doing well”. However, the message from a man (40s) from New Zealand included questions like “How was Silver Week?” and news about his family. Although my work was busy after the holiday, I prioritised replying to him, dedicating much time. After all, I thought it is important that an email message should reflect the writer’s personality. (Hana’s Diary 10: 2009-09-24)

She confessed in one of the diary entries that she herself sometimes wrote messages without adding interpersonal feelings to them due to her busy schedule. However, through the experiences described in her diary entries above, she had a chance to reflect herself, and this resulted in changing her own writing habits to build better relationships with the recipients of her messages, which consequently had a positive influence on her identity. Even though it was her job to exchange emails for business matters, she became resistant to receiving a message that sounded too mechanical, in which she felt that she was not acknowledged or recognised as a person, which is a fundamental aspect for construction of identity (West 1992: 21). She eventually felt resistant toward her own and others’ existing email writing practices that solely exchanged business information. Alternatively, when a writer showed their personhood in the message, Hana was grateful and felt acknowledged, then invested more effort in replying to the message for the sake of a smooth business transaction as well as for better interpersonal relationship. Investment in one’s L2 is an investment in a learner’s own identity and future self (Norton 2000). Hana’s negotiation of her

4.4 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 1

107

identity as an ELF user was characterised by her resistance and investment in pragmatic language use in a business context. About a month later, she wrote in a diary entry: Extract 4.44 I heard from a Thai lady for the first time in a while. [When she came to Japan,] I have showed her around Kyoto, so I have a rather close business relationship with her. But recently, I have only been sending bureaucratic-sounding messages. Many of her responses have seldom come from herself but from her assistants, and the messages were CCed to her. [Today,] after so long, I sent her a message that included some seasonal greetings like Japanese scarlet-tinged leaves, and wrote about the restaurant we went to together before. Then, she herself replied to me right away. Our relationship had been fading recently, but I felt a sense of closeness with her again after this small talk. She also became more supportive in terms of business transactions. After all, I recognised again that interpersonal relationships get better or worse with the presence or absence of a little [sociable] conversation. (Hana’s Diary 12: 2009-11-13)

Her diary entries depicted that she was learning and using the pragmatic aspects of language use in an ELF business context through email exchanges. In particular, she was becoming aware of the significance of pragmatic language use in order to build better interpersonal relationships with the recipients of her emails. Hana’s stories tell us about her learning trajectory of ELF use through everyday business email exchanges and her participation in an imagined community (Anderson 2006, Kanno and Norton 2003). There was no physically present community that Hana had access to, but there was a virtual and global community that was connected by business email exchanges. As in communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991), people in virtual communities can mutually engage in a process of learning by sharing information and experiences. In other words, members of the community learn from each other by co-constructing knowledge. Subsequently, members “develop a shared repertoire of resources”: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems, in short, a shared practice (Wenger 2006: Introduction section). Through her participation in the virtual community, Hana recognised the importance of email messages that facilitate meaningful interpersonal relationships, in particular for her improved self-identification, and brought the practice into negotiation with the other members (Extracts 4.41, 4.42 and 4.43). Hana engaged other members in the action of exchanging business emails as well as building better relationships (Extract 4.44). In turn, the people with whom she exchange emails responded positively to Hana’s practice, and they seemed to be co-constructing and re-developing the shared practice of business email exchange for rapport building. Those practices can

108

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

be seen as a resource in creating a group and as an indicator of belonging to a group (Kalocsai 2014). Hana’s narrative demonstrated her active participation in the imagined community of global business ELF users while learning and negotiating practices of pragmatic language use. She learned how to utilise her available linguistic resources to achieve what she hoped for, and thus empowered herself even more to act as an ELF user (Iino and Murata 2016).

4.5 Discussion and conclusion 4.5.1 Symbolic capital of the English language The participants’ narratives reveal that the English language has played distinct roles in their past, current and future lives. On the surface, the value of English seems to be just as a medium for intercultural communication. However, further investigation of the participants’ narratives tells us that English has more important meanings for them and their identity formation. First of all, the English language is seen as a gateway to participation in a global community of Englishspeakers (Phan 2008). In this sense, the English language is not tied to fixed nations, which represents shared ownership of English (Jones 2006, Phan 2009) or ELF. By providing access to a global community, the capability to communicate in English is seen as symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1977). Some of the participants were enjoying participation in this community, and others showed a strong desire to participate fully in the community in their own right. They often assumed the necessity of developing proficiency in order to participate fully in a global community of English users, and thus invested further in learning. Learning a language means that an individual acquires symbolic value in relation to the multilingual expression of self and thus develops new resources for identity performance and development (Borghetti 2019: 32). This explains the participants’ history of investment in language learning and their desire to use the language with perceived competencies. Learners invest in learning a language, appreciating that they will gain a wider range of symbolic resources that comes with it (Norton 2000). The more they invest in learning, the more they develop capability. The more they become capable, the more access they have to the global community of English speakers. In other words, the more they invest in learning, the more they gain the symbolic capital that the English language represents. As they gain symbolic capital, it will consequently increase the value of their own sociocultural capital and social power (Darvin and Norton 2015: 37), and accordingly endorse their identities positively (Norton 1995, 2000). As my participants invested more in learning the English language, they were in the process of

4.5 Discussion and conclusion

109

approximating themselves to an ideal L2 self (Dörnyei 2005, 2009). Their ideal L2 self was as a competent L2 English user who participates in a global community of English users.

4.5.2 The English language as a means of self-representation The findings show how the participants constructed identities with respect to English as part of their multiple identities, and how they explored new identity options in a new language. The English language afforded the Japanese L2 English users a platform to construct new identities; it played a role in each participants’ subjectivities or sense of self, to a lesser extent for some and a greater extent for others. Many participants voiced that they have Englishspeaking selves that are separated from their Japanese-speaking selves. They told of a Japanese-speaking self that is constrained by the Japanese social and cultural rules, and thus they did not feel that they could be an individual who expressed their real feelings. On the other hand, when speaking English, their English-speaking self set them free from cultural constraints of Japanese society (cf. Block 2006). The participants enjoyed such a sense of an Englishspeaking self and were in favour of it for various reasons, such as to be an “individual” or “real me”, as opposed to a Japanese person that represents collectivism. They often expressed they could be outspoken and frank when they were in their English-speaking selves. Not surprisingly though, such a sense of English-speaking selves was triggered by their rather fixed perception of English linguaculture. All things considered, an English-speaking environment became a place where they could use English as a “unique means of self-representation” (Pavlenko 2002: 285; Block 2006). The participants seem to have constructed a unique identity with respect to the English language. The English language, in this sense, became their own language for their own self-representation, and they rightfully claimed ownership of English (Norton 2000).

4.5.3 Taking ownership of English through ELF encounters ELF serves a prominent role for L2 English users to take ownership of English through real life experience in intercultural communication (Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey 2011). In other words, experiences in various ELF encounters facilitate them to recognise themselves as legitimate ELF users and take ownership of English or

110

Chapter 4 Narratives on a sense of English-speaking self

ELF. The English language is for people who speak it, even if they do not speak it well, as long as they use it for authentic communicative purposes (Norton 1997). This also serves as a very accurate interpretation of the ownership of English from an ELF perspective (cf. Seidlhofer 2011; Widdowson 2003, 2008), which contests the traditional view of “the ownership of English” that embodies only NSEs. The diarists’ narratives demonstrated that the more they were exposed to ELF interactional opportunities, the better their chances of constructing new identities with respect to English. For instance, Mio struggled to adjust to a new Englishspeaking environment in the UK after moving from the US, which consequently changed her relationship with the English language. However, after she experienced various ELF communications in the UK and Europe, she seemed to have constructed a new identity as an ELF user appreciating English as a means for intercultural communication. Kazusa’s complex relationship with English in the Japanese context (i.e., as a confident learner among her peers, but showing insecurity in terms of perceived proficiency) represents her learner identity. This learner identity, during her study abroad in France, shifted to celebration of successful ELF communication through experiencing ELF interactions. ELF users’ identities tend to flourish as they are exposed to intercultural encounters through ELF. Similar phenomenon is reported in such studies as Virkkula and Nikula’s (2010) research on Finish students in Germany and Phan’s (2009) on Asian international students in Thailand. L2 English learners often get rid of their fear of making mistakes or deviating from Standard English and gain a new mindset for identitybuilding through ELF encounters, which subsequently enables the participants to construct new identities as ELF users, rather than as unsuccessful learners of English (Virkkula and Nikula 2010: 268–270). As found in the present study, L2 English users go through various processes in order to take ownership of English (Phan 2009). My participants seemed to have constructed multiple positions with respect to the English language at different space and time; in other words, they identified themselves with English in diverse ways (Phan 2009). Many of them had a sense of an English-speaking self that released them from linguacultural constraint of the Japanese hierarchal society, or at least they enjoyed being outspoken when using English. This sense of L2 self within themselves represents them taking ownership of English in one sense. Also, an extended exposure to ELF communication led to its users taking ownership of English. The experiences of engaging in successful ELF interactions endorsed the status of English as a lingua franca itself as well as how the participants positioned themselves as ELF users. They tended to grow in confidence by communicating mutually intelligibly (Murata, Iino, Konakahara and Toyoshima 2017); thus their

4.5 Discussion and conclusion

111

identity often shifted from that of a learner to that of a user through exposure to ELF. This is not to say that ELF encounters eliminate their identity as a learner, but rather that they gained a new platform where they could build and negotiate multiple identities. In sum, through exposure to fruitful intercultural communication through ELF, ELF users’ identities can thrive while building a sense of global citizenship and an appreciation of their identities as multilingual/multicultural people (Kalocsai 2014; Nogami 2011; Phan 2009; Virkkula and Nikula 2010).

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication There are power relations that the Japanese L2 English users construct through their engagement in ELF interactions. The constructed power relations can be equal and unequal ones, and they can impact the Japanese L2 English users’ identities both positively and negatively. Chapter 5 presents the findings and discussion regarding the second research question: How do power relations emerge in ELF communication and influence the Japanese L2 English users’ identities?

5.1 We are all in the same boat: A sense of sharing and collaboration among ELF users This section presents the findings related to the manner in which the participants understand equal power relations among ELF speakers. Many participants voiced their awareness of assets which they shared with non-native speakers of English (NNSE) among ELF speakers. For instance, Mio mentioned her realisation about what she shared with other non-British students during her study at a British university. Extract 5.1 My classmates and people who I shared the flat with mostly did not have English as their mother tongue, and thus I could share sympathy about the pain of using a foreign language with them. (Mio Reflective essay: 2009-12-14)

Naofumi stated likewise, Extract 5.2 Among those who are not native speakers, we understand each other’s feelings of not being able to understand English after all. Well, even though we speak absurd English, we understand what we mean, right? (Naofumi interview)

The above narratives demonstrates that NNSEs can understand and sympathise with one another in terms of difficulties of learning and using a L2, which creates a sense of sharing among NNSEs. Also, as described by Naofumi, many appreciated that NNSEs can achieve mutual understanding even though their use of English diverge from Standard English. Furthermore, the participants’ narratives show that they identify a sense of collaboration in NNSE-NNSE interactions in https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-005

5.1 We are all in the same boat: A sense of sharing and collaboration

113

order to accomplish shared understanding. For example, Tae (Extract 5.3.) and Fuyuka (Extract 5.4.) explained, in their respective interviews, the collaborative characteristics of NNSE conversation (which Fuyuka refers to as “in the case of international friends”). Extract 5.3 Tae: When I talk about something casual, I tend to feel more comfortable with nonnative speakers than with native speakers. Our conversation, well, because we don’t know one another’s background so much, the conversation wouldn’t expand too much. Or it wouldn’t go like I don’t expect it to go at all. Interviewer: Can you control it by yourself when you speak with a peer non-native speaker? Tae: Yeah. And, they would ask me and I would ask them. Also, the speed is not so fast that there is time I can catch up. (Tae interview) Extract 5.4 Well, in the case of international friends, in most cases, the conversation goes as we help one another, so I’m fine. (Fuyuka interview)

Both accounts indicate that ELF speakers are often aware that NNSEs help each other co-construct their conversations, in other words a collaborative nature of communication among NNSEs. There seems to be a shared perception that NNSEs collaborate with each other in order to achieve successful communication, and also some are aware that their shared linguistic repertoire in ELF may diverges from Standard English. Many earlier studies on ELF linguistic practices have reported how ELF speakers work collaboratively during on-going interaction to achieve mutual understanding, using various strategies such as co-construction of idiomatic expressions (Mauranen 2006; Pitzl 2009), paraphrasing (Cogo 2009; Cogo and Dewy 2006; Kaur 2009) and repetitions (Cogo 2009). The findings of the current study presented here demonstrate that ELF speakers have become aware of such linguistic practices among ELF speakers and appreciate the collaborative nature of ELF interactions through their experiences. The sense of sharing and collaboration among NNSEs resonates with what Hülmbauer (2009) calls “shared non-nativeness”, denoting the assets shared by NNSEs, such as a shared NNSE status, shared difficulties and effort of using/ learning a L2, and shared language learning history. Benefitting from shared non-nativeness, the sense of sharing among NNSEs seems to facilitate their comfort and emotional security during ELF interactions. The participants (four diarists and seven interviewees) often expressed that they felt more comfortable while speaking to NNSEs. In what follows, some diary entries are shown depicting how shared non-nativeness created a sense of sharing that led to building emotional security and confidence when experiencing day-to-day ELF interactional opportunities. In the following diary entry, Miyu talked about a chat she

114

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

had in English with an international politics professor (a NNSE of Southeast Asian background) in the department where she has been studying and working. She mentioned it was comfortable to talk with the professor because of the fact that he is a NNSE, and she explained further about the issue as follows. Extract 5.5 If the interlocutor is not a native speaker, one another’s English is not perfect, and I don’t feel embarrassed even though I make mistakes to some extent. Also, non-native speaker’s talk is not so fast, it is easy to listen to and I can speak slowly. With those thoughts, I have a relaxed feeling and it helps me talk comfortably. (Miyu Diary 4: 2009-07-05)

Her narrative describes how the sense of sharing with other NNSEs affected the degree of comfort she felt, and how it might have affected her performance in English interaction. Similarly, in the next episode, Isuzu discussed how she felt about her chat with a Taiwanese friend whom she ran into on a bus. Extract 5.6 Among non-native English speakers, I thought it is easier to speak to them compared to speaking to a NS. When I speak to a NS, I’m more cautious about my grammatical mistakes and so on compared to when speaking to a NNS. I think I feel most at ease when the conversational partner’s English [proficiency] is similar to mine. (Isuzu Diary 9: 2009-08-21)

Because she did not have to worry about her English language ability, she felt more relaxed in interacting with NNSEs. Almost identical to Isuzu’s account, another of Miyu’s diary entries, below, revealed that she was feeling relaxed while interacting with NNSEs. In this diary, she recorded her trip to Hong Kong to meet two of her friends (one Taiwanese and one Korean) from her time abroad in Hawaii. Extract 5.7 After 4 years, I met a Taiwanese friend (Emily) and a Korean friend (Susie) in Hong Kong …. […] After all, it does not take time to open up to friends; I thought I could speak to them without feeling stressed because English is the L2 to all of us. When the conversation partner is an NSE, I worry about my vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammatical mistakes. However, when it is among people who speak English as the L2, I don’t have to worry about making mistakes. I know I can speak light-heartedly. (Miyu Diary 10: 2009-12-17)

Miyu described how her level of comfort differed when she interacted with NNSEs as opposed to NSEs. She explained the reason in the same way Isuzu did. Sharing the same status as a NNSE or L2 English speaker with the interlocutor gave her reassurance, and thus she was not anxious about making linguistic mistakes in front of them. Miyu could see that she stood on an equal platform with

5.1 We are all in the same boat: A sense of sharing and collaboration

115

other L2 English speakers; the power relation was more equal with NNSEs as compared to when speaking to NSEs.33 Kazusa similarly reported her experience of having an English conversation with a NNSE in France, and she analysed that her feeling of calmness during the interaction was due to the fact that her interlocutor was a NNSE and thus she did not have to worry about “correctness” of her talk (see Extract 4.27 and 4.28 in Chapter 4). Lastly, Isuzu noted how she embraced the fact that she is a NNSE herself when speaking to a peer NNSE. Extract 5.8 I once again realised that it is wonderful thing to be able to communicate with people from other countries (whose English is their second language). When I speak to a native speaker, it is somewhat unequal because I as a non-native speaker have to speak in order to adjust to the person’s first language. When my vocabulary is limited or I cannot speak with correct grammar, I feel that I am inferior to the native speaker. But, when English is the second language for the communication partner, we speak in each other’s second language, I feel equal. I don’t worry much about my incorrect English. Or when I cannot understand what the other side says, I don’t have to think like it is my fault. I feel more comfortable compared to speaking to a native speaker, so I can interact in a closer sense to me speaking Japanese. Also, if the other side’s English is good, there are many things I can learn such as the way to talk, pronunciation, etc. (Isuzu Reflective essay: 2009-12-16)

Isuzu seems to be empowered by being in an equal position with peer NNSEs when interacting with them. She feels more of herself when interacting with NNSEs as she can recognise herself as a legitimate English speaker rather than a somewhat insufficient NNSE. The participants’ narratives addressed the sense of sharing among NNSEs and collaborative features of NNSE interactions. The participants showed their acknowledgement of peer NNSEs who help each other during conversations to achieve successful communication, and appreciated shared experience of the obstacles of learning and using a second language. The sense of sharing is constructed through participants’ lived experiences and described based on their day-to-day engagement in English interactions. It appears that the sense of sharing is neither a pre-conceptualised notion that the Japanese L2 English users hold nor a pre-determined variable. My participants saw that NNSEs are all on the same ground in the English-speaking world; the sense of sharing depicts an equal power relation among peer NNSEs. Such a sense of sharing bestowed on the Japanese L2 English users a positive psychological effect, including comfort

33 Both Isuzu and Miyu expressed that their respective interlocutors’ cultural and ethnic background (i.e., East Asian), which they regarded that they shared, also influenced how they felt. This issue will be discussed in depth in the next chapter.

116

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

and feelings of security, when engaged in English interactions especially among NNSEs. They could express their true self during interactions with others of equal power relations. Because of the sense of sharing among NNSEs, it seemed that the Japanese L2 English users were able to identify themselves positively and appreciated the sense of sharing that empowered them as legitimate English language users.

5.2 Asymmetrical power relations in ELF In contrast to the sense of sharing among NNSEs in ELF interactions that forms equal power relations, unequal power relations exist in other aspects of ELF users’ lives. These involve perceived differences in English language proficiency with, and the speakers’ status of, interlocutors. This section presents participants’ narratives on how unequal power relations in ELF affected the participants’ identities with respect to the English language use; these relations sometimes positively influenced their identity, leading to empowerment, and other times acted negatively to hamper interactional opportunities. This section shows how unequal power relations were recognised and represented in the Japanese L2 English users’ involvement in English interactions within and by their lived experiences.

5.2.1 Collaborative power relations and a source of empowerment Higher English language proficiency in contrast to one’s own can be a source of symbolic power as briefly discussed in the previous chapter. The diary data (of three diarists) particularly provides insight on how differences in proficiency or fluency of NNSEs are perceived by the Japanese L2 English users, and how having such a perception may provide a positive influence on their identities as L2 English users. As presented above (in Extract 5.8), Isuzu, in her reflective essay, described what she could learn from a more proficient user of L2 English than herself. Extract 5.9 [I]f the other side’s English is good, there are many things I can learn such as the way to talk, pronunciation, etc. (Isuzu Reflective essay: 2009-12-16)

NNSEs with higher proficiency sometimes become a resource for further language learning for participants like Isuzu. In this regard, higher proficiency in the English language is seen as a symbolic capital that represents power imbalance between one who possesses it and one who does not. When my participants

5.2 Asymmetrical power relations in ELF

117

recognised the symbolic capital in another NNSE, the perception sometimes transformed into respect and admiration which influenced the participants positively to invest more in improving their own English ability and thus gaining the symbolic capital themselves. For instance, a Kazusa’s diary entry (Extract 5.10) depicted a story about her admiration for a NNSE who, she perceived, spoke better English than she did. She realised that it was a symbolic capital and it led her to invest in studying harder. On the last day of the peace study programme that she attended, she had another discussion session with co-participants coming from all over the world. Extract 5.10 In today’s group, there were 4 students from my university including me, an American student (undergraduate, 20s, female), a Malaysian student (age 24, female), and a Japanese student (age 20, female) who studies at an American university. Since it was the last discussion session, I took the initiative and became a discussion leader. […] I couldn’t express how to say “the idea is biased” in English immediately at that time, so I depended on the Japanese student who studies in the US. I couldn’t catch what she said because her English was a little fast, but I realised I could’ve explained with simple words. I once again thought that I have to write and use English habitually in order to speak. (Kazusa Diary 8: 2009-08-06)

Reading this diary entry, I was interested in how asking for help of the Japanese student (who studied abroad and spoke English more fluently than she did) would have affected Kazusa psychologically. In response to my inquiry, she described what she felt as follows. Extract 5.11 I felt that I was lucky because I had her in the same group, and I thought she was as great as I expected. I don’t regard her as my goal, but it is more like she motivated me to improve [my English]. (Kazusa Diary 8: 2009-08-06)

Kazusa had a high respect for this Japanese student, and then channelled her admiration into an investment in studying harder. Kazusa was empowered by involvement in interactions with a fluent NNSE, who held a symbolic resource. Isuzu’s comment and Kazusa’s diary entry similarly show that NNSEs with higher English proficiency or fluency, i.e., a symbolic capital, are seen as achievable targets and sources for their investment in learning. The following entry from Hikari’s diary further describes in more detail how fluent NNSEs are seen as more of a target for her own achievement compared to NSEs. In this diary entry, Hikari talks about the online chat interaction with a NNSE, and how much she admires the interlocutor in terms of the quality of English he speaks.

118

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

Extract 5.12 When I had a chat on Skype with Intradit (a Thai, staying in Australia for a business trip, about 50s, race unknown), I felt that my English has improved compared to the time when we talked last time (about two month ago). I’ve been reading news articles, so I was happy that we could talk about the world recession. But, his English and my English are completely different. I thought mine was formal and not practical. I wish I could speak English as naturally as he does. (Hikari Diary 1: 2009-05-22)

In response to my question about why she aspired to speak like him, she explained as follows. Extract 5.13 He can use expressions close to native speakers. I aim to speak English naturally that is not textbookish. It is expected that native speakers speak naturally but I greatly respect non-native speakers when they speak naturally. That’s because I cannot do it. The difference between native speakers [and non-native speakers] is the fact that it is a result of effort. It happens as a result of effort, I also aim to speak naturally as a result of my effort. (Hikari Diary 1: 2009-05-22)

High English language proficiency and fluency of NNSEs are often seen as symbolic capital, especially because, as Hikari clearly explained, the symbolic capital is gained as a result of their effort of long years of learning, not by nature. Therefore, the symbolic capital of NNSEs signifies an achievable target and consequently the source of investment in learning and thus in their identity for the Japanese L2 English speakers. In such cases, the unbalanced power relation among NNSEs deriving from differences in perceived proficiency appeared to be more collaborative than restrictive for identity construction of the participants. Similarly but for different reasons, symbolic resources of NSE status sometimes appeared to work collaboratively on the participants’ identity as L2 English users, as revealed in some participants’ narratives. One day Miyu wanted to know the difference in meaning between ‘phlegm’ and ‘sputum’ that came up in the textbook she was using to teach at a college of nursing. She asked one of her friends (Ella) who is a Japanese Canadian about the difference. Extract 5.14 In the dictionary, both said ‘痰·唾’ [tan·tsuba], I wanted to know how differently they are used, and so asked her. She told me that ‘phlegm’ is the yellow stuff you get when you are sick, and ‘sputum’ is saliva. But I said to Ella that it seems like ‘sputum’ also means the yellow stuff. She checked with the English-English dictionary, and we found that it also has a meaning of the yellow stuff. It looks like that ‘sputum’ is a medical term and she seldom uses it. Even Ella who is a native English speaker didn’t know the specific definition of it, which has the both meaning of ‘痰’ [tan] and ‘唾’ [tsuba]. For Ella herself, it seems that this was a new discovery.

5.2 Asymmetrical power relations in ELF

119

I felt refreshed that I could know the differences between ‘phlegm’ and ‘sputum’, and glad to learn there are words even native speakers don’t know the meanings of, especially when the words aren’t used commonly. (Miyu Diary 3: 2009-05-29)

Miyu further expressed that she was encouraged by this experience and it gave her courage to use English more freely, knowing there were things that even a NSE did not know about their own language. Extract 5.15 There are vocabulary words which even native speakers don’t know. Knowing that helps me to have courage to ask things to native speakers or somebody who knows English very well by saying ‘I don’t know the word’. By doing so, I may try to use different expressions a little more in conversation because I tend to use the same vocabulary words and expressions. (Miyu Diary 3: 2009-05-29)

Mio’s use of expressions like “even native speakers don’t know” represents that NSEs are most likely considered as the authorities of the language. It facilitates an L2 English user’s investment in learning to acknowledge that the authoritative figure of the language, i.e., a NSE, is also a learner of the language. This experience exerted positive influence on Miyu’s identity with respect to L2 English use, and then she was ready to express herself more freely and intended to invest more in trying newly acquired words and expressions without being too hesitant. Symbolic resources of NSE status, when appearing not as an unerring NSE, sometimes help Japanese L2 English speakers to acknowledge and affirm themselves as English users rather than inadequate learners. Another example from Kazusa’s diary entry similarly show how symbolic resources of NSE status sometimes can influence the Japanese L2 English user positively. While she was studying in a French university, one day she met an American student through one of her friends. Extract 5.16 We were speaking in French at first, but she couldn’t speak French very much either, so we spoke in English in the end. She was very easy to talk to and the conversation grew lively. I was worried a bit whether I could have made myself understood well, so I asked her whether my English was ok or not, she praised me saying, “Not a problem at all. Especially pronunciation is good.” I was very happy. (Kazusa Diary 11: 2009-09-15)

Kazusa was worried about her ability of English and confirmed this with the NSE. It shows her insecurity about her English when speaking to a NSE. The significant note in this diary entry is that she received praise on her English from the interlocutor when she felt insecure. She further explained that the fact that she received a compliment on her English from a NSE increased her level of delight.

120

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

Extract 5.17 I think it is because I was praised by a native speaker of English rather than by an American. But I should be happy when I get praise by non-native speakers. The degree of my happiness is larger when I get praise from a native speaker than non-native speaker. I think I’m happy when I get praise from somebody who can speak English obviously better than me. (Kazusa Diary 11: 2009-09-15)

Kazusa’s diary entry depicted her positioning as a L2 English learner rather than a user when she asked for an affirmation on her language ability from the authoritative figure, i.e., a NSE. However, this also shows that the symbolic resource of NSE status had a constructive impact on Kazusa’s sense of self in relation to the English language when she received recognition for her good English by the NSE. It is important to note that the communicative episodes presented above involving NSEs were both in ELF speaking environments where English was used as the communicative medium of choice, and the only option (Seidlhofer 2011). Thus, even though words like NSE or NNSE were used to describe the people involved in the episodes, it is possible that they all ought to be considered ELF speakers. It is not clear from this data set, nor from previous research, when exactly NSEs can be regarded as ELF speakers, but the multicultural and multilingual backgrounds of those NSEs may have played a distinct role in how they actually presented themselves during their conversation with my research participants, which led to positively influence the identity construction of Miyu and Kazusa. It is, nevertheless, only a working theory, thus further research needs to be conducted investigating under what circumstances NSEs (start to) regard themselves as ELF speakers, and how their positioning of themselves and what kinds of identities they are ascribed by the interlocutors affects the dynamics of ELF interaction.

5.2.2 Coercive power influencing identity and loss of investment: Interactions with NSEs The symbolic capital of NSE status represents both sides of one coin. It sometimes affects the identity of my participants positively, as presented in the previous section, but it often instigates unequal and coercive power relations, influencing the identity of my participants negatively. Many participants (eight interviewees and four diarists) reported their perceptions toward NSEs and how the perceptions had a negative influence on them psychologically as L2 English users. The participants’ accounts revealed that the perceptions were constructed based on their lived experiences of engaging in interaction with NSEs. For instance, Tae reported that she felt she had “no control over conversation” in interaction with NSEs, thus she got “stressed”; Hiromi, Takeo and Naofumi gave an account that NSE talk was “too

5.2 Asymmetrical power relations in ELF

121

fast” and thus they “cannot follow”, which made them feel “anxious” and “panicked”. Naofumi also mentioned that NSE speech made him “realise his inability”. NSE speech seems to exert an unconstructive emotional effect on many Japanese L2 English users’ self-conception as English users, which is true regardless of whether or not NSEs themselves realise it or act in such a way to force NNSEs to have those feelings. The Japanese L2 English users often compare their ability to that of NSEs. The following comment by Yoriko (who studied at a British university as an exchange student) explicitly stated how she generally saw British local students (i.e., NSEs) and how the perceptions influenced her. Extract 5.18 Yoriko: It’s like, British students talk their mouth off with perfect English. Interviewer: Yeah, they are native speakers. Yoriko: I just think that they are never wrong only because they speak perfect English. So, my own incompetence shocked me. Yeah. (Yoriko interview)

Such negative psychological effects caused by NSE speech influenced the Japanese L2 English speakers so detrimentally that they tended to position themselves in a socially weaker position, or perceived themselves as inferior, like Naofumi in the following entry. Extract 5.19 With native speakers, well, like, I feel nervous. Like they understand that my English is incorrect after all. Yeah, I feel like I couldn’t make myself understood if I don’t pronounce well, such ideas, like they make a fool of me a little if I don’t speak correctly. I will be conscious about such things. (Naofumi interview)

Similar negative emotional effects inflicted by interacting – or the prospect of interacting – with NSEs are also recounted in the participants’ diaries. For instance, Natsumi, who worked as an interpreter at a machinery factory in Japan and had abundant opportunities to interact with trainees coming from all over the world, expressed her nervousness when she heard the news that she was to receive trainees from the US in a few weeks. Extract 5.20 Today, when I was about to leave work after a meeting, there was a piece of paper left on my desk. As I looked into it, it was a schedule chart. It seems like Americans will come for a 2-week training next week, and I will be in charge as an interpreter. It seems like they will be in the same training as when the Indians came. Ummmmmmmmm… I must have increased some vocabulary since the last time, so the situation shouldn’t be too hard. But I’m worried. I have many opportunities to speak English with Asians, but I don’t have many opportunities to speak with white native speakers of English, to be honest. I assume that [native speakers’] pronunciation should be easier to understand compared to Indians, but I feel depressed for some reasons. Am I nervous because I meet them for

122

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

the first time, or because they are white? I don’t know. Maybe for the both reasons. Anyways, I will revise vocabulary that I learned in the last training session in order to have more confidence. (Natsumi Diary 9: 2009-07-10)

Even though she spoke English as an interpreter as her everyday job, the prospect of working with Americans made her worried and nervous. The diary clearly depicts that she was worried about her English proficiency when it came to speaking to NSEs. She further explained her nervousness as follows. Extract 5.21 I feel stressed because I think I have to speak English with correct grammar. When I speak to Asians, I don’t care much about making grammatical mistakes. That’s probably because I think the other side would make mistakes like me too.

There seems to be a universal idea among my participants that they feel the need of using correct English when communicating with NSEs. In the next diary entry, Natsumi wrote about the day when the Americans arrived and she started to work with them. She still expressed her nervousness about her English language ability. Extract 5.22 Today, two Americans (Tony and Sean) arrived for training. […] I was a little depressed from the morning, and as soon as I started to work, I got panicked because I couldn’t do good translation from the beginning. (Natsumi Diary 10: 2009-07-15)

A week later, she wrote another diary entry when she completed the work with the American trainees. She eventually developed a good interpersonal relationship and enjoyed working with them; however, she reflected on the fact that they being NSEs affected what she felt through the experience. Extract 5.23 Yesterday, I finished the work with the Americans. There were times when I couldn't understand what they said and asked them to repeat it, but overall, I think things went OK. […] After working with Indians and Americans, I realised when speaking English [with Americans], things that worried me were something grammatical. For example, when I talked about something that happened in the past, I was going to speak in the past tense but actually spoke in the present tense, and then later I corrected myself with the past tense. Or I often reflected myself whether I used the past tense correctly or not. When I spoke to Indians, I rarely cared about such things very much, but I think I became conscious about speaking properly when speaking to native speakers. (Natsumi Diary 11: 2009-07-22)

Natsumi came to realise her focus on trying to speak English with “accurate” grammar when speaking to NSEs, as opposed to when speaking to Indians. The diary entry depicts that she was more concerned with linguistic correctness

5.2 Asymmetrical power relations in ELF

123

when interacting with NSEs rather than ensuring successful communication, which caused her much stress psychologically. Similar to Natsumi, Miyu also reported her experience of feeling nervous and insecure when speaking to a NSE. One day at work she received a phone call from an unknown foreigner (later it was revealed that the person was a journalist from Chicago). She said she “judged that he was a native English speaker based on his pronunciation” at the beginning of the call. Extract 5.24 I hadn’t spoken English on the phone for a while, and the other side of the phone was somebody older whom I don’t know anything about, so I dealt with the phone call being nervous all along, and being careful of trying not to say anything rude. […] I was speaking, being anxious about if I couldn’t understand him. (Miyu Diary 6: 2009-07-01)

She additionally explained how the fact that the interlocutor was a NSE affected her mind during the conversation. Extract 5.25 Certainly the fact that the other side was a native speaker had an effect on the feeling of “being nervous all along”. That’s because I thought that I had to speak with the same pace with him; otherwise the conversation wouldn’t go smoothly if I couldn’t understand what he was saying.

She eventually managed to finish the call satisfactorily and felt “relieved”. Such diary entries as Natsumi’s and Miyu’s above illustrate that the unequal power relation between NSEs and NNSEs is recognised during actual interactions. NSEs are, in NNSEs’ minds, the “perfect” speakers of English, which embodies NSEs’ symbolic power. In contrast, NNSEs are less perfect English speakers. This dichotomy represents an asymmetrical power balance between a NSE and a NNSE, which may have been ingrained in the participants’ mindset. Narratives from my participants show how the symbolic power of NSE status psychologically affected them. They generally worried about making grammatical mistakes and felt obliged to match up to the perceived NSE perfection. Consequently, they put themselves in a socially weaker position in relation to NSEs, even when the power may not have been imposed upon them intentionally by their NSE interlocutors. Unequal power relations with a NSE are also observed (in four participants’ narratives) as resulting from experiences of being marginalised by a NSE (or a member of the majority of the immediate English-as-L1-speaking community) during their study abroad. Isuzu (a diarist) reported her experiences of what she perceived as being discriminated against because of her ethnicity and positioning as a NNSE in Britain (see her individual case study in Chapter 6: Section 6.3.2). Naofumi stated that he did not feel welcomed and “felt a wall”

124

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

between him and his host family in Australia, which potentially affected his perspective on the relationship between him and monolingual NSEs. Fuyuka felt marginalised from local students at a British university because she could not be friends with them no matter hard she tried, which led her to have a lingering psychological distance between her and local British students. All of them saw themselves in a weaker position against NSEs because of a NNSE or a foreigner status in the study abroad contexts, and perceived their experience as that of being marginalised or discriminated against. Such negative experiences inevitably shaped my participants’ views on NSEs as a whole and influenced how they saw NSEs and behaved around them. In what follows, more detailed accounts of the participants’ similar experience are shared. Tomomi (an undergraduate student at a British university) described an incident that made her feel marginalised or discriminated against due to her status as a NNSE. Extract 5.26 Tomomi: Most of my classmates are native speakers, and really, most of them don’t have any interest in Asian or other overseas students. When I was a first-year student, I spoke to a person but she was like “oh, well, ah you are not a native speaker. I don’t need you because you cannot help my study”. Interviewer: Oh, did she say something like that? Tomomi: Like that, such a nuance. I was like “I see”. So I don’t initiate to speak to them any more. And since they are native speakers, I get perplexed a little too. Interviewer: In what sense do you get perplexed? Tomomi: Well, like, I worry that they wouldn’t understand me like my pronunciation, etc. Interviewer: I see. The other side [wouldn’t understand] your [pronunciation]? Tomomi: That’s right. After all, I sometimes speak English with a Japanese accent. So I worry that I cannot make myself understood at all. […] So, I’m scared of how they would react when I talk to them. (Tomomi interview)

One past discriminatory experience affected Tomomi immensely, and she then generally held a fear of speaking to NSEs because she was afraid of their reaction toward her. In other words, the NSE student forced Tomomi into a powerless position as a NNSE. She lost her legitimacy as an English user and her identity was constrained immensely by the experience. She lost the power of investment in interacting with NSE students, which affected her chance of learning in the UK. Similarly, Isuzu talked of an experience that she perceived as discrimination against her in the next diary entry.

5.2 Asymmetrical power relations in ELF

125

Extract 5. 27 I went to Tesco yesterday. A lady at the till (British, 20’s) was unfriendly. She had a sullen attitude and spoke coldly. When a store staff’s attitude is bad, if it is in Japan, I just think, “Ah, this store staff has a terrible attitude” but when I’m in the UK, I think like “is it because I’m a Japanese?” It’s not simply “terrible mannered staff”, but I think, “staff who changes his/her attitude depending on customer’s race”. After I encounter such events, when I speak to other British people (except for friends), I get nervous a little. The problem lies with the store staff if the person is a discriminator, but I start to think that other people, who have nothing to do with this store staff, may actually look down on some [minority] people in their mind, which is covert discrimination. Because of such wariness that I don’t want to be treated with a cold attitude, I get nervous about it [speaking to British people]. (Isuzu Diary 10: 2009-08-30)

Elsewhere, she explained that the reason behind why she perceived events like this as a form of discrimination was not only due to her racial appearance but also her “limited” English competence. She felt that she was socially in a powerless position because of it. Here, the unequal power relation is represented between Isuzu who was a “racialised” being with “disadvantaged ability” in English and the British who comprise the majority of the community (for similar accounts of Asian students, see Jackson 2008). Consequently, her sense of self as an English speaker was misaligned. She became hesitant to engage in future interactions with British people because she was afraid of potentially being a victim of identity misalignment again. NSEs are seen as powerful figures by the participants because of their NSE status. Because of the symbolic power of NSEs, my participants tended to feel insecure about their status as English users when interacting with NSEs. They constantly worried about grammatical accuracy, which affected their level of self-confidence and led them to feel inferior to NSEs. They could not regard themselves as a legitimate English user but saw themselves as almost secondclass citizens; in other words, they put themselves in a socially weaker position. Their identities as English users were constrained by such unequal power relation (perceived to be) imposed by NSEs. For some participants, the asymmetrical power relation was prompted or emphasised by stumbling upon unfortunate incidents that they perceived as experiences of discrimination. The participants’ perceptions of their positionality were dependent on different interlocutors. This also reveals how power relations are recognised and constructed socially within and by lived and localised experiences of the L2 English users.

126

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

5.2.3 Coercive power relations and loss of investment: Interactions among ELF speakers In a similar vein, there exist unbalanced power relations among ELF speakers that worked coercively on the identity of my participants. The power relations are concerned with the perceived differences in English language proficiency among ELF speakers. When the asymmetrical power relations among ELF speakers were observed, it often caused negative effects on the Japanese L2 English users’ identities. Three diarists and eight interviewees reported this phenomenon. For example, some of the interviewees stated that they found it difficult and stressful to follow conversations with fluent NNSEs because of the “speed” (Hiromi and Hitomi interviews) and the flow of the conversation, and because it is “native like” (Naofumi interview). Similarly, Fuyuka mentioned she would get panicked to some extent when speaking to a NNSE who was more fluent than she was. Extract 5.28 If the interlocutor speaks very good English, it is like I’m defeated. So, it’s like I cannot make mistakes, and feel pressured. (Fuyuka interview)

The Japanese L2 English users felt anxious, insecure, pressured and sometimes defeated in English interactions with speakers they perceived as more proficient. Such a negative emotion was often reported among diarists based on their everyday experiences too. For instance, Miyu reported that her friend’s ability to speak good English was a factor leading to her nervousness when talking to the friend on the phone. Her Romanian friend (female postgraduate student in a Japanese university) called her one morning to ask her to borrow a dictionary. Extract 5.29 I am on having-tea-terms with her, so I’m used to speaking English to her, but I get nervous when talking on the phone because I sometimes couldn’t make out what she was saying. […] I was on pins and needles during the conversation from start to finish because I worried about making mistakes during the conversation. (Miyu Diary 7: 2009-07-21)

Miyu explained that the cause of her worry was because of not only the nature of a phone conversation, but also the interlocutor’s good ability of speaking English. Extract 5.30 Her ability of speaking is very high and she is fluent, and also her pronunciation is good. Her ability to express herself is profound. When I think about the ability of speaking, she can speak a lot better than me. Therefore, such differences are linked to nervousness and the guard that I kept during the phone conversation. (Miyu Diary 7: 2009-07-21)

5.2 Asymmetrical power relations in ELF

127

Acknowledging a high level of proficiency of ELF speaking interlocutors led my participants to feel nervous during interactions. Some even felt “defeated” by the interlocutor because of the differences in proficiency. In this sense, they seemed to put themselves in a weaker position than the more fluent ELF speakers, which represented an unequal power relationship between them. The unbalanced power works coercively to put pressure on the speakers’ identity with respect to English. As a result, their nervousness hindered their ability of listening and speaking. One of Natsumi’s diary entries clearly portrayed an incident concerning this issue. During a morning break at work, Natsumi and her Japanese colleague (both interpreters at a machinery factory) went into a lounge. They were chatting in Japanese for a while because there were no nonJapanese workers around them. Shortly after, a Nigerian worker came up to them and strangely asked them to speak in English to each other while he observed them speaking in English. Extract 5.31 I wouldn’t have resistant feeling to speak English if a [non-Japanese] English speaker were present. However, I was perplexed with the situation in which two Japanese people spoke in English all of the sudden and the [Nigerian] English speaker just listened to us. We were given a topic to talk about at this time; thus we talked briefly about it. For example, I said “I went to Tokyo for shopping. How about you?” However, we didn’t have a lively conversation like we usually do. Perhaps that fact that the [Nigerian] English speaker was just listening to us without joining the conversation put pressure on me. Moreover, I’ve never spoken to the Japanese colleague in English when only two of us talk. The colleague speaks English very well, of course because she has spent more time abroad than I have. Therefore, because I didn’t want her to hear my bad English clearly, I couldn’t get engaged in a lively conversation, and I must have got confused. (Natsumi Diary 1: 2009-05-13)

Natsumi is clearly perplexed by this rather bizarre situation. As she explicitly stated, one of the reasons she could not engage in the conversation fully was due to her colleague’s English language proficiency. Natsumi recognised that her colleague spoke better English than she did because the colleague had spent three years studying abroad in comparison to her spending one and a half years abroad. Natsumi viewed the better proficiency of her colleague as a symbolic resource she did not have, and hence, she was “scared very much” about exposing her “lower” English abilities to the colleague who held symbolic power against her. This narrative epitomises an perceived asymmetrical power relation between Natsumi and her colleague. The unequal power relation that Natsumi identified worked coercively on her identity as an English user. She, consequently, could not put forth the effort to facilitate the conversation. A similar influence of power imbalance based on the perceived difference in English proficiency and its destructive

128

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

influence on further communication was reported by Yayoi in her Diary 10 too (see her individual case study in the next section). The participants seem to have recognised unbalanced power relations between their ELF-speaking interlocutors and themselves based on what they perceived as differences in their respective English proficiency levels. The higher level of ability to use English became a symbol of power that my participants did not possess; such an unbalanced power relation among ELF speakers often inflicted a negative effect on the identity of the Japanese L2 English speakers. They tended to have discomfort, nervousness, and insecurity during interactions; thus they could not devote their effort to contributing to interactions. It is important to note that, on the other hand, the psychological effect of interacting with ELF speakers who were perceived to have a lower level of English than the participants was never overtly reported in the present study. This is perhaps due to the fact that feelings of comfort and security in ELF interactions were often associated with equal power relations and the sense of sharing among NNSEs regardless of different levels of linguistic proficiency.

5.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 2 In this section, several case studies from the diary study will be presented. All of them illustrate each diarist’s experiences and perceptions relating to power relations surrounding English language use.

5.3.1 Yayoi’s story: On the perception of a legitimate speaker of English Yayoi’s diary entries depict a conflicting nature of identity with respect to the English language depending on with whom she would interact. They also reveal what she perceived as the necessary quality to be a legitimate English speaker. Yayoi was a female PhD student specialised in applied linguistics who was in her late 30s. By the beginning of the diary study, she had spent six years in the UK for her postgraduate study. She was one of only two people who wrote diaries in English throughout the diary study, for which she explained the reasons as follows.

5.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 2

129

Extract. 5.32 Since I came to England, I got used to write English sentences and try to think in English, and I have less opportunities to write in Japanese. So, it is more natural for me to write a long text in English than in Japanese now. I also think I could learn new English expressions while writing. (Yayoi reflective essay: 2009-12-11, Original in English)

She immersed herself in the English-speaking environment in the UK (where she rarely associated with fellow Japanese students) so that English was the language she felt most “natural” to use in the UK. This indicates that she had a great investment in learning and using English, which also served as a means of self-expression such as diary writing. Even though she showed such a strong sense of ownership of English, her identity with respect to the English language appeared strongly to relate to how low she perceived her own proficiency. Despite her six-year sojourn in the UK, she assessed her English language skill as “intermediate level”. Meanwhile, she stated that she generally felt comfortable, Extract 5.33 when feeling (assessing) that the other person has the same or lower English level. (Yayoi Questionnaire 1. Original in English)

She constantly self-evaluated her English language competence by comparing it to other L2 English speakers. Her diary entries often depicted occasions when she spoke to somebody whose English she perceived as better than hers; she felt insecure, and consequently tried to withdraw from engaging in further communication. Diary 3 shown below exemplifies this phenomenon. One day, she lent her bike pump to her housemate, Mykolas. When the housemate returned it to her, she found it broken. The housemate explained the reason and offered her to get a new one. Extract 5.34 He told me to buy a replacement, but I said not to worry. We repeated this conversation a few times. But honestly speaking, I wanted him to get one. My mind was saying, “OK, that’s fine”, but my mouth was saying, “No, no, you don’t have to. I’ll get one”. This is a bad aspect of mine. Since I do not want to make the thing long, I say something that gets it done soon. This was the case this time too. (Yayoi Diary 3: 2009-05-13, Original in English)

She explained further why she wanted to “get things done soon” as follows. Extract 5.35 It also depends on a conversation partner. If I think that his/her English is better than me, or that s/he is in a higher [social] position (the language we speak does not matter), or s/he speaks the language with no hesitation like a machinegun, I tend to do this. In those situations, I feel some sort of pressure and it makes me try

130

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

to finish the conversation soon. But this is not the case with friends, whatever the nationality and position are. Mykolas is not hesitant to speak English even though I find lots of mistakes. This gives me a pressure that I had better speak as fluently as possible. If I can’t, I feel more pressure. As I know this from my experience, I try to avoid this kind of situation by finishing the conversation. (Yayoi Diary 3: 2009-05-13, Original in English)

Her account of this incident showed that when she regarded her interlocutor’s proficiency and/or fluency of English was better than her own, she felt pressured. She even felt that she needed to match up to the interlocutor’s level of proficiency/fluency. Similarly, her account from Diary 10 showed the great extent of her discomfort and insecurity while interacting with another friend of hers, Mark who was also a L2 English speaker. Extract 5.36 When I was about to leave a lab today, a young guy sitting next to me spoke to me and I found it was Mark (Dutch, 21 years old). I felt like leaving the place as soon as possible because when I chat with him, I always feel my low English ability. He is almost a native speaker of English and also speaks super fast. I get nervous and feel a pressure when I speak to him, and so I make mistakes that I usually do not make or I cannot remember easy words. While we were chatting today, he always asked me questions and I just answered. I could not ask him anything and my answers were short. I knew it was not good, but I could only manage to follow what he said and what I should say. (Yayoi Diary 10: 2009-09-14. Original in English.)

Those narratives echoed Yayoi’s view of high levels of English proficiency and fluency as a symbolic capital that she felt needing to attain, which reflected an unequal power relation that she saw between herself and her interlocutor. This kind of phenomenon represents her positioning of herself as a powerless being in relation to her interlocutor. She, as a NNSE like her interlocutor, Mark, believed that she should be able to speak English as fluently. Therefore, she blamed herself for her “low English ability” and “regret[ted] that she had not made opportunities to expose [herself] to English”. In these kinds of circumstances, she tried to withdraw from the conversation, so that she did not have to expose what she perceived as her “lower” proficiency. In other words, she tried to avoid suffering from a threat to her identity as an English speaker (Pellegrino Aveni 2005). She always put forth effort to use English; however, when she was actually engaged in social interactions where she felt uncomfortable about her self-perception, she could not invest much effort for further interaction (e.g., Norton 2000). Interestingly, when she explained more about this interlocutor, Mark, it appeared that his ethnic background and racial traits constituted an additional factor that influenced whom she perceived as a legitimate English speaker.

5.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 2

131

Extract 5.37 He is from Holland but his parents are both from one of the East Asian countries. So, he just looks Chinese or Japanese. From my experience, usually people from those countries do not have a high English proficiency level or they can speak but pronunciation is really bad, etc. But this is not the case to him, and so, I think it gives me a pressure. […] I do not expect Asian people to speak English very well (both pronunciation and fluency). […] Even if he were Japanese who were born and grew up in Japan and had such a high proficiency, I would feel a pressure merely because of his Asian looking. (Yayoi Diary 10: 2009-09-14. Original in English.)

It was unfathomable for Yayoi that an East Asian-looking L2 English speaker could speak as fluent as Mark did. It seems that the linguistic and racial attributes Mark had challenged what Yayoi perceived a “legitimate” speaker of English to be like. In this regard, Pavlenko and Norton (2007) discuss how race and ethnicity can be a factor on what individuals and institutions mark the other as a legitimate speaker of English; and the ownership of English is often less contested toward L2 English speakers of Caucasian background compared to those who are non-white. For example, in Miller’s (2000) longitudinal case study on socialisation processes of three ethnic Chinese immigrant students to the mainstream Australian secondary school, the Chinese students’ narratives focussed on whom the mainstream Australian students and teachers acknowledged to be legitimate speakers of English. In the study, the mainstream Australian students spoke to a Bosnian immigrant student who was white and had “blond hair” but did not speak to the “black hair” Asian immigrant students. As Yayoi clearly stated in her diary entries, she generally did not believe that Asian L2 English speakers could speak fluently with “a good pronunciation”. However, Mark went beyond her expectation of Asian L2 English speakers, speaking English like a NSE. This put psychological pressure on her because Yayoi believed she did not have the same level of English proficiency as he did, even though they shared similar physically apparent racial traits in the UK. This resulted in her feeling less worthy as an L2 English speaker and positioning herself in a powerless position. In other words, Mark violated what she perceived to share with East Asian L2 English speakers, which was similar racial appearances and similar degrees of English proficiency. When this sense of sharing was breached, it put constraints upon her identity as an English user. Yayoi’s identity with respect to L2 English is complex; on one hand, she showed a strong sense of ownership of English as a means of self-expression, but on the other, her identity as an English user was often constrained by interactions with other L2 English speakers who possessed symbolic resources (i.e., good command of English), which resulted in her losing the sense of ownership of English. During her extended sojourn in the UK for postgraduate study, she seemed to have had abundant experiences in intercultural

132

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

communication through ELF, in particular through her social network mainly comprised of ELF speakers. Nevertheless, Yayoi never seemed to have appreciated English as a lingua franca, at least from the diary data she provided.

5.3.2 Hikari’s story: Ideal L2 self in the globalised world Hikari was a 20 year-old, third year university student in a Japanese university majoring in international business. Like Kazusa (a case study presented in Chapter 4), she was to participate in the EMI peace study programme in the coming summer. She was also a motivated individual and had a great investment in learning English, putting as much effort into gaining opportunities to use English as possible. For this reason, she participated in the diary study because it was related to her English use, providing her a reason or motivation to engage more in communications in English. Her diary entries revealed two main aspects of her identities with respect to the English language. One was the link between learning English and investing in her future ideal L2 self (Dörnyei 2005, 2009), and the other was idealisation of the West in relation to internationalism (Kelsky 2001; Block 2006). Learning English and investing in learning seemed to have had a direct influence on her vision of her future self. She stated on many occasions that the purpose of learning English and becoming a better user of English was because of the prospect of gaining access to the wider world. When she faced her own limited competence in English (e.g., speaking, vocabulary, writing and listening), she often talked about improving English competence in relation to a future vision of herself. Extract 5.38 The reason why I’m doing English is not for TOEIC. This is for communicating with people from all over the world, and for expanding my sense of value. So, recently I feel the need of improving English skills on the whole. (Hikari Diary 4: 2009-06-15)

The vision of her future self was also connected to her participation in the imagined community of successful English users. In this community, which she had a desire to join, the members are sophisticated English speakers who have cosmopolitan experiences. In relation to this, she talked about her Japanese-American cousin, who has worked for world-famous finance companies and a broadcast company in the US, and described her as “a so called success” (Diary 2: 2009-615). Similarly, she showed her admiration of an American journalist, Mr. Lane,

5.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 2

133

living in Japan whom she met through her participation in the peace study programme. Extract 5.39 It was the first time I met a journalist. I hear he is a person of much experience of seeing the world. So I was so curious about him. I wanted to know how he viewed the world based on his worldwide experience. I was interested in what he thinks about Japan. […] I was fascinated about what he is and what he thinks as a person who has been active worldwide. (Hikari Diary 6: 2009-07-05)

Because of her overflowing interest in him, she arranged to meet him again outside the school. The words she received from him at the second meeting further inspired her and confirmed that what she had been doing (i.e., investing time in meeting cosmopolitans like Mr. Lane) was right for her future self. Extract 5.40 There were two things in the conversation that left lingering impression to me. These apply to anything in life. […] When I said I wanted to do a job that takes me to the world and meet many people, he recommended me to become a journalist or a staff member of the UN. And I said, “what I’m talking about is rather abstract, so it is difficult isn’t it?” Responding to this, he said, “Everything is difficult.” You are absolutely right, I thought. And he continued, “Do you know what passion is?” Yes, I know, that’s jyonetsu ‘passion’, isn’t it? But I said, “something that I can be eager to do”, and he replied “something that you love it and keep enjoying to do.” Yes, exactly! […] I said to him “in my case, that’s about learning various values through meeting many people.” and he strongly agreed with me on that. He told me when he gives advice, he always say “never give up” and “build up a network of connections”. You never know when the connection helps your career. Talented people will find a job for others who are also talented. So, his doors were opened by people whom he knew. […] So, he was very happy that I made a contact with him. He told me to cherish meeting with nice people and to expand the network like I have been doing. He said, “it is highly possible that the network you built may become a critical factor in your future development. So keep doing this”. I know the importance of it, so that’s why I made a contact with Mr. Lane. I was happy to receive his recognition on that. But I can’t grab a chance by just meeting many people. I have to improve my skills and I have to be a capable person and I have to be a person who can be valuable to other people! (Hikari Diary 6: 2009-07-05)

Mr. Lane represented what Hikari perceived as a cosmopolitan, whom she desired to be. The conversation she had with him accelerated her motivation to invest in improving her capability with respect to English use to become a member of the imagined community of cosmopolitans. Her investment in improving the necessary skills meant her investment in her future self. Also in Diary 1, she expressed her admiration of a Thai businessman whom she regarded as a cosmopolitan who spoke his L2 English very well.

134

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

Extract 5.41 He is a perfect businessman who has been to many countries for work. Such people have got a broad heart, or got capacity of being able to accept anything, and I can speak to such people at ease. […] I hope I can be a person like him. (Hikari Diary 1: 2009-05-22)

She further explained about his “capacity of being able to accept anything” as follows. Extract 5.42 By going to various countries, people can acquire the spirit of being able to accept anything, they don’t reject things outright, but have a flexible sense of value and the way of thinking.

She perceived that cosmopolitans were those who have travelled all over the world, and thus developed an attitude to take a broader view of things. She admired such people because they had symbolic assets that she desired to have, i.e., the English language ability and an adaptable mindset. Through opportunities of meeting people whom she perceived as cosmopolitans, she was inspired by them and wanted to be like them, which meant that she wanted to be a member of the imagined community of cosmopolitan English users. The community was seen as an idealised world of broad-minded people in her view. She was empowered by those she considered as core members of the community and paid great respect to them. The desire for a future participation in the imagined community was linked to her vision of her future self, which directly linked to her investment in learning to improve her English language competence. Another prominent aspect of her identity in relation to the English language was idealised views of the West, resembling Musashi’s case (see Musashi’s case study in Chapter 4). The term “foreigners” was often used with association to Westerners, or most commonly Americans in Japan (Block 2006; Kelsky 2001). Her diaries showed that “foreigners” were associated with something Western or nonAsian. For instance, on the way to Kyoto in a bullet train, she saw two Westerners (later she found that they were a Czech and a Slovakian). Extract 5.43 I noticed a seat next to foreigners was empty. Lucky! And it looks like they are Europeans ♪ I secured the seat straight away. (Hikari Diary 5: 2009-06-28)

And when she was in Kyoto, Extract 5.44 I was envious because there were many foreigners in Kyoto. If I lived in Kyoto, I could have made many foreign friends and spoken to them. I felt the risk of living in Hiroshima. (Hikari Diary 5: 2009-06-28)

5.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 2

135

The first narrative evidently indicated her enthusiasm to meet Westerners where she looked for an opportunity to speak English. The latter narrative suggests that what she meant by “foreigners” were visibly identifiable Westerners in Japan. Her idealisation of something West was not only about liking Westerners but also the way people communicated in English. When she had a chat with a multilingual Chinese postgraduate student who spoke Chinese, Japanese and English at her university, she showed her liking of this student because he Extract 5.45 is open-minded and has characteristics of being American, kind of. (Hikari Diary 2: 2009-05-31)

The above narratives show her idealisation of and longing for something Western in many ways. This is similar to the narratives of women in studies by Block (2006) and Kelsky (2001), whom they called “internationalist women”. Hikari was one of the internationalist women, and the internationalism that Hikari presented also appeared as her sense of self which was associated with the English language (see her Diary 9 in Extract 4.15 in Chapter 4 for another anecdote related to internationalism). Her positive sense of self that derived from communicating with “foreigners” in English was optimised because she could be “true self” rather than a collective Japanese. She disputed the Japanese culture of “the nail that sticks out will get a pounding”, and favoured the West where such a thing does not happen. She could shine as an individual without worrying about the Japanese society that may dispute her standing out. Her English-speaking self freed her from the norm of the closed Japanese society while searching for an alternative identity and ideal L2 self. I believe that her journey of becoming a fully-fledged member of the imagined community of cosmopolitans and getting closer to her ideal L2 self probably continued for some time after the diary study finished. It would be interesting to see how she would find her ideal L2 self in a few years time, but that will be another story.

5.3.3 Natsumi’s story: Professional identity and relations of power Natsumi’s identity sometimes appeared to be constrained by unbalanced power relations with interlocutors with respect to the English language; however, her diary entries also depicted her appreciation of the nature of ELF communication in which mutual intelligibility is the central concern. Although she sometimes faced difficulties in ensuring mutual understanding in ELF interaction,

136

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

she always invested in communication to solve the problems she faced. This symbolises her investment in her identity as a professional interpreter. Natsumi started to work as a Japanese-English interpreter at a machinery production company after completing her MA in applied linguistics at a British university in 2006. Before that, she finished junior college, and then she went on to work as a bank clerk. After a few years of work experience, she decided to study at a Japanese university and then pursued her postgraduate study in the UK. In her job as an interpreter, she worked with mechanical engineering trainees coming from all over the world. For example, for the duration of the diary study, she worked with people from the Philippines, Nigeria, India and the US. The environment was intercultural in a Japanese context, and her work involved not only translating for engineers but also teaching non-Japanese trainees about life in Japan, the Japanese language and cultures. Through the diary study, Natsumi realised that she was most uncomfortable speaking English to or in front of a Japanese speaker of English, especially ones who were more fluent than her and who had lived abroad for a lengthy period. For instance, in one of the diaries, (see Diary 1 in Extract 5.31 in this chapter), she expressed her discomfort speaking English to a Japanese colleague who spent a longer time than she did. She perceived that her own English was “naturally poorer” than the colleague’s. Natsumi saw spending longer time abroad and speaking better English as symbolic resources of her colleague. As a result, she was fearful of exposing her “poorer” English to her colleague. On another occasion (Diary 16) when she and her colleagues gathered for a meal, she received a comment from one of her colleagues about her English accent being “different from others”. She was unhappy about receiving such a comment even though she knew that he did not intend to mean anything ill or hurt her feelings. She was aware that her English accent was not very close to British English; however, she was unhappy to have it pointed out that her English accent was not associated with her study in the UK or that of a NSE accent as she hoped. Consequently, Natsumi felt that her accent was “fake”. The colleague who made the comment had a unique linguistic background as a Japanese person. He spoke French and Japanese as his first languages and Italian and English as his second languages. He was born in Africa and grew up in Europe, and was a kikokushijo (i.e., returnee), who is often an object of admiration from ordinary Japanese. As a multilingual speaker, this colleague had great linguistic and cultural assets or symbolic resources from Natsumi’s perspective. On occasions where she had to face a Japanese speaker of English whom she perceived to hold symbolic power, she showed insecurity in her ability of using English.

5.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 2

137

Her identity as an English user was also challenged when she encountered interactional opportunities with NSEs who held symbolic resources of NSE status. She was nervous about meeting and interacting with them even before actually meeting them. When they actually met, she realised she was being more cautious about making linguistic mistakes in front of them (see her diary entries in Extracts 5.20–5.23 in this chapter). In contrast, it is important to note that her concern for linguistic correctness was never voiced in terms of interactions with NNSE trainees. As she clearly stated; Extract 5.46 (The same extract was shown above as Extract 5.21) When I speak to Asians, I don’t care much about making grammatical mistakes. That’s probably because I think the other side would make mistakes like me too.

Nevertheless, she still showed her insecurity over her ability to use English as an interpreter when facing NNSE trainees too. Extract 5.47 I worry that the other side may get irritated when I cannot make myself understood quickly. This makes me get even less confident, and makes me unable to say things I can normally say. It’s a vicious circle. (Natsumi Diary 7: 2009-06-24)

Upon further investigation of her accounts, her insecurity appears to have been related to her identity as an interpreter, not just as an English user. Despite her insecurity and apprehensiveness about the interlocutors’ reactions toward her English, she seldom shied away from interacting either with the NSE or NNSE trainees; but she rather invested her time and effort to interact with them even during breaks. As a result, Natsumi appreciated how important making effort was for developing a better understanding of and a better interpersonal relationship with them, which fulfilled her sense of self as an interpreter. This realisation was proven right when she received an email from one of the American trainees who showed his appreciation toward her efforts during his stay in Japan. She reacted to receiving the thank you message in the following diary entry. Extract 5. 48 In order to make my position easier (to communicate smoothly, and get used to the person), I taught them about the Japanese language and culture a lot. I was very pleased to know that this gave the others something good (or I should say they enjoyed what I did). It feels like my effort of taking a step forward with courage has paid off. (Natsumi Diary 12: 2009- 07-29)

Observing her diary entries, it seems that her investment in interaction with trainees despite her insecurity about her English language competence was relevant to her professional identity as an interpreter. As many other participants’ narratives depicted, when they were insecure about their linguistic competence,

138

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

they tended to or tried to withdraw from engaging in conversations, so that they could escape from getting hurt or feeling vulnerable. However, even though she found herself in a situation she would avoid, Natsumi still jumped into having interactions, i.e., invest. Her investment in communication was still in operation when she faced difficulties and miscommunication during ELF interaction while working as an interpreter. Natsumi often struggled through the different varieties of English accents, communication styles of the trainees, and the cultural values they brought into their English use. However, she always tried to overcome difficulties by investing in interactions with them in order to “get used to” it so that it would make her job easier. Extract 5.49 Today, I’m again in charge of translation for trainees from India. The nervousness I was feeling last week has started to wear off. Of course, still I often cannot understand what they say, but I’m sure it got better than before. For example, they say “tolf”. At first, I didn’t understand at all what they were saying. Then, they told me “it’s eleven plus one”, and then I understood they meant ‘twelve’. Since then, I can understand smoothly and undoubtedly it’s ‘twelve’ when they say “tolf”. I appreciate now and again that it is about making continuous efforts in order to understand the interlocutor. Also, I think things worked better because I made efforts to speak to them during breaks, like I talked about my life outside work and Japanese culture, and tried to learn their culture. I think my effort during the breaks helped them and me to cope. At least I don’t have to irritate them (well, they may have got irritated with me really) although there are occasions when I face difficulties to get the message across. (Natsuymi Diary 7: 2016-07-02)

This indicates that her investment in communication with the other speakers of English, regardless of the numbers of difficulties she faced, was her investment in her professional identity as an interpreter rather than just as an English speaker. She seemed to appreciate that her own investment in interaction with trainees would lead to development of her professional identity as an interpreter. Her strong sense of professional identity can also be observed in the following extract. Extract 5.50 For this training session, a Japanese colleague from the headquarters joined us to train the trainees from India. This Japanese colleague has never studied abroad, and only recently started to be in charge of overseas marketing. Before that, he used to be in charge of fixing machines as customer service. So, he knows technical terms in English. There are many occasions he can understand the words that I couldn’t understand, such as “insulation resistance”, “nominal value” and “recommended value”. He seemed to have understood what the trainees were asking more than I did. If that’s the case, I honestly thought I wasn’t needed there (as an interpreter). In fact, when I was lost in words, he would respond to (the question) in

5.4 Discussion and conclusion

139

broken English. I genuinely thought engineers could understand each other by using just words without creating sentences. I wonder how useful I was during this training session. (Natsumi Diary 8: 2009-07-02)

She was actually hired for her English language ability to translate between Japanese engineers and engineering trainees from overseas, but she, as an interpreter, could not contribute to the job at hand for which she was needed. In reality, the Japanese colleague who did not have much linguistic ability in English managed the situation better than she did. This situation led her to question her necessity as an interpreter. This anecdote supports the idea that her professional identity was stronger than just that of an English user. This may explain her continuous effort (i.e., investment) to communicate with trainees to improve her work as an interpreter, in other words, investing in her professional identity. To conclude, even though her identity with respect to the English language was sometimes constrained by asymmetrical power relations based on the interlocutor’s NSE status or the higher degree of English language proficiency, Natsumi often appreciated the nature of ELF communication. With this note, I would like to conclude her case study with the following anecdote. Extract 5.51 Today, I got an email from a Filipino trainee with whom I used to work. The message was about his recent news, and it read he would leave his current position at work and move to Saudi Arabia for a new job he has applied for previously. His message showed the atmosphere of the time we worked together while sharing lots of life stories. It’s been almost a year since he went back to his home country. The letter reminded me of the good old times when we chatted. The message showed the characteristics of him. For example, he used to say “Joke!” whenever he said a joke. He did the same thing in this message. I recalled him often saying that. Also, it’s just like him because the message is not grammatically sound. For instance, he goes, “I will leave Natsumi and Iori san effective on May 25, 2009… The good news management understand my decision….” But in fact I can understand what he wants to say. So there’s no problem with that. I remembered it took so much time for me to understand what he wrote when he was in Japan… but anyway, it’s just like him. I’m sad that he was leaving the company, but his message reminded of him and it gave me warmth in my heart. (Natsumi Diary 2: 2009-05-20)

5.4 Discussion and conclusion 5.4.1 A sense of sharing as commonality and issues of identity in ELF ELF studies start by looking at what is shared in ELF interaction in terms of linguistic repertoires and how the shared resources influence communication (Zhu 2015).

140

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

In the present study, the participants’ narratives revealed what they recognised as sharing with other ELF speakers rather than actual linguistic features, and how their perception influenced communication. In ELF communication, where both variability and stability are intertwined, shared non-nativeness (Hülmbauer 2009) is one aspect of a stable component. According to Hülmbauer (2009), there are several facets that are shared equally among ELF speakers. Firstly, ELF users often share non-native English speaking or second language (L2) English speakers’ status. This, in turn, makes them multilingual communicators in intercultural communication. Secondly, they share a similar learner history as they learn an additional language different from their L1. Thirdly, ELF speakers similarly use ELF in strategic ways (Cogo 2010; Klimpfinger 2010; Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006), and through such use of strategies, ELF speakers commonly aim at mutual intelligibility. In other words, ELF speakers understand that ELF linguistic constructions can differ from how monolingual NSEs generally speak. These facets of shared non-nativeness were affirmed as a common perception of ELF users in the participants’ narratives in this study. The present study further examined how such ELF speakers’ orientation to commonality in ELF is linked with the speakers’ identity construction. The study revealed that ELF users appreciated what they shared with other ELF users (i.e., shared non-nativeness, Hülmbauer 2009) and the collaborative features of ELF talk. The participants appreciated the fact that peer NNESs help each other during interactions to achieve successful communication. This then led to a positive influence on ELF speakers, creating a sense of security and comfort in ELF interactions. In the present study, the sense of sharing was developed when the Japanese L2 English users recognised their status as legitimate English users, and when they deemed that they shared the same status with other NNSEs around them. They saw that NNSEs are on the same boat in the globalised world where English has become a common language; in other words, they saw an equal and balanced power relation with other NNSEs, which provided them with comfort and security as English users. This eventually influenced their performance positively in ELF interactions. They could express their true self during ELF interactions with others of equal power, without being constrained socio-psychologically. Such a positive socio-psychological state of the ELF speakers helped them identify themselves affirmatively and created legitimacy within themselves as ELF speakers, thus endorsing their identity which was salient in a given situation (Kalocsai 2009; Virkkula and Nikula 2010, see also Ting-Toomey 2005).

5.4 Discussion and conclusion

141

5.4.2 Symbolic resources, power relations and positioning of self Intercultural communication through ELF needs to be seen as a social practice where the relationship between language, power and ideology plays a significant role in positioning of ELF speakers themselves (Baker 2016). The findings suggest that the Japanese L2 English users saw fluency and advanced ability in English communication of other NNSEs as symbolic resources. This played a significant role in creating unequal power relations and negotiation of the participants’ individual identities. Such unbalanced power relations can influence the L2 English users’ identities both positively and negatively (Cummins 1996). Indeed at times, the Japanese L2 English users were empowered by recognising the symbolic resources of fluent ELF speakers. There was a collaborative power relation between them (Cummins 1996), which affirmed their identities positively as English or ELF users. Some degree of competence for successful communication through ELF was regarded as a symbolic capital, which the participants admired and aspired to gain as their own in order to achieve greater access to the wider communities of English users (Jackson 2008; Phan 2008). In this case, the symbolic resources of more proficient NNSEs were appreciated as a result of their blood and sweat. The participants were inspired to improve their ability in communication and the English language skills and eager to invest more in learning and practice, so that they would acquire the symbolic resources in the future. In other words, as they invested in learning, they were investing for their future selves (Norton 2000). On the other hand, the symbolic capital of fluent ELF speakers and NSEs sometimes appeared to work coercively on the identities of many of the Japanese L2 English users. They put themselves in socially powerless and weaker positions, where they could not expand their identities as English users, in other words, imposing constraints on their identities. The unequal power relations induced negative emotions such as anxiety, insecurity, lack of confidence and inferiority in relation to how they saw themselves as English users (Jackson 2008; Norton 2000). The feelings of anxiety and a lack of confidence were linked to the power relations that the participants negotiated in social interactions in English (Morita 2004; Norton 2000). With which interlocutors they found power imbalances depended on what resources they saw as symbolic power in that person (Norton 2000) during interactions in a situated context. This implies that power is “not [a] fixed, pre-determined quantity, but can be mutually generated in interpersonal and intergroup relations” (Norton 2000: 9). The findings also reveal that the participants negotiated their identities within their own lived experiences, going through damaging emotions on the basis of unequal power relations. Power can be imposed by the others, but also

142

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

can be imagined by one’s internalised perception of the world on the basis of linguacultural and racial profiles. One adverse experience sometimes lingered to influence their identity negatively. In the most extreme cases, some participants became afraid of interacting with others whom they deemed to hold symbolic power (e.g., fluent NNSEs and NSEs), and could not put forth effort to facilitate the conversation further. In other words, they lost investment in the opportunities to interact with others in English even though they were generally motivated L2 English users (Norton 2000). Consequently, their identities with respect to L2 English were misaligned (Jackson 2008; Norton 2000). This suggests that the Japanese L2 English users’ feelings of anxiety and a lack of confidence in their L2 abilities are socially constructed rather than representing inherent personality traits (Norton 2000). Social inequality is perpetuated in the language in terms of what may be viewed as prestigious. Symbolic capital of the English language sometimes represents native-speakerism that sees NSEs and proficient NNSEs as the ultimate prized object. In particular, language proficiency is related to ideological and power issues in intercultural communication through ELF (Baker 2015; Kramsch and Uryu 2012; Piller 2011). In this regard, ELF speakers do not always see themselves as equal but rank themselves according to, for example, accent (Jenkins, 2007), fluency and proficiency. Such unbalanced power relations can instigate coercive power on communicators in ELF communication. Linguistic proficiency and influence of NSEs still have a significant influence on communicators’ roles in interaction and construction of identity. ELF research generally investigates what is shared among ELF speakers; however, it is important to recognise the ideological element and existing unequal power structures in intercultural encounters through ELF (Baker 2015) too, in particular in terms of language choice and proficiency, which shapes the trajectory of ELF speakers’ identity construction.

5.4.3 Discourse of native-speakerism and imagined communities Concerning issues of ideology and coercive, unequal power relations in intercultural communication, Cook (2007) explains that insecurity about their deficiency in English use when interacting with NSEs is a discourse of native-speakerism. Pavlenko (2003) discusses that L2 English users who experience power imbalances between a NSE and a NNSE are seeking membership in an imagined community of native speakers, and those who see NSE competence as their pursuit of L2 acquisition are seeking and attempting to claim membership in an imagined community of L2 learners/non-native speakers. Both imagined communities are informed by a

5.4 Discussion and conclusion

143

NSE-NNSE dichotomy that sees NSEs as the ultimate goal of competence for NNSEs. Such a view can have negative and undesirable effects on L2 English users’ identities because they often perceive themselves as failed learners in comparison with NSEs. Their self-perception is based on their English competence, which is a representation of aiming towards native-based competence. It is fair to say that even though there were plenty of other cases where participants embraced their identities as L2 English and ELF speakers, many participants in my study were trapped as members in their imagined community of NNSEs, where they were engaged in a native/non-native dichotomy (Pavlenko 2003). This could be due to the ideology surrounding ELT in Japan where there is widespread nativespeakerism in the system, in which the goal of learning is set based on idealised NSE standard, and thus students are expected to aim for unattainable NSE competency, whatever that means. To become a full-fledged member of imagined communities is people need to acknowledge each other as legitimate members, namely legitimate L2 English speakers (Norton 2001; Pavlenko 2003) or ELF users. In imagined communities where the NS/NNS dichotomy is relevant, it is restrictive for self-representation of L2 English users (Pavlenko 2003). Therefore, L2 users need to develop skills to question the ideology rather than reproducing NSE discourse. They should be able to seek and claim their membership in an alternative imagined community where they can expand their identities beyond native-speakerism. Several scholars have contested the on-going discourse of native/non-native dichotomy, and proposed an alternative model that sees NNSEs as multicompetent speakers or multicompetent L2 users (Cook 2007; Hall et al. 2006; Ortega 2009; Ortega and Carson 2010; Rinnert 2010). In this framework, the term L2 user implies a speaker who uses L2 “for the need of his or her everyday life” (Cook 2003: 5), and we treat L2 users as legitimate speakers of the language rather than failed NNSEs, which can empower L2 users’ identity. Having taken up Cook’s concept of multicompetent speakers, for example, Pavlenko (2003) demonstrated that reimagining their linguistic membership and ownership by imagining themselves as members of a multilingual/L2 user community had a great impact on TESOL trainee teachers’ identities. Imagining/reimagining themselves as multicompetent L2 users may have a significant effect on how L2 learners see themselves. There are options available to consider themselves as bilingual/multilingual, multicultural, and legitimate L2 users, so that they can find ways to empower themselves to reconstruct positive self-identification (Cook 2007; Pavlenko and Norton 2007; Pavlenko 2003). Providing an alternative vision for current and future possible selves by (re)imagining the process during education would help L2 learners optimise construction of their L2 identities (Jackson 2008; Kanno 2003; Kanno and Norton 2003; Pavlenko, 2003).

144

Chapter 5 Power relations and negotiation of identities in ELF communication

The concept of multicompetent L2 speakers accords with the major concern in ELF studies too. ELF researchers reject the NSE ideology and refer to “a bilingual proficient speaker as an empirically based alternative to native norms” (Cogo 2008: 31). ELF speakers are not labelled as L2 learners who are “always on the way to native speaker status but doomed never to get there” (Cook 2007: 19), nor are they NNSEs who are passive imitators of an NSE norm. The primary motive of ELF speakers is to achieve efficiency and mutual intelligibility in intercultural communication (e.g., Jenkins 2006a). ELF speakers are known to collaborate with their peers from various linguacultural backgrounds, effectively using various strategies and turning them to their advantage. Hence, they are given the legitimacy to negotiate the norms for their language use during interaction on a moment-to-moment basis. Mutually engaging in the practice and developing shared repertoires, ELF users co-construct a unique ELF-resourced community (Kalocsai 2014). In order for L2 learners to come to realise themselves as ELF users, more exposure to and participation in various types of ELF communication is necessary and meaningful (Iino and Murata 2016). With more experience, they can learn how to exploit both linguistic and non-linguistic resources to achieve their communicative purposes, thus empowering themselves to act as legitimate members of the ELF-resourced community while embracing their identity as expert ELF users, not just L2 learners (Seidlhofer 2011, Iino and Murata 2016).

Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF In this third findings and discussion chapter, the role of cultural awareness in ELF interactions is explored. This chapter deals with the following research question: How do the Japanese L2 English users’ identities reflect a feeling of cultural closeness with ELF interlocutors? The chapter shows how the Japanese L2 English users’ narratives described their relationships with East Asian ELF users, including stories told by two diarists. The role of culture in English interactions in which the Japanese L2 English users participate will be explored. The findings from my data will demonstrate how emotional closeness and perceived cultural similarities with East Asian speakers of English are expressed by the participants, and how cultural identities in relation to the English language are constructed and negotiated by the participants’ lived experiences.

6.1 Awareness of the self and others Along with the sense of sharing among ELF speakers (as presented in the previous chapter), another thing that commonly arises in the interviews is the participants’ collective perspective on East Asian ELF speakers. The data suggest that the participants held both conscious and subconscious views of us and them. They saw themselves as Asians collectively along with other Asians (i.e., us), and saw British and Europeans collectively as them in the globalised Englishspeaking world. The participants’ narratives showed that they seemed to see British and Europeans34 altogether as belonging to the same category. Some of the participants explicitly explained this awareness. For instance, Hiromi said, Extract 6.1 Within me, I [am not sure] what the differences are between West Europeans and British people. (Hiromi interview)

34 The language elicitation questionnaire included only three categories (British: native speakers; West European non-native speakers; and East Asian: non-native speakers). However, the researcher’s intention was not to emphasise the dichotomy of West and East. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-006

146

Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF

In the same manner, Nina explained that, Extract 6.2 I don’t know much difference between West Europeans and British people. […] Ah, difference, well, if it is between Japan and America, well, I have a clear image like modesty and something else, so. . . But if it is British and West Europeans, I don’t have stereotypical images of them. Umm, they are actually lumped together. (Nina interview)

Similarly to Nina, Takako said that Europeans including the British are: Extract 6.3 lumped together. It’s after all, like Asia, or Western countries. (Takako interview)

As shown, for many of the participants (eight out of 15 interviewees), Westerners were seen as one big group that was different from themselves. Some other participants (among the eight interviewees) implicitly referred to Westerners to signify the differences from themselves. Tae, Hitomi and Takako refered to Westerners as “mukoh no hito” and “acchi no hito” (‘people of the other side’ or ‘other people’), and some others (e.g., Hitomi, Mutsumi, and Yoriko) refered to them as “foreign”, “foreigner”, “Europeans” and “foreign countries”. In other cases, referring to Westerners as the Others was expressed implicitly with comparison to the Self. The participants revealed that they tended to see themselves and other Asians together in contrast to the Others (i.e., British and Europeans). For instance, Mutsumi’s account showed the differentiation of the grouping of Asian and other foreign countries, which she referred to as Western countries. Extract 6.4 Well, like in Japan and Asia, the distance between teachers and students is a bit far, but well if it’s in foreign countries, it is closer. Such as, you can call me by [first] name. (Mutsumi interview)

Yoriko similarly described how differently people would respond to the same situation with an emphasis on differentiating Europeans and Asians including Japanese: Extract 6.5 Well, if it were a Japanese, no Japanese would say like, “this is not tasty”. But similar things often happen like, somebody told me “I cannot eat this” when I served Japanese food. Well, after all, I think it’s a difference between Japanese and foreigners. Asians eat everything [I serve] with a compliment. Yeah, showing some respect. But Europeans or people from other countries say things frankly [if they don’t like the food]. (Yoriko interview)

In the same manner, Naofumi told of his short-term study experiences in Australia and the UK. His narrative included the discourse of us vs. them.

6.2 Feeling of closeness and perceived similarity with East Asian ELF users

147

Extract 6.6 Naofumi: Well, we, peer Asians often gathered together. It wasn’t easy to meet native speakers. Interviewer: Ah, both in the UK and Australia? Naofumi: Yeah, right. Only instructors were native speakers etc. but most of the students were Asians. Interviewer: Yeah, right. Naofumi: Peer-Asians easily become friends. Like. Yeah. Well, right, […] Interviewer: [Why] do you think you tend to gather with Asians during the studying abroad? Naofumi: Right. Well, this side might have prejudice but the people of the other side are, yeah, both in the UK and Australia. Interviewer: What kind of prejudice? Naofumi: What kind? Well, I heard and experienced myself, well, while strolling streets in the UK, well with peer-Japanese. Well, like name-calling and finger pointing, I don’t remember what was shouted at us. Our instructors were British and (told us those people) used abusive language. And, I home-stayed at an Australian family home, well, that family was native [English-speaking] Australians, well, accepting Asians to their own house, (?) it was harsh for me. (Naofumi interview)

His subconscious choice of words such as ‘peer-Asians (ajiajin dohshi)’ to refer to himself and other Asian students and ‘people of the other side (mukoh no hito)’ to refer to Western English speakers depicts the discourse of us vs. them. Such awareness of us and them was enhanced by experiencing the division between the us-group and the them-group during his stay in their countries. It seems that the awareness of us vs. them was prevalent when the Japanese L2 English users participated in intercultural communication. This awareness appeared to be reinforced by their lived experience in the communities where they were situated at the time of the study or in the past. In the next section, I will delve more deeply into what factors influence recognition of us in the participants’ narratives in relation to ELF interactions.

6.2 Feeling of closeness and perceived similarity with East Asian ELF users The data in my study show that the Japanese L2 English speakers felt comfortable and secure speaking to English speakers with Asian backgrounds. Due to their sense of emotional security, they tended to enjoy the interaction with Asian ELF speakers. The participants’ narratives (11 out of 15 interviewees) reveal their perceptions of closeness to and similarity with East Asian ELF speakers, which were often informed in relation to their shared cultural and ethnic

148

Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF

heritage and physical appearance. For instance, Umi stated why she felt closer to East Asians. Extract 6.7 Appearance is the main point, I think. If I say “culture” I’m not sure about it because the characters are different from Japanese. Appearance is the main thing. (Umi interview)

The recognition of similarities in physical appearance with East Asian ELF speakers is contrasted to the perception of differences in racial traits with Europeans. Natsumi expressed the obvious differences in physical appearance between Asians and Europeans, which caused her emotional stress in English-speaking occasions, in comparison to how comfortable she felt with East Asians. Extract 6.8 The obvious difference in the size of the body with Asians, and difference in colours of hair and eyes make me nervous. When I travelled to the US and Europe, once getting off a plane, I looked around and saw people who were obviously different from Asians. It made me very nervous. But when I went to Asia (China and Korea), I didn’t have such stress. (Natsumi Diary 9: 2009-07-10)

Along with the recognition of similarities in racial traits with East Asian ELF speakers, some other participants expressed feelings of closeness to them due to the similar “culture” and “values” they share. This sense of sharing consequently allowed them to feel comfortable interacting with East Asians in English, and encouraged them to see themselves as ELF speakers. Fuyuka, for instance, described the phenomenon as follows: Extract 6.9 After all, in a sense, well, there are similarities with Asians, and I’m able to speak English, not Japanese, because I can speak English to them, [I have] quite a few [friends] from Taiwan, China and Thailand. (Fuyuka interview)

Similarly, Tomomi expressed the following: Extract 6.10 After all, because it’s Asians, the sense of values is similar. Especially, with Chinese people, well when the level of English is not so high, we could understand each other by writing a bit of Chinese characters, like “oh, I see”. Moreover, because English is not the mother tongue for both parties, I develop affinity to them. So, for those reasons, I can become friends with them easily, I’ve thought. (Tomomi interview)

Besides the sense of shared values, sharing some of the same written characters in their respective first languages helped Tomomi establish good relationships with East Asian ELF speakers. Their shared multilingual repertoire could compensate for potential communication problems in ELF. Yoriko described how

6.2 Feeling of closeness and perceived similarity with East Asian ELF users

149

comfortable she felt with East Asian ELF speakers because of their communication style that matched her preference as an East Asian herself. Extract 6.11 I’m comfortable with speaking English to Chinese people, for example. Of course, the Chinese students also have their own clear opinion, but they give me a chance to talk, and they are good at it. This lacks in West European and British people. That’s the point. When they debate, they get too excited, I mean Westerners and British. But Asians listen to each other smilingly, and they don’t go on recklessly. That’s great about Asians. (Yoriko interview)

Yoriko appreciated that East Asian ELF speakers acknowledge her as a person because she is being listened to. In other words, her “desire for recognition” (West 1992: 21; Norton 2000; Kanno 2000) tends to be affirmed when she interacts with East Asian ELF speakers. Furthermore, the participants expressed another aspect of the sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers, which was the level of ability to use English. For example, Tae described how the similar level of ability of English use influenced her feeling of closeness to East Asian ELF speakers. Extract 6.12 After all, there are similarities with Asians about how they produce sounds and how they have learned the language, etc. If they don’t understand something, I don’t understand the same thing. So, they and I are on the same wavelength. But when it comes to Europeans, they have studied [English] in a different way, and the level of [English] is also different. . . (Tae interview)

The similarity in terms of the ability of English use with East Asians was compared to them (i.e., Europeans). With such comparisons, the sense of sharing among us was heightened. In another example, Takeo described a similar reason as to why he felt more at ease when he spoke to East Asian friends compared to speaking to European friends. Extract 6.13 Takeo: Right, well, it is easer to understand rather than easier to speak. Interviewer: I see. In what sense do you feel it’s easier to understand [them]? Like pronunciation? Takeo: Ehh, pronunciation and, speed, I guess. Yeah. Interviewer: Do you think Asians speaks slower? Takeo: A bit slower. Yes. Rather than slow, maybe, they show their kindness because my English hasn’t developed much too? @@@@ Interviewer: Oh, do you feel that Asians show their understanding like that? Takeo: @@@ Well, it’s also because the Asian friends’ English haven’t developed either. But I think we can talk by helping each other. (Takeo interview)

150

Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF

The participants’ lived experiences seemed to underscore the notion of a shared level of English language use with East Asian ELF speakers. A similar sense of sharing in terms of the perceived comparable level of English proficiency with other NNSEs was discussed in Chapter 5. The participants’ narratives revealed that that the sense of similarity in terms of English proficiency was often closely connected to the sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers more than with non-East Asian speakers of English. Such an intensified sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers, which had an even more robust effect on how the participants saw themselves positively in the communities of ELF speakers. In relation to this, Naofumi expressed how the communication among East Asian ELF speakers, which he called “Asian English”, was more comfortable for him compared to situations in which NSEs or fluent NNSEs were involved. Extract 6.14 If among peer Asians, with Asian English, it’s quite easier to communicate. But, at the places where native speakers are involved or a speaker is a native or near native, the conversation gets close to native-like, right? When this happens I keenly realize, like, my limit and inability. (Naofumi interview)

As presented above, the participants talked about the sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers, which involved what they perceived as similarity and feelings of closeness in terms of culture and ethnicity as well as the perceived similar level of the English language ability and similar communication styles. Such perceptions that heightened the sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers had a positive psychologically impact on the participants, which created comfort and security when they engaged in ELF interactions with them. Some diarists also addressed a robust sense of sharing and increased sense of security in ELF interactions with East Asians based on their day-to-day experience, which I now turn to.

6.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 3 This section introduces the last two case studies of diarists: Miyu and Isuzu. Both case studies similarly illustrate a sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers, but in different contexts.

6.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 3

151

6.3.1 Miyu’s story: The sense of sharing and identity as an advanced user of English Miyu’s identity in relation to the English language depicted in her diary entries marked her sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers, as well as her positioning as an advanced user of English. When she participated in the diary study, she was enrolled in a doctoral course in American literature in a Japanese university, and at the same time she was working part-time as an administrator in a language centre of the same university. She was also teaching English parttime in a college of nursing once a week. When she was an undergraduate student a few years earlier, she went to a university in Hawaii, USA, as an exchange student for six months. She had always invested much effort in learning English, and had achieved the highest range of scores and grades on major English language assessment tests. She was motivated to learn “standard” and “appropriate” English; she always observed how NSEs used the language and tried to acquire it on a daily basis (Diaries 1, 2 and 3), which depicted her learner identity. However, it does not mean that she was fixated on the so-called native speaker model, but rather was simply interested in learning the grammatical rules of the English language as well as new expressions. A prominent aspect of her identity in relation to L2 English was related to her identity as an advanced English user. Her diary entries demonstrate that she felt embarrassed when her interlocutor noticed that she did not know a certain word, or she would feel anxious about whether what she had said was appropriate or not in the context. She felt particularly so when the interlocutors knew her as an advanced English user at her university. An example is shown below. Extract 6.15 Professor C. (female) came and reported to the language centre about a female overseas student having fallen ill. At that time, the professor said the word “bleeding” many times, and I was guessing the student was bleeding from her injury. And then she said “menstrual”. I was puzzled because I didn’t know the term. For no reason at all, I thought myself “food poisoning!?”. After this, I was struggling to follow what the conversation was about. Anyway, she asked me to take care of the student if she would come in. The conversation finished, leaving me not knowing about the condition of the student’s illness. I should have asked the meaning of “menstrual” at that time straightaway, but I didn’t because the professor was in a hurry and I didn’t want her to know that I didn’t know the term. In the end, I checked it in the dictionary. And then after the conversation, I understood “menstrual” means “月経の [gekkei no]”, which linked to “bleeding. I came to be fully convinced that I’m glad I didn’t say, “is it food poisoning?” during the conversation. (Miyu Diary 8: 2009-08-07)

152

Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF

When asked why she did not want the professor to know about her lack of knowledge, she explained, Extract 6.16 I felt that I’d be ashamed to let the other side know that I didn’t know [the word].

On another occasion (Diary 4), after she had a conversation in English with another professor of the same university, she was worried about her use of English grammar during the interaction. She used the past tense “wore” where she later thought the present tense “wear” sounded more natural. The interaction between her and the professor went smoothly, yet later she was concerned that the way she spoke made this professor think it was strange and incorrect use of the language. She later described the reason for her concern: Extract 6.17 I don’t think I felt bad if I was regarded as strange, but I would have felt embarrassed because I major in English. (Miyu Diary 4: 2009-06-05).

She was one of the postgraduate students and a member of the staff who had a reputation for having a good command of English, and the academic members of staff who talked to her in English appreciated her as a capable user of English. The diary entries reveal that she positioned herself as an advanced user of English with those members of academic staff. She wanted to be seen as a competent English user and remain so. The contrast in how she felt about making mistakes or not understanding some expressions was noteworthy in terms of whether she positioned herself as a learner or an advanced user. When she positioned herself as a learner, she did not feel embarrassed about making mistakes as such, but rather simply enjoyed learning new expressions (Diary 1, 2, and 3). Her different identities in relation to L2 English were in constant negotiation according to various interactional opportunities where she positioned herself differently depending on the relationship with her interlocutors. Every human being has a desire to be recognised (Norton 2000; Kanno 2000; West 1992) for positive identity security. Miyu was afraid that she might lose the other’s recognition of her as an advanced English user. She wanted to keep her legitimacy as an English user in the university where she was situated. Moreover, sharing similar culture and ethnicity with her interlocutors notably affected Miyu’s cycle of identity construction through English communication too. When interacting with culturally similar others (regardless of whether the interlocutors were NSEs or NNSEs), Miyu felt that it was easier to get emotionally connected to them. The closer she felt to the interlocutor, the more the communication satisfied her, which resulted in leading her to position herself positively as an English user. On the other hand, she often could not invest in

6.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 3

153

communication with culturally dissimilar others because of anxiety coming from uncertainty about her interlocutor’s background. Miyu also commented in Diary 10 that the English interactions with East Asian ELF speakers made her realise that they all shared similar ways of understanding things. Extract 6.18 (a shorter version of the same extract is shown as Extract 5.7 in Chapter 5) After 4 years, I met a Taiwanese friend (Emily) and a Korean friend (Susie) in Hong Kong. […] After all, it’s quick to open up to friends; I thought I could speak to them without feeling stressed because English is the L2 to all of us. When the conversation partner is a NSE, I worry about my vocabulary, pronunciation and grammatical mistakes. However, when it is among people who speak English as the L2, I don’t have to worry about making mistakes. I know I can speak lightheartedly. Also, I spent a lot of time with them when we all were in Hawaii, we’ve got something in common to talk about, and we are all from Asian countries, our ways of thinking are similar. So I can make myself understood easily with them. These are the reasons I could enjoy talking with them without feeling stressed. (Miyu Diary 10: 2009-12-17)

Interestingly, the next diary entry (Diary 11) further shows how much the sense of sharing culture and ethnicity with interlocutors influenced her sense of self, regardless of whether they were NSEs or NNSEs. Extract 6.19 After I used English for a prolonged time, I felt that it led me to have confidence as “being capable of speaking English”, I felt easier to speak to a native speaker of English. She is a Japanese Canadian called Emma, English she speaks is quite clear and easy for me to understand, and also, she understands quickly what I try to say. So, in that sense, I can speak to her light-heartedly. In the case when the conversational partner is a non-native speaker of English with European background (for example, Dania about whom I wrote in another diary entry), there is a little barrier between her and me compared to when I speak to Emma. That’s probably because the conversational partner is a European and [I am] an Asian, so there is [differences in cultural background], I think it depends on intimacy with the other. After all, when the person’s root is from Asia, regardless of being a native or non-native speaker of English, it’s easier to get close to them, so that when speaking in English, I can speak light-heartedly. (Miyu Diary 11: 2009-12-24)

What became apparent in this diary is the importance of her cultural and ethnic affinity with her interlocutor, even though in this case the interlocutor was a NSE. When interacting with culturally similar others, Miyu felt that it was easier to become emotionally connected to them, which enabled her to enjoy the conversation, fostering positive self-identification. On the other hand, when interacting with culturally dissimilar others (e.g., a NNSE with European background), even though they may have “shared non-nativeness” (Hülmbauer 2009), she felt

154

Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF

it was more difficult to be emotionally attached to them, and thus she could not identify herself positively due to anxiety which came from uncertainty about what cultural norms the others would bring to English interactions.

6.3.2 Isuzu’s story: Perceived discrimination and identity misalignment Isuzu’s identity as an English user fluctuated greatly depending on what she perceived in various interactional opportunities. She first went to the UK for her undergraduate study in 2003, and from that time on she studied at the same university through her master’s and doctoral programmes majoring in an area of linguistics. At the beginning of the diary study, she was in the second year of her PhD research. She generally did not have much investment in social interaction either in Japanese or in English because it was “troublesome”, which was partly due to her introverted, passive and “shy personal traits”. She explained that it was easier to just listen to other people speak rather than to join the conversation. When it came to engaging in interactions in English, this tendency appeared even more strongly. For instance, she reported an occasion when two of her officemates were talking about whether the printer allocated in the office worked properly or not. Isuzu kept quiet without joining the conversation even though she knew that the printer worked satisfactorily. She initially explained that this was probably due to her shyness, but when I inquired what she would do in the same situation with Japanese officemates, she added other reasons. Extract 6.20 I do think that the reason I couldn’t join in the conversation was because it was in English. When it is not a situation like that and the other end asks me something, or I have to say something, I cannot initiate the talk from my side as naturally as I would do in Japanese. So I think I tend to hesitate. Maybe a lack of confidence? A bit of self-hatred, though. (Isuzu Diary 4: 2009-05-27)

Elsewhere she also mentioned, Extract 6.21 English is the second language for me, so inevitably I cannot have 100% confidence. (Isuzu reflective essay: 2009-12-16)

Those accounts display, regardless of her prolonged study in the UK, that she still struggled with her low self-esteem when it came to interacting in English. Meanwhile, she often expressed the experience of what she perceived as prejudice and discrimination. After encountering such incidents, her identities were often misaligned.

6.3 Constructing identities through ELF encounters: Diarists’ stories 3

155

Extract 6.22 When I went to a supermarket, the lady (British in her 20–30s) at the till threw the change to me. It was very unpleasant. I did say “thank you” as I left, but I got offended even more when I heard her cheerfully saying “hello” to the next British gentleman. If it happened in Japan and I saw a bad-mannered store staffer, I would not mind so much because I would consider them as the wrongdoer. But when this happens in the UK or in a foreign country, I feel very uncomfortable because I feel I’m been discriminated against. (Isuzu Diary 7: 2009-07-07)

Similar unpleasant encounters were reported on different occasions (in Diaries 1 and 10, and see Diary 10 as Extract 5.27 in Chapter 5). When she encountered events that left her feeling discriminated against, she blamed her lack of English language competence and later hesitated to get involved in interactions with British people. Isuzu believed that being visibly different and speaking English with a different accent from members of the majority were the factors underlying the discrimination she experienced. Jackson (2008) documented similar incidents among Hong Kong students during their time abroad in the UK. Those students frequently experienced events that they perceived as prejudice and discrimination in intercultural encounters (e.g., being stared at when the whole group was queuing at a bus ticket office, and being ignored by local girls at a party that a host family held). Jackson (2008) explained that it was more likely for students to experience perceived prejudice and discrimination in the host culture when their physical (i.e., racial) appearance and English accent are very different from that of the core members of the host community, and when their respective cultural values are dissimilar to a great extent. The students in Jackson’s (2008) study were sojourners of relatively short-term (five weeks) in England, in which the border crossing experience may possibly have had greater impact on the sojourners’ perspectives. However, Isuzu, who had lived in the UK for an extended period (already more than five years at the time of the diary study), also experienced similar perceived discrimination. Therefore, such phenomena are not prone to happen to only immediate border crossers. Isuzu also believed that the reason for the perceived discrimination was not only based on her racial background (i.e., physical appearance) but also her “limited” English competence. Her view of her own limited ability of English use stemmed from her lack of self-confidence with English. Just as Jackson (2008) described that international students who speak the host language with a different accent from the host members tend to experience perceived discrimination, Isuzu also partly blamed the discrimination on her English. Then, her identity as an English speaker was misaligned, and she sometimes became afraid of interacting with strangers of British background. We can also observe here how an unequal power relation was represented

156

Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF

between Isuzu as a “racialised being” and of “disadvantaged English language ability” and the British people as the majority of the community. This issue of power relations was fully discussed in Chapter 5. However, not everything was doom and gloom for Isuzu in terms of interacting in English. Other diary entries depicted occasions (Diaries 5, 11 and 12) on which she appreciated how open and friendly people can be in an Englishspeaking community (in comparison to the closed Japanese society). Extract 6.23 When I got on the bus yesterday, the driver (Nepalese, male in his 40s, maybe) spoke to me asking, “Where are you from?” Then, I told him about my study etc. I said that I was doing research for my PhD, then he said to me, “You’ll be a doctor when you complete the study, won’t you? Great! Congratulations.” The driver was very friendly, and I enjoyed talking with him. When I was getting off the bus, he said “Good luck” with his smile. I was very happy about this conversation. If I were in Japan, I would never have a small talk with a bus driver. So in terms of this, I love how friendly people can be in the UK (or outside Japan). People often say “hello” when getting on a bus, and “thank you” when getting off a bus. We don’t seem to have such communication in Japan. In Japan, people have to speak using polite expression to strangers, and they rarely greet strangers. I love the way people start their communication with “hello” in English. (Isuzu Diary 5: 2009-06-08)

Regardless of her introverted personality and a relative lack of confidence in English use, when a stranger initiated a conversation with her, she fully embraced the opportunity. Moreover, she disclosed how comfortable she felt when speaking English with culturally similar others (i.e., East Asian speakers of English). In the following episode, she told how she felt about her chat with a Taiwanese friend whom she met by chance on a bus, and she reflected on the event as follows. Extract 6.24 (a shorter version of Diary 9 is shown as Extract 5.6 in Chapter 5) I met one of my Taiwanese friends (female, 20s) on the bus by chance. We talked a lot about how we’ve been doing because it’s been a while since we last saw each other. It was only about 10 minutes, but I had an enjoyable conversation with her. Among nonnative English speakers, I thought it is easier to speak to them compared to speaking to a NS. When I speak to a NS, I am concerned about my grammatical mistakes and stuff more compared to when speaking to a NNS. I think I feel most at ease when the conversational partner’s English [proficiency] is similar to mine. And I feel most at ease when the other’s nationality is an Asian country. Probably when both nationality and English competence are closer to mine, I would feel more at ease because I would feel intimacy with them. (Isuzu Diary 9: 2009-08-21)

Because she did not have to worry about her own ability of speaking English, she felt more relaxed interacting with NNSEs. Additionally, perceiving that she

6.4 Discussion and conclusion

157

shared a similar culture with her East Asian interlocutor facilitated comfort during the conversation. This shows that her identity as an English speaker was negotiated depending on with whom she interacted. When she interacted with culturally similar others with whom she shared NNSE status in an Englishspeaking country, her identity as an English speaker was upheld positively. This phenomenon contrasted to her identity misalignment when she experienced what she perceived as discrimination because of her status as a visibly obvious NNSE and an ethnic minority in a British community. The sense of security coming from shared racial appearance with East Asian ELF speakers may have been intensified because of her experience of being marginalised in the British community.

6.4 Discussion and conclusion The findings above were presented in relation to how the participants expressed the perceived cultural affinity with East Asian interlocutors in English interaction. The findings themselves provide answers to the research question: How do the Japanese L2 English users’ identities reflect a feeling of cultural closeness with ELF interlocutors? In this section, I will develop further discussion by triangulating the findings into how culture is constructed and how ELF communication leads to establishing cultural identities of the Japanese L2 English users.

6.4.1 A sense of sharing, cultural group and cultural identity in ELF interaction Many participants expressed the perception that they shared a similar culture with East Asian ELF speakers. By culture they meant beliefs, orientations to life and values at a generic level, which seems to accord with the following definition of “culture” provided by Spencer-Oatey (2008: 3): Culture is a fuzzy set of basic assumptions and values, orientations to life, beliefs, policies, procedures and behavioural conventions that are shared by a group of people, and that influence (but do not determine) each member’s behaviour and his/her interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of other people’s behaviour.

“Culture” expressed by the participants was relevant to their participation in intercultural communication in English. There may have been a notion of culture associated with a particular region (e.g., Asia and Europe) or a nation state, but what they see as shared culture was somewhat fluid compared to the culture-nation nexus. If culture were discussed, for instance, where English

158

Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF

communication was not concerned, the participants would have expressed different perceptions of culture (e.g., cultural similarities and differences within East Asians in general). Moreover, how the participants described us vs. them represents the Self and the Others in the discourse of the Others (Bakhtin 1986). The awareness of the Self was shaped and reinforced by the awareness of the Others (Baker 2009; Bakhtin 1986; Jackson 2008; Virkkula and Nikula 2010) and formed the basis for the cultural grouping among ELF speakers. The Others were Westerners who are less familiar to and “different” from the participants. Many participants did not seem to appreciate the members of the Others as ELF speakers as much as they did East Asian English speakers. This was mainly due to their limited experiences in communicating with European ELF users; thus their comments in the interviews were mostly grounded in their experience-based knowledge of British or American speakers of English (i.e., Westerners). Even though the participants did not group West European ELF speakers and British NSEs entirely together,35 they often categorised West European ELF speakers and British collectively as the Others who bear somewhat distant culture to themselves. These seemingly relatively stable positionings, often thought of as essentialised, are in fact sedimental and built up over time through many repeated encounters in which identity is brought about performatively (Bayham 2015: 84). The perceptions of cultural differences and similarities are discursively constructed in the participants’ lived experiences. The subjective experience of an individual defies their affiliation to a group with which they share the similar traits (Bettoni 2006: 38). The participants made “East Asian culture” relevant to themselves in their situated context for intercultural communication through ELF. In relation to ELF, sharedness among ELF speakers can be commonality (Hülmbauer, 2009); however, it could also be a product of the Self-Other differentiation within ELF speakers with different cultural assumptions. Reinforced by the discourse of the Others, the strong sense of sharing culture constituted the criterion for establishment of a cultural group for the participants in terms of communication with English speakers. I would argue that this cultural group was recognised by the sense of sharing with the members of the group, in other words, East Asian ELF speakers. Those membership categories are negotiated and constructed through interaction using a range of symbolic and indexical cues related to linguistic and other resources (Baker 2016; Zhu 2014, 2015). There were three main components in recognition of the cultural group. One was the perception of

35 They generally regarded British people as NSEs not ELF speakers (Nogami 2011).

6.4 Discussion and conclusion

159

holding similar values, beliefs and pattern of behaviours; another was similar racial appearance; and the third was a similar communication style when using English as well as similar level of the English language ability. With regard to ethnicity and race, although cultural group is not only about ethnicity and race, these factors can be central to people identifying with a cultural group (Zhu 2014: 204). People draw upon something visible, audible and readable as cues to guide the establishment of a cultural group (Baker 2015: 114). These three components were associated with the sense of sharing or cultural affinity with East Asian ELF speakers and a realisation of cultural group among my participants. A cultural group is described by Norton (2000: 19) as “members of a group who share a common history, a common language and similar ways of understanding the world”. The findings of my study prompt me to propose that the “common language” that Norton (2000) refers to can be extended to how speakers use ELF rather than only their first language, in particular, in intercultural communication. Based on a sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers, the participants constructed cultural identity in relation to ELF as one level of the multiple identities that signify emotional significance and a sense of belonging to the larger cultural group (Ting-Toomey 2005: 214). In fact, many participants revealed their emotional security and comfort during ELF interactions with East Asian interlocutors (for similar comments about Japanese students’ preference or ease in ELF discussion, see Tsuchiya 2013 and in English-medium instruction (EMI) setting, see Iino and Murata 2016). Such psychological effects of engaging with culturally similar others in intercultural communications result in the maintenance of positive identity (Ting-Toomey 2005) as an English user. This suggests that the individual’s cultural identities were intact in such ELF communications with whom they regarded as the members of the same cultural group (i.e., East Asian ELF speakers). However, it is important to note again that the participants’ cultural identity was only one aspect of their multiple identities that became relevant in a particular situation when the sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers appeared robustly. Cultural identity becomes significant only at particular instances or moments of interaction when participants identify it (Baker 2015; Zhu 2014), which reflects the nature of culture in intercultural communication as neither static nor inherent, and thus avoids essentialism and stereotyping (Baker 2015).

6.4.2 Imagined communities of East Asian ELF speakers and interculturality As discussed in the previous section, the findings demonstrate that the participants’ affinity with East Asian ELF speakers, reinforced by the prevalence of

160

Chapter 6 Construction of cultural identities through ELF

the discourse of the Others (Baker 2009; Bakhtin 1986; Jackson 2008), led them to establish an imagined cultural group. This cultural group can also be regarded as the imagined community of East Asian ELF speakers. This imagined community was constructed through the minds of people who perceived themselves as part of a group, and connected with each other through their perceived sense of sharing. I argue that the participants of my study regarded themselves as active members of an imagined community of East Asian ELF speakers, where they held legitimacy as members, developing shared repertoires of knowledge (this issue will be discussed in the next chapter) and as a result, their identities as ELF speakers were positively empowered in this imagined community. The imagined community offered a place where the L2 users could claim full-fledged membership and positive identification of self (Jackson 2008; Kanno 2003; Kanno and Norton 2003; Pavlenko 2003). However, there is a potential danger that the members of the cultural group might fall into ethnocentrism because of the amount of emotional security which is offered in this cultural group.36 As a result, it may lead to irrational fear of other cultural groups or unfamiliar others (Ting-Toomey 2005) even in ELF communication. In order to prevent such potential dangers, they need to be cautious about not being overly concerned about cultural groups in any intercultural communication, and develop competence or awareness in acknowledging and appreciating their own and others’ identities and cultures in the imagined community of ELF users. They need to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes to reflect critically and flexibly on one’s and the counterparts’ identities and cultural practices in intercultural communication and their relationship to communication through ELF, in other words, intercultural or transcultural awareness (Baker 2015: 163). Intercultural awareness is a conscious understanding of the role culturally based forms, practices and frames of reference can have in intercultural communication, and an ability to put these conceptions into practice in a flexible and context-specific manner in communication (Baker 2015: 163). In order for Japanese ELF users to develop such awareness, they need to be exposed to various types of ELF communication with people of diverse linguacultural backgrounds (Iino and Murata 2016), which I will discuss further in Section 8.2 in Chapter 8. Last, ELF speakers in fact do often participate in an ELF-resourced community (Kalocsai 2014; Seidlhofer 2007) that cannot be associated with any fixed

36 It also should be noted that how the participants recognised the cultural group may have resulted from their rather stereotypical idea on differences in Asian and Western values based on their limited experience.

6.4 Discussion and conclusion

161

national linguacultures or an ‘our culture’ – ‘their culture’ dichotomy (Baker 2011: 210). On balance, cultural groups related to ELF communication should signify a hybrid community or third place (Kramsch 1993), where the common means of communication is ELF. ELF speakers can bring global, local, and individual orientations into communication (Baker 2009; Phan 2008, 2009). They and their counterparts collaboratively create culture of their own within each interactional episode or in other words, develop their shared repertoires of knowledge in ELF-resourced intercultural communication.

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF This chapter presents the findings and discussion of the investigation into the link between ELF speakers’ identity and their choice of pragmatic language use in various ELF contexts. The relevant research question to be answered here is (4) How do the Japanese L2 English users account for their deliberate pragmatic language use in ELF contexts? The participants’ pragmatic language use that will be presented in this chapter as linguistic examples are drawn from their response to the linguistic elicitation tasks (Questionnaires 2 and 3), along with some examples from the diary entries. Thus, the linguistic data do not represent “actual” language use in ELF contexts; but they were intended to demonstrate the essence of how speakers’ subjectivities influences their pragmatic language use in ELF contexts, or in other words, how speakers negotiate their identities through ELF use. The focus of the inquiry is centred upon the participants’ subjectivities observed in the ELF users’ narratives on their experience of English language learning and engagement in communication through ELF.

7.1 Expressing English-speaking self As discussed in Chapter 4, the Japanese users of English often develop a sense of English-speaking self, which differs from that of Japanese. They are fond of their English-speaking selves, feeling able to express themselves as they wish without being constrained by the Japanese social norms. As a result, quite naturally, their pragmatic language use can be observed in association with their individual sense of English-speaking self. The first example is Kaori’s pragmatic language use in English and Japanese that differed considerably, which she later explained was triggered by her sense of English-speaking self. The following is her pragmatic language use in English to request her supervisor to reschedule a prearranged meeting. (1) Hi, I just would like to change the tutorial time for my project. I have totally forgot I have to go to lunch with my friends on that day. Actually they are leaving soon, so I really don’t want to miss it. I’m so sorry for that, is it possible to arrange the time? (Kaori, Questionnaire 2, No. 1. Original in English)

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-007

7.1 Expressing English-speaking self

163

Alternatively, she responded in Japanese as follows. (2) 失礼します。少しお時間よろしいですか？実はこの間先生とお約束し たミーティングのことなのですが、急用ができてしまってその日 に伺うことができなくなってしまいました。本当に申し訳ありませ ん。ですので、ミーティングの日にちを変更したいのですが・・・。 ‘Excuse me. Do you have a few minutes to spare? Actually, regarding the meeting I have arranged with you the other day, because something urgent came up, I won’t be able to come that day. I am very sorry. Therefore, I would like to change the date of the meeting. . .’ (Kaori, Questionnaire 3, No. 7)

The major difference between her responses in English and in Japanese is how she addresses the reason for the request to reschedule the meeting. In English, she stated the reason clearly, referring to having lunch with friends I have totally forgot I have to go to lunch with my friends on that day. Actually they are leaving soon, so I really don’t want to miss it; on the other hand, in Japanese she only mentioned the reason vaguely, 急用ができてしまって ‘because something urgent came up’. Regarding this difference, she explained why, and part of the reason for her choice was based on her English-speaking self. Extract 7.1 [P]robably it is connected to what I said earlier, but English speakers use expressions that get to the point, right? And I also mentioned that I tend to speak like that in English, right? So, speaking about having urgent business is not really telling a lie but you are hiding the truth. But I don't even think about speaking like that in English. So, I just say it. And when I say it, if the supervisor is somebody like who thinks like, “what are you?” I would probably think twice. But my supervisor or teachers around me are not like that. So, if I say to them that “I have to have lunch with friends, I’m sorry but, the friend is leaving soon, I don't want to miss it”, they would probably say, “you shouldn’t miss it”. So, I say it. But in Japan, it’s unlikely, I think, so I used such expressions. (Kaori interview)

Her explanation describes that part of the reason for the pragmatic language use in English was based on her English speaking-self who can express her thoughts openly without hesitating like she would normally do in a Japanesespeaking context. Similarly, Tomomi explained that her English pragmatic language use showed her identity as an English speaker too. In the situation where she complained to a neighbour about their barking dog throughout consecutive nights, she stated in English as follows.

164

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

(3) Excuse me. Do you know your dog has been barking through the night? It is disturbing my sleeping and I am really happy that you can make the dog stop barking. Thank you for your corporation. (Tomomi, Questionnaire 2, No. 9, Original in English)

In contrast, in Japanese she said: (4)

お宅の犬が夜ずっと吠え続けているので、最近眠れないんです。ど うにかできませんか？ ‘As your dog keeps barking through the nights, I cannot sleep recently. Could you do something about it?’(Tomomi, Questionnaire 3, No. 8)

On the surface, the Japanese version may sound more abrupt compared to the English version. Nevertheless, Tomomi’s own explanation on such difference between disturbing my sleeping in the English version and 最近眠れないん です ‘I cannot sleep recently’ in the Japanese version tells us a different story. She explained the difference was not made on purpose but was rather done subconsciously because her English-speaking self played a part when thinking in English, as follows, Extract 7.2 Tomomi: […] When I write in English, well, when I am speaking in English, I’m probably more aggressive, or there is part of me who is speaking with confidence, so it is like aggressive, like I can be very strong, that’s why. Interviewer: What kind of confidence do you have? Tomomi: Well, within me, I have confidence within me fairly much when I speak in English, confidence, well, it is like you have to speak with confidence, or I feel better if I speak with confidence. So, I don’t know how to put it. Like, no is no, or saying “I don’t like this” when I don’t like a thing. I cannot say such things frankly in Japanese, but it pops out when speaking in English. So, that’s probably why I could say things in detail like “disturbing my sleeping”. Really, I could say things like my sleep has been disturbed because of it, in English. (Tomomi interview)

To sum up, pragmatic language use in English by my participants often appeared as manifestations of their English-speaking selves, which differed from their Japanese-speaking selves. As discussed more fully in Chapter 4, it is common that the Japanese L2 English users construct individual identities relating to the English language. They enjoy it as an alternative sense of self, escaping from being a Japanese person who tends to be bound by the hierarchical linguacultural norms in Japanese-speaking contexts. Holding such an alternative identity in L2 English, they present themselves as an English speaker, which appeared in the form of their pragmatic language use in English: in other words, English language communication has become a place where they can express their English-speaking selves, presenting alternative identities (Block 2006; Pavlenko 2002; Ushioda 2011; Witte 2014).

7.2 Whose norms to follow? A struggle over the decision and identities

165

7.2 Whose norms to follow? A struggle over the decision with negotiation of multiple identities At times, the participants showed their struggle over deciding what pragmatic norms to follow, negotiating across their different identities, especially in ELF contexts in which people with diverse linguacultural backgrounds participate. As one example, Isuzu’s diary entry tells us the manner she struggled over which linguacultural norms, Japanese or perceived Standard English, to follow when she exchanged emails in English with her Japanese colleague while both were studying at a British university. Extract 7. 3 I generally use their first names when referring to my supervisor and other lecturers when I speak in English. But the Japanese colleague used “Professor X’ or “Dr. X”. To respond to my message in English (which read “Wasn’t X [first name] saying like this?”), he wrote “Dr. X [surname] was certainly saying that”. This made me feel strange (as if I was embarrassed like after I have done something wrong. . .). I certainly don’t refer to teachers by their first names in Japanese conversation or when I’m in Japan. So, when I talk to a Japanese person who uses forms like that even in a foreign country, I start to wonder whether I should accommodate to their way. I thought I might give an impression that I don’t respect the person [i.e., professors and lecturers] by referring to them by the first name. (Isuzu Diary 6: 2009-06-27)

This diary entry shows Isuzu’s confusion over deciding which linguacultural norms she should follow when interacting in English with her Japanese colleague whose choice was bringing a Japanese linguacultural norm into English language use. This male colleague may have had a resistant feeling to using a person’s first name when referring to someone with higher status such as a professor because of his subjectivity. Therefore, he may have chosen to use a title like Professor or Dr. to refer to them, as is most appropriate in a Japanese context. The choice made by this male colleague led Isuzu to wonder which norms she should follow. She used the first name by accommodating to the linguacultural norm at the postgraduate course in a British university, which she was accustomed to then; however, she was worried about her self-presentation as a Japanese person in this specific conversation. This example depicts how different identifications are negotiated in situ and emerge from interactions (Baker 2015; Zhu 2015). Another example is from Mio’s diary entry. The following example shows her dilemma over her own pragmatic behaviour in intercultural communication through ELF. In this diary, she wrote about the day she was invited for lunch with several of her coursemates at a British university. She was feeling unwell and decided to leave the gathering halfway through it. Mio reflects upon the

166

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

fact that she always finds it difficult because of her subjectivity, for example, to leave a party early. Extract 7.4 I was not feeling well at the lunchtime, so after we eat and started to chat, I wanted to leave Betty’s flat early. I was being very quiet among the group and then I said to Betty “I am taking off. I am not feeling well today.” Everyone just took the words as I said and said to me “I’m sorry”, or “yeah you were being very quiet today” and so on. There is something I do almost every time when I leave earlier than everybody else, that I hesitate to say I am leaving, or I have to go, to people. It does not matter if I was with group or just one person. Sometimes it because I feel I want to be with them longer, sometimes I feel bad for the person I leave, sometimes I don’t like to be watched by everybody to say goodbye. This time I was really not feeling well and I wanted to leave, so I decided to say I am taking off. Also, I did not like myself being very quiet with them and looking bored. The member of the lunch just let me go with normal manner and there was nothing strange and it was very ordinary scene of life, when someone was not feeling well and she has left earlier. Just I remembered that I always don’t like to leave earlier than everybody else and feeling bad to say, I’m leaving. […] [O]ne thing I noticed was that I encounter the situation which someone is saying that “I’m leaving” and also “sorry I can’t come because I am blah blah blah” much more often in English speaking conversation than Japanese speaking conversation. In English speaking setting I often see someone says I am leaving or not be able to come, with a reason of emotional or body condition like sickness, not feeling well, tired, not comfortable etc. In that kind of situation I often feel I wish I could say that without feeling bad. To me those non-Japanese speakers look very comfortable to say that kind of thing. […] I think Japanese people may tend to feel bad more for what you can not do. Especially in this kind of case, I feel bad when there is a possibility to make someone feel bad, sad or uncomfortable. Also, when many of my friends are together, it is not feeling good to leave there, and in terms of Japaneseness, maybe for Japanese people it is more uncomfortable to leave the group. (Mio Diary 7: 2009-07-12, Original in English)

She objectively analyses how people may behave differently in this kind of situation in English-speaking and Japanese-speaking contexts. The fact that she felt uncomfortable saying that she wanted to leave the gathering early matches her analysis of typical behaviour of Japanese people. Her subjectivity seems to reflect the accepted types of behaviour in Japan. Because of her subjectivity, she could not help feeling inappropriate in her choice of actions even though she believed that such an action was deemed perfectly adequate in English-speaking contexts. The last example in this section also shows that English pragmatic language use is associated with the speaker’s subjectivities after careful thought on what norm to follow. Naofumi’s pragmatic language use (elicited in the questionnaires) both in English and Japanese were almost identical in the refusal situation, where

7.2 Whose norms to follow? A struggle over the decision and identities

167

he was to turn down an offer of a dessert at a friend’s party because he does not like the dessert. In English he declined the offer as below. (5) Thank you. But I can not afford to eat it any more. I will take it later. (Naofumi, Questionnaire 2, No.6, Original in English.)

Similarly, in Japanese he chose to say: (6)

ありがとう。でも今はちょっとお腹がいっぱいだから、また後で頂 くね。 ‘Thank you. But I’m a bit full now, so I will have it later.’

(Naofumi, Questionnaire 3, No. 3)

In the interview session, I asked him whether he would actually intend to eat the dessert that he dislikes, and his response was as follows. Extract 7.5 Naofumi: No, no, I don’t eat it, I don’t eat it. Interviewer: No? You don’t? @@@@ Naofumi: I don’t, I don’t. Interviewer: Don’t you eat both in Japanese and in English [situations]? Naofumi: I wondered whether this is all right in English, like I said like a Japanese way. If I said like this, they would probably say and nudge “I’ll keep it for you” really, right? They wouldn’t sense [my true intention]. So, I was unsure about this. As I don’t want to eat the dessert, I thought I should have said like “[no] thank you”. But I thought the other side might be pleased if I said so [as I did]. Interviewer: Yeah, you didn’t want to hurt your conversation partner’s feelings? Naofumi: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s why this is like a Japanese way. Interviewer: Because you care about the other side? Naofumi: Uh-huh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s right. (Naofumi interview)

As Naofumi describes, he pondered whether to follow his L1-based subjectivity or to accommodate to what he perceived as the norm of Standard English when deciding on his pragmatic language use in English. Even though he was concerned that the Standard English norm would be different from what he chose to say, which might result in unsuccessful communication of his real intention, he eventually made a pragmatic language use in English based on his L1-based subjectivity. He did not want to hurt the feeling of the recipient of the message by rejecting the offer outright; thus he distanced himself from the perceived Standard English norm to align himself with his subjectivity, making his English pragmatic language use deliberately. In this section, I have shown the examples of the participants’ choices of pragmatic language use that were brought into after their struggle to decide what norms to follow in various English-speaking contexts. They sometimes were in a

168

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

dilemma between their English-speaking selves (e.g., being outspoken) and L1 Japanese-based selves (e.g., showing deference). The participants’ narratives demonstrated that they often decided on their pragmatic language use while negotiating among their multiple identities and representation of themselves or how they wish to be perceived by the communication counterpart. As seen in Isuzu’s and Mio’s cases, such struggles appeared when they were engaged in ELF communication that did not represent any specific linguacultural norms that every interactant agrees on. The findings suggest that ELF users’ negotiation of their identities over their pragmatic language use may be a prevalent concern during actual ELF interactions. Naofumi’s pragmatic language use does not represent actual ELF interaction; however, his case exemplifies what kind of negotiation is conducted on the speaker’s part in terms of sociopragmatic aspects of communication, i.e., whether to accommodate to the perceived norm of a specific context or to weigh in favour of the speaker’s subjectivity.

7.3 English learner identity overwhelming user identity In contrast to the findings discussed in Section 7.2 (the participants having an English speaking-self and comfortably expressing their identity as an English user through pragmatic language use), many of them were, at the same time, expressing a mindset that is very much constrained by native-speaker ideology. They often expressed their “lack of confidence” in their English competence or proficiency, and as a result, they designated a weaker status to themselves as an EFL learner with a limited competence (see Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion). One participant, Naofumi, described in the interview what he might say when engaging in an actual conversation to reflect his position as a NNSE, which he deems somewhat powerless. Extract 7.6 Naofumi: In English, I have to say things straightforwardly so that I can make myself understood, kind of. […] The other side might think “What are you trying to say?”. So I should speak straightforwardly. […] I cannot imagine about the UK but I might say “I apologise for my poor English” in the beginning. […] I may say such a thing. Well, I’m weak in that point. Interviewer: Oh, do you mean your English, well, being a non-native speaker? Naofumi: Umm, well, there may be something like a feeling of inferiority. (Naofumi interview)

Such a lack of confidence and low self-esteem in relation to the English language are often represented in the participants’ pragmatic language use in L2 English.

7.3 English learner identity overwhelming user identity

169

In the same manner as Naofumi, Yoriko described her insecurity about speaking English to “foreigners”, by which she means non-Asian English speakers. Extract 7.7 Oh, I don’t feel like I have blended into foreigners. So I can’t be frank. Yes. It’s like I set a boundary [with them] after all. (Yoriko interview)

This sense of insecurity towards communicating in English is manifested in the following pragmatic language use of hers. In the refusal situation where she turns down the request of a university staff to make a speech in front of prospective students, she made the following choice in English. (7) Thank you for your suggestion, but I think I am not competent to do it. I am not good at giving a speech in front of many people. I’m sorry. (Yoriko Questionnaire 2. No.8, Original in English)37

In Japanese, she made the following choice. (8) 申し訳ないですが、わたしは大勢の前で話すが得意ではないので適任 ではないと思います。すみません。 ‘I’m sorry but I’m not good at speaking in front of many people, so I don’t think it is suitable for me. I’m sorry.’ (Yoriko Questionnaire 3. No.1)

The only difference in the pragmatic aspect of these choices between the two languages is that she says Thank you for your suggestion in the English version, but not in Japanese. This difference seems to be trivial linguistically; nonetheless, her account provides deeper insight into how she positions herself in the events of communicating in English. Extract 7.8 [A] small difference is that I added “Thank you for your suggestion” in English. This is because, umm, English and Japanese. I can speak with confidence in Japanese, but there’s something that I cannot speak English with confidence. Umm it’s like I say the first sentence with a feeling of inferiority. In fact, I don’t think “thank you”, but I’m just saying it. Yes, it’s about it, yes, concerning this. (Yoriko Interview)

Because of her lack of confidence in engaging in English interactions, she feels inferior to the interlocutor, which is expressed through her saying “Thank you for 37 In this situation, her pragmatic language use to a British and an East Asian interlocutor was the same because of the nature of the request she was confronted with (i.e., to make a public speech in English). However, in other places, her pragmatic language use to the two groups were often different for specific reasons relating to the issues presented in this section.

170

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

your suggestion”. In other words, she has taken a powerless position by herself, constructing an unequal power relation in terms of English language use. Similar to Yoriko’s report, six more interviewees expressed their lack of self-confidence in English proficiency, which triggered the way they chose pragmatic expressions in English. Each worried about whether the interlocutors would understand what they said because they were not confident in getting their message across due to their “limited” English proficiency. They positioned and presented themselves as less competent and defenceless NNSEs against NSEs (similar accounts were reported by students in the study by Iino and Murata 2016). Such feelings of inadequacy among the participants mostly appeared in two distinctive styles in terms of pragmatic language use; one is to speak only a little and directly, and the other is to speak at length while trying to explain as much as possible (Edmondson and House 1991; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1986). As an example of the first approach, Tae stated she would choose to say something direct in English because of her feeling of inadequacy with respect to being a NNSE. Extract 7.9 After all, because I’m not a native speaker, and don’t have inner reserves of strength, it makes it difficult for me to use indirect expressions. If so, I thought that I’d better pitch directly, it would go smoothly rather than trying to speak indirectly by using strange expressions in my own way, and consequently I cannot make myself understood to the interlocutor. (Tae interview)

Likewise, Takeo would choose to say something short because he does not want to speak too much due to his lack of confidence in English. To seek permission from his neighbour to park his friends’ cars in front of the neighbour’s house, he chose to speak in English as follows. (9) Hi how are you doing? I want to ask whether my friend can park in front of your house for a few hours at this weekend or not. Because I do not have enough space for car parking. (Takeo, Questionnaire 2, No. 4, Original in English.)

Compared this to his answer in Japanese; (10)

こんにちは、実は相談があるのですが、来週末の少しの間お宅の駐車 スペースをかしていただけないでしょうか？友人が来る予定なの ですが、うちのスペースに余裕がなくなりそうなので。よろしい でしょうか？ ‘Hello. Actually, I would like to consult something with you. Would you lend me your parking space for a while next weekend? My friends are coming in their cars, but my space doesn’t seem enough. Would it be ok?’ (Takeo Questionnaire 3, No. 5)

7.3 English learner identity overwhelming user identity

171

In his English response, he does not explain the reason why he needs more parking space in as much detail as he does in Japanese. With regard to this difference, he explained the reason as follows. Extract 7.10 Takeo: When I speak in English, it’s in my mind that I don’t want to go various places. Well, like I don’t want to add various stories in the conversation. Interviewer: Why? Takeo: It makes it hard for me [to explain]. (Takeo interview)

Both Tae and Takeo elucidated that they would say something concise in order to make themselves understood clearly and efficiently. Takeo particularly does this to protect himself from having to produce more elaborate expressions in English. With similar accounts but quite opposite outcomes in terms of their pragmatic language use, some participants reported they would engage in more speech activity38 in order to make themselves understood because of a lack of self-confidence in their English language competence. Hitomi explained why she would do so as follows. Extract 7.11 Only with short expressions in English, and if it’s correct, I can make myself understood. But, I’m afraid if the short expressions are incorrect [I cannot make myself understood]. That’s why I think if I say something long and give as much information as possible, I can make myself understood. (Hitomi interview)

Similarly, Fuyuka described, Extract 7.12 Well, in English, when the other side asks me something further [after my turn], which means that what I said was incorrect. I’ve been brainwashed like that. Yeah, yeah. So, like, I try to avoid being asked anything further by the other side as much as possible. I probably tend to say everything in one go. (Fuyuka interview)

Reflecting what she explained, Fuyuka’s choice of pragmatic language use to request a classmate to borrow a lecture note in English was as follows.

38 This outcome may be due to the type of elicitation task that was employed in the present study (i.e., a written elicitation task). Edmondson and House (1991) point out that verbosity is often observed in written responses to a speech act elicitation questionnaire, but not in oral role-play. However, the focus of the present study is not the accurate presentation of participants’ authentic linguistic behaviour but rather the investigation of the reasons behind their pragmatic language use.

172

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

(11) Hi I want to ask you something, maybe you know that one of my friends left last week and I missed the lecture! I need your help and could you borrow me the lecture note if u don’t mind. . .? (Fuyuka Questionnaire 2. No. 3, Original in English.)

With contrast to her Japanese pragmatic language use: (12) 先週のノート、コピーさせてもらっていい？ ‘Can I copy your note from the last week’s lecture?’ (Fuyuka Questionnaire 3. No. 6)

As she described in the interview, her English pragmatic language use is noticeably longer than that of Japanese; in English she states the reasons why she needs a copy of the note from the previous week’s lecture. Regarding her choice for pragmatic language use in English, she elucidated as follows. Extract 7.13 I think there are many things that have been explained, but over all it’s like concise, like as concise as possible. Yes. After all, there’s part of me being scared of, well “scared” might be an overstatement, but I’m worried about being asked something I haven’t prepared for on the spot. For example, when I have something I want to say, well, all the situations here are cases where I initiate speaking, right? That means that I have time to prepare, like “I have to say this and that”. Yeah. Overall it’s concise but many words to utter, this actually does happen in my life. When I have something I want to ask a lecturer, at first I put down what I want to say in order in my mind, and then go to them. I feel like “ah, professor, please just answer my question but don’t ask me other things.” Really. (Fuyuka interview)

She reveals an interesting account. From her point of view, even though the English pragmatic language use is wordy and lengthy, she believes that by doing so, she is aiming to avoid further verbal exchanges. It potentially means that she is cutting down the number of turn-exchanges in order to protect herself from unexpected troubles of not understanding or not being understood in further interaction. Similar to Fuyuka’s instance, Motoya also mentioned that he tends to utter more in English because of his lack of confidence in communicating in English. The following example of his pragmatic language use is a request situation with him asking his supervisor to reschedule a meeting because he will have to meet his friend who is leaving for another country. In English he made the following choice. (13) Motoya: Hello, how are you? Supervisor: Fine, and you. Motoya: I’m fine, too. But I am sorry about today. My best friend is leaving this city and we had promised to have lunch together today. Only today we can meet up, so can I come back later or tomorrow? I am sorry to you for waiting me today.

7.3 English learner identity overwhelming user identity

173

Supervisor: No problem. Come back tomorrow afternoon. (Motoya Questionnaire 2. No. 1, Original in English.)

And in Japanese he made the following choice. (14) お忙しい中すみません。次回のミーティングの件ですが、できれば 時間を変更したいのですが大丈夫でしょうか？その時間には海外留学 をすることになった友人と昼食を一緒にとる予定が入ってしまいま した。 ‘I’m sorry to bother you when you are busy. About our next meeting, I would like to reschedule the time if that is possible. I am supposed to have lunch with a friend who is going abroad to study.’ (Motoya Questionnaire 3. No. 7)

He provided a more detailed reason in the English version about why he needs the meeting to be rescheduled. He explained in the interview that this choice was made deliberately in order to hide his lack of confidence in participating in interactions in English. Extract 7.14 This [English version], I explain all the reasons, well, after all, this is much more what my English is like, regarding intelligibility, I don’t have confidence to communicate thoroughly with just one short sentence. So, I think I try to make myself understood by uttering as many expressions as possible. (Motoya interview)

Motoya’s narrative is almost identical to Fuyuka’s in that both of them try to explain as much as they can in order to achieve their communicative goals as well as to protect themselves from potential interactional problems they might face if further verbal exchanges were continued. As also discussed in Chapter 5, the Japanese L2 English users’ lack of confidence in English interaction was reported frequently. This type of reported lack of confidence was not congruent with their general level of self-confidence in their English ability or proficiency, but happened only during the interactions and/or the prospect of engaging in English interactions. For instance, Tae expressed having confidence in English language use in general (e.g., Extract 4.12), but at the same time, she showed her insecurity about engaging in a particular speech activity (e.g., Extract 7.9). This could be explained by that learners tend to feel more anxious in terms of verbal skills rather than reading or writing ability, because oral activities take place in real time (Norton 2000) without allowing them to think or plan the language use. However, at the same time, it may be explained by the unequal power relations informed by nativespeaker ideology. Based on the participants’ narratives, their English pragmatic language use appeared to manifest their powerless positioning as NNSEs or EFL learners. They seem to see themselves as inadequate, defenceless and powerless in comparison to perfect, powerful NSEs (see Iino and Murata 2016 for

174

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

similar accounts by ELF users), which was reflected in their deliberate pragmatic language use.

7.4 Building rapport with East Asian ELF speakers In Chapter 6, I presented the findings in relation to how the participants have constructed a sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers. The findings revealed that the combined factors of the participants’ perceptions toward East Asian ELF speakers and their perception of the us vs. them dichotomy gave them a more robust orientation to a sense of sharing among East Asian ELF speakers. Such a robust sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers often evoked as a great influence for the participants’ pragmatic language use toward East Asian ELF speakers. Table 7.1 below demonstrates that to what extent such a strong sense of sharing is reflected in the participants’ own pragmatic language use.39 As indicated in Table 7.1, more than half of the participants deliberately chose different pragmatic language use when addressing an East Asian ELF speaker from when addressing a British English speaker. Almost all of the reasons behind their intended pragmatic language use were related to the discourse of a sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers.40 The findings suggest that the English pragmatic language use based on a sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers resulted in two different types of linguistic politeness (i.e., positive politeness and negative politeness, Brown and Levinson [1978] 1987). In either case, the participants commonly expressed that they would address East Asian ELF speakers in a similar way to how they would speak in a Japanese context. For instance, Yoriko described her reasons as

39 Seeing British and West Europeans together as them seems to explain why my data did not show much difference in the participants’ English pragmatic language use addressing Britons as opposed to West Europeans. When there were differences, the reasons varied. For example, Hiromi explained it was because of her “personal image that I have to speak softer to West Europeans”; Umi accounts for her feeling of closeness and friendliness to West Europeans because of her experience of staying in Spain but a lack of experience speaking to a British person; and Yoshito explained that West Europeans are non-native speakers whose cultures he is uncertain of. 40 This excludes Kaori, who has doubts about the “Chinese students” around her. This mistrust appeared as the reason for her deliberate pragmatic language use addressing East Asian speakers of English. (For more description, see her individual case study in Section 7.6.9)

175

7.4 Building rapport with East Asian ELF speakers

Table 7.1: Summary of the Participants’ Pragmatic Language Use in English. Difference in pragmatic language use

(Pseudonyms) Between Asian and British

Living in Japan

Hiromi Tae Naofumi Uni Takako Hitomi Nina Mutsumi

√

√

√ √ √ √ √

√

Yoshito Fuyuka Yoriko Motoya Kaori Takeo Tomomi

√ √

√

√

√

Sojourning in the UK

Between European and British

Note: “√” indicates that the participant made differences in pragmatic language use.

follows by referring to her English pragmatic language use addressing an East Asian professor. Extract 7.15 Yoriko: When talking to a professor, for instance, well, all the same, it’s like I speak politely. But, only to a professor from Asia, I feel it’s emotionally easier to speak. Interviewer: In what sense do you feel comfortable talking? Yoriko: Well, after all if it’s among Asians, well it’s also the same when speaking to friends, I can’t exactly put a finger on it, but being the same Asians, and looking similar, it’s easier to talk to them. The culture is alike too. Well, it’s like that. After all, I get nervous at any cost when speaking to a British teacher because they are a native speaker of English. I’d get stiffened up a little, maybe. (Yoriko interview)

Actually, Yoriko did not make different choices in pragmatic language use depending on the interlocutor’s linguacultural background (British or East Asian) in the elicitation task (Questionnaire 2); however, her narrative depicts how her comfort level would differ during interactions depending on the interlocutors of different linguacultural profiles. In particular, the level of comfort is greater when she interacts with East Asian ELF speakers because of the sense of sharing that Yoriko holds toward them. In what follows, I will present some

176

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

examples of the participants’ pragmatic language use41 with their reasoning relating to a sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers. First, I present Mutsumi’s pragmatic language use where she requests her supervisor to reschedule a prearranged meeting. Addressing a British interlocutor, she said the following: (15) Good afternoon, ****** (Supervisor’s name). I’m really sorry I made an appointment to meet you but I can’t carry out an engagement. So could you change the day to meet? (Mutsumi Questionnaire 2, No. 1. To British, Original in English.)

On the other hand, addressing an East Asian interlocutor, she said, (16) Good afternoon, *****. Thank you for making time for me. I made an appointment to meet and talk about my project on XX, but I’m really sorry, I had an another appointment on same day with my friends. She is going to move this town so I want to meet her . . .. Would you change the day to meet? (Mutsumi Questionnaire 2, No. 1. To East Asian, Original in English.)

The main difference between the two pragmatic language strategies is the absence (top) or presence (bottom) of a statement explaining the specific reason why she needs the meeting rescheduled. In this regard, she explained in the interview why she addressed the British interlocutor in this way: Extract 7.16 Well, it’s really my image of Europeans and Americans. [I thought] it might sound better if I said things straightforwardly. […] Well, it's again my image of them, but British people seem to say, “OK, I got it.” even though I don't explain the circumstances I'm under. So, I didn't include [the reasons]. If I have said something longer, they would have been irritated. (Mutsumi interview)

Her pragmatic language use to a British interlocutor was based on what she perceived as a NSE linguacultural norm; that is, she has to express herself straightforwardly.42 Moreover, her comment suggests that she groups British, Europeans and Americans together as them, which was also linked to her conforming to the perceived NSE norm. She also indicated that choosing to express herself

41 As noted in the methodology section (Chapter 3), the participants’ linguistic samples shown in this study can differ from what they would say in real-life interactions. 42 The perception of norms expressed by participants was often that people are explicit and assertive, in particular, (a) use direct head act (i.e., the main speech act), (b) refer to private matters as reasoning, and (c) are less conscious about age and status differences in terms of linguistic politeness. This was often contrasted with collective, hierarchical Japanese sociocultural norms that prefer indirect linguistic expressions and honorific languages.

7.4 Building rapport with East Asian ELF speakers

177

straightforwardly, and not to provide a rationale for the request was because she suspected a negative reception of the message by someone she identifies as them. Conversely, for her pragmatic language use to an East Asian interlocutor, she explained the reason, indicating it derived from her lived experience. Extract 7.17 During the summer course, an Asian student had a homestay at one of my [Japanese] friend’s [home], and one day I paid a visit. At that time I realised they were really similar to Japanese, and modest. So I thought I should say things modestly when interacting [with Asians]. I made differences in my responses by taking [such realisation] into consideration. […] In the case of talking to Asians, I thought they might accept [me] if I stated a reason clearly. (Mutsumi interview)

Based on her recent experiences of meeting English speakers from all over the world at a peace study programme, she particularly appreciated cultural affinity with East Asian ELF speakers. Based on such an experience, when addressing an East Asian ELF speaker, she adopted her pragmatic language use to sound polite, which is similar to how she would speak in Japanese. Also, she assumed the East Asian interlocutor’s positive reception of her message in contrast to the negative assumptions she made when addressing a British speaker. The findings relating to this issue will be discussed further in the next section. But for now, as another example, Hiromi also expressed that the perceived similarities that may be shared by people from Japan and other Asian countries had an influence on how she chose pragmatic language use when addressing an East Asian ELF speaker. In the same conversational situation as above, to request her supervisor to reschedule a meeting, to a British interlocutor, she said: (17) Hello. Do you have time? I’ m sorry I can’t go to you on the day I made an appointment with you before. That’s because I forgot to meeting with my friend on the same day and she is going to leave here. So if possible, would you change the schedule and spare me time? (Hiromi Questionnaire 2, No. 1. To British, Original in English.)

With comparison, she chose to address an East Asian interlocutor as follows. (18) Hello. Do you have time now? I made an appointment with you days ago, but then I forgot seeing with my friend on the same day, who is going to leave for a different city. I’ m sorry. If you can, would you change the schedule and spare me time? (Hiromi Questionnaire 2, No. 1. To East Asian, Original in English.)

She could not explain why she chose to speak to a British interlocutor as she did; however, as follows, she explained her intent in choosing the pragmatic language strategy to an East Asian ELF speaker.

178

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

Extract 7.18 Because it’s Asia, I felt it was close to Japan, like being more polite, well, don’t know how to put it, it’s like roundabout. It is a little wordy because it’s [expressed] in a polite and roundabout way. Well, I thought I should speak rather politely. So, when I initiate, in the case of addressing the British, I say “sorry [I can’t go]” first, and then add the reasons after that. But if it’s Japanese or me [as a Japanese], I thought I tend to say the reasons first. So along with it, I say the reasons first. Yeah that’s why I wrote like that as I remember. (Hiromi interview)

I found that the main difference in pragmatic language use between the two was the presence or the absence of “I’m sorry I can’t go to you on the day I made an appointment with you before”, and thus I asked her about this difference. To my inquiry she responded as follows. Extract 7.19 Well, I couldn’t, I didn’t say directly [to the East Asian interlocutor]. Well, for some reason or another, I wanted [the East Asian interlocutor] to take a hint that I couldn’t come because of such reasons. Rather than saying “I cannot come” explicitly, I’d say, “this happened”, and then I hope [the counterpart] to get an inkling of “oh, you cannot come”. (Hiromi interview)

Because she acknowledged that East Asians had similar cultural norms to that of Japanese, she had an inclination not to accommodate to the perceived Standard English norm (i.e., by directly stating that she was unable to go to the meeting). As a result, she chose to be less explicit when addressing an East Asian ELF speaker, so that she could exhibit her sense of politeness to the East Asian interlocutor. Similarly, Takako intentionally made differences in her choice of pragmatic language use when addressing British and East Asian interlocutors. The following examples are from the situation of complaining to a flatmate who has been noisy late at night; she addressed a British interlocutor as shown below: (19) Can you spare me a few mitute? [sic] Do not feel bad about what I’ll say from now on. Did you remember our promise that we don’t make noise after 11 pm? You know what I mean? I’m talking about your behavior recently. Please don’t break our promise, and we need mutual understanding about it. (Takako Questionnaire 2, No. 2. To British, Original in English.)

In comparison, when addressing an East Asian interlocutor, (20) What’s up with you recently? You do something at night. As we promised that we don’t make noise after 11 pm, can you keep that? ‘Cause I’ve been tired, I need rests. Don’t feel bad. (Takako Questionnaire 2, No. 2. To East Asian, Original in English.)

7.4 Building rapport with East Asian ELF speakers

179

Both pragmatic language strategies may sound harsh and explicit; however, in the version addressing the British interlocutor, she plainly indicates the flatmate’s “unacceptable behaviour” by referring to the fact (i.e., making noise), followed by the conventionally direct form of a request “please don’t break our promise”. Conversely, in the East Asian version, the request is slightly indirect using conventionally indirect request: “can you keep that [the promise]?” Takako explained in the interview that she deliberately made the East Asian version less direct in order to show deference toward the East Asian interlocutor. She explained as follows: Extract 7.20 Takako: Ah, well, all is said and done, it is like in a roundabout way to Asian people. Like “Oh? Anything wrong?” I chose to say it in an implicit way leaving the interlocutor a space to sense what I really want to say. Interviewer: You said it’s because the other end is an Asian. Why is it? Takako: Well, all is said and done, when speaking [to them], I have had an impression that Japanese and Asians are almost similar, so that’s why. Interviewer: In actual life, some of your friends are Malaysians and Koreans. Takako: Friends, yes. I feel it a little when I speak to them. So, [my response] is like an English translation of what I would say to Japanese people in Japanese. (Takako interview)43

The above examples of the participants’ pragmatic language use and their reasoning showed that they made deliberate choices to signal their deference and respect when addressing an East Asian ELF speaker. Conversely, below, I will present two examples in which the participants explained why they chose to sound frank to an East Asian ELF speaker. The first example is Fuyuka’s pragmatic language use when complaining to a flatmate about hearing noise late at night. To a British interlocutor, she said the following: (21) Hi, sorry to disturb you, but can we talk for a bit? I wonder if you could turn down the volume of your music. . . As we made our rule that no making noise after 11 pm and in somehow your music could be heard in my room and I couldn’t concentrate on my work . . . so if you could, please turn down the volume. . ..? Thanks! (Fuyuka Questionnaire 2. No. 2. To British, Original in English)

Now, compare this to the pragmatic language use when addressing an East Asian interlocutor:

43 With regard to the difference in the presence or absence of Can you spare me a few minute?, she explained the difference was made “by chance”, thus not intentionally.

180

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

(22) Hi, can I come in? I wondered if you could make your music a little bit quiet. (Fuyuka Questionnaire 2. No. 2. To East Asian, Original in English)

The difference between the two pragmatic language uses is apparent in terms of their respective lengths. To an East Asian interlocutor, Fuyuka only uttered the head act (i.e., the main complaint act); on the other hand, to a British interlocutor, she told the rationale (e.g., a pre-arranged rule and her study) in detail. In the interview, she explained why such an obvious difference was made, revealing that she positioned herself as a powerless NNSE against a somewhat powerful NSE, which became the main reason for her pragmatic language use to a British interlocutor: Extract 7.21 The communication partner is a native speaker, so I don’t know if I can make myself understood in English. So I say everything I want to say in one go. And then I thought it would be the end of the world if the other end would fight back. So, for now, I’m like “PLEASE” and being modest. (Fuyuka interview)

She, as a defenceless NNSE in her own eyes, did not want to face a backlash by the NSE interlocutor after her complaint, and therefore she did not leave any room for an interactional exchange with a British interlocutor by saying what she wanted to say all at once. On the other hand, she explained why she decided to speak to an East Asian interlocutor as she did: Extract 7.22 As I said earlier, by all means, Asians, they have similar culture to us, so I make friends with Asians well. So, I say things with a light touch like “Can you lower (the volume)?” When I was here 2 years ago as an exchange student, I had a British flatmate. We had lived together for half a year, but hopelessly we couldn't be friends. So I thought it's impossible even though I try hard to befriend her. Such things led me to think that if I have a British student in the same flat, I would try so hard that I would get tired and get sick of it. So, I'd rather stay with Asians. […] Asians will probably understand [me]. So I say things very short, I suppose. (Fuyuka interview)

Fuyuka’s decision was triggered by the sense of cultural closeness with East Asian ELF speakers. Moreover, the unpleasant past experience of trying and failing to be friends with the British flatmate (i.e., them) reinforced the sense of affinity with East Asian students surrounding her at that time. East Asian ELF speakers were those whom she could be at ease with and were therefore regarded as trustworthy. Thus, she could assume that East Asian ELF speakers would understand more than what she actually said during the interaction. Meanwhile, her narrative highlights the necessity for NSEs to develop further competence in intercultural communication or to acquire ELF as an

7.4 Building rapport with East Asian ELF speakers

181

additional mode of intercultural communication (Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey 2011), considering academic institutions in higher education including the UK have become increasingly multicultural with increasing numbers of students from diverse linguacultural backgrounds (Jenkins 2014). All ELF speakers need to cultivate “communicative capability”, i.e., capability to effectively use the language by exploiting its communicative potential and to employ linguistic and cultural resources that are based on their acquired knowledge (Seidlhofer 2011: 197-202; Widdowson 2015). As the second example, Yoshito made a decision to use a different pragmatic language strategy when addressing a British and an East Asian interlocutor. To request a supervisor to reschedule a meeting, he chose the following pragmatic language use to a British interlocutor. (23) Hello. Can I talk with you now if you have time a bit? I’ve made an appointment with you before, but circumstances have changed after that, and I really need to see my best friend who is shortly leaving on the same day. So I’d be glad if I could possibly change the date of the meeting if you don’t mind. (Yoshito Questionnaire 2. No. 1. To British, Original in English, underlines added.)

On the other hand, he chose to speak to an East Asian interlocutor as follows. (24) Hello. I have something to talk to you. I’ve made an appointment to discuss my project with you. But I need to see my friend who is shortly leaving on the same day. So, I’d be glad if I could change the date of the meeting if you don’t mind. (Yoshito Questionnaire 2. No. 1. To East Asian, Original in English, underlines added)

The difference between the two does not seem significant; however, there are some differences, which I underlined. Regarding these differences, Yoshito, who informed that he made the differences intentionally, explained as follows. Extract 7.23 The conversation partner is British and also a teacher, I thought I should speak politely as much as possible. […] When the conversation partner is East Asian, and English is not a mother tongue for both of us. Well, I thought there was a presupposition that the message would be communicated without speaking politely. So, it appears as quite frank. […] Even though I don’t speak [politely], I feel like they can understand me. Well, the opposite idea can be considered: like if the conversational partner were a native speaker, they would understand me even though I didn’t speak politely. Well, among East Asians, there is something comfy about [the way] I can make myself understood even though I don’t tell everything. It’s my self-centred interpretation. Yes. (Yoshito interview)

182

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

He chose to speak rather frankly to the East Asian interlocutor based on his assumption that the interlocutor would interpret what he intended to communicate. This assumption stems from the comfort he felt because the interlocutor was an East Asian speaker of English with whom he deemed to share similar culture. In this section, examples of deliberate pragmatic language strategies used by the participants, especially where East Asian ELF interlocutors were involved, were presented. Even though the linguistic examples presented here do not embody “real” ELF interaction, they were presented as reflections of the participants’ emotional closeness and perceptions of cultural and ethnic affinity with East Asian ELF speakers. By acknowledging similarity of cultural values and norms between Japan and East Asian countries, some participants applied their Japanese norms of showing deference in their English pragmatic language use when the interlocutor was an East Asian. Some others decided to be linguistically polite in order to show their mutual respect to East Asians. In some other cases, the same recognition of cultural and emotional affinity allowed the participants to use more frank and straightforward expressions, which manifested a sign of solidarity with and friendliness to East Asian speakers of English. The findings suggest that the Japanese L2 English users’ desire to build interpersonal relationships with East Asian ELF speakers is stronger than with non-East Asian speakers of English.

7.5 Underlying communicative assumption among East Asian ELF speakers The previous section presented examples of the participants’ pragmatic language use to East Asian ELF speakers that differ from ones addressing non-Asian interlocutors. Among the participants, some (Mutsumi, Fuyuka and Yoshito) described their positive assumption of a successful and desired reception of their message by the East Asian interlocutors as shown above (e.g., Extracts 7.16, 7.22 and 7.23). Other participants (Hiromi, Naofumi, Takako and Nina) also expressed the same positive assumptions when addressing East Asian interlocutors. For instance, Takako expressed her assumption of being understood by East Asian interlocutors based on her perspective regarding how similarly Japanese and East Asians would react to the situation (explaining her pragmatic language use for a situation refusing an offer of a dessert).

7.5 Underlying communicative assumption among East Asian ELF speakers

183

Extract 7.24 Takako: [I]f we want to eat, we would probably eat it anyway. A Japanese would understand that this person doesn’t like it if they refuses by saying “I’m full up”. It’s based on such presupposition. I wouldn’t say, “I dislike it”, but [the conversation partner] would understand it. It’s like that. Interviewer: Do you have such a presupposition when speaking to Asians? Takako: I do, and I assume they would understand [the true meaning]. Even at worst, I would be able to pull through the situation. (Takako interview)

Similarly, Nina expressed her assumption of being understood by East Asians (in the situation to refuse a request of giving a speech). Extract 7.25 I thought Asians would understand me even though I said like “I cannot play such a big role.” So I thought I didn’t have to dare to say “I can’t do it.” (Nina interview)

Overall, the participants’ assumption of the communication outcome when interacting with East Asian ELF speakers was mainly optimistic and something desirable for them. They often anticipated positively how East Asian interlocutors would respond to whatever they chose to say. On the other hand, when the participants explained the pragmatic language use addressing Britons or Europeans, they appeared to have rather negative assumptions about how their communication would be received by the interlocutors. There were several accounts by the participants expressing an unsuccessful and undesirable reception of the message by British and European speakers of English, despite the fact that none of the participants assumed negative communicative outcomes of interaction with East Asian ELF speakers. Examples (Takako, Yoriko, and Kaori’s narratives) of such accounts are shown below. Extract 7.26 Based on the image. Well, [in response to my complaint about the dog’s barking] those people [the British/Europeans] might get angry if I said such a thing. Well, I thought they might say something like “who cares, this is my dog.” So it’s like I flinched. (Takako interview) Extract 7.27 In English if I don’t explain things fairly well, I get asked “why?” So I am aware of explaining things well in detail in English. Yes. It is like that not only in this situation but also in any other situations. Yes. I feel tense when I use English. I try to speak politely. That’s why, I think. Yes. (Yoriko interview) Extract 7.28 In English, if I have spoken like this, the other side would wonder what I want them to do, and I might irritate the other side, so, I say what I want at first, like “Bang!” And add the reason afterwards. (Kaori interview)

184

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

The participants’ narratives show that when they interacted in English with those whom they perceive as the Others, they often expected an undesired reception of the message by the interlocutor, for instance, in the worst case, the fear of making the interlocutor angry or irritated. Similarly, many participants said that they made their English pragmatic language use when interacting with non-Asians based on rather pessimistic assumptions about communication outcomes. They typically expressed “they would not understand if I didn’t say this”, rather than an optimistic assumption: “they would understand if I say this”. The latter account was often provided in the case of speaking to East Asian interlocutors. Three participants’ narratives with respect to negative assumptions on communication outcome when interacting with non-Asian speakers of English are provided as examples below. Extract 7.29 If I don’t explain in detail, I feel like they would ask “why?”

(Naofumi interview)

Extract 7.30 In English, the message might not be conveyed if I don’t assert myself with clear expressions where necessary. (Yoshito interview) Extract 7.31 In English, umm, after all, sentences, well, rather than sentences, when I speak, if I don’t include “You” [as the subject] explicitly, I often think that it wouldn’t convey “who [did what]”. (Takeo interview)

These discourses of negative assumption of the counterpart’s reception of the message were only found in relation to English interactions where East Asians were not involved. Moreover, they were often discussed in relation to their perception of Standard English. This can imply that accommodation to the perceived Standard English norms was sometimes sought as a result of the mindset of EFL learners. The participants often felt that they had to conform to the perceived norm; otherwise they would get negative reaction from the interlocutors or get penalised for not conforming to the perceived norm, which leaves a limited space for self-expression as an English user. Furthermore, in the cases of interacting with non-Asian speakers of English, the participants expressed that they felt fulfilled if the core purpose of the message (i.e., illocutionary force) was delivered; in other words they would be satisfied if only mutual intelligibility was achieved, and they were not interested in building good interpersonal relationships with the interlocutor. For instance, Hiromi stated:

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

185

Extract 7.32 Interviewer: Do you mean you are happy if the fact that “you cannot come” is conveyed [when speaking] in English? Hiromi: That’s right. I’m happy that I could say, “I cannot come. I’m sorry.” (Hiromi interview)

Yoshito also expressed a similar point. Extract 7.33 In English, well, whatever the reason is, if the fact that I don’t want to do [something] is conveyed, my intention will be understood. (Yoshito interview)

In sum, the participants tended to predict how positively East Asian ELF speakers would receive and accept their choice of pragmatic language uses; nonetheless, when East Asians were not concerned in the interaction, their assumptions about how their messages would be interpreted by their counterparts were somewhat pessimistic. Moreover, with their deliberate pragmatic language use, they commonly hoped only for effective communication (i.e., only the conveyance of the purpose of the message) in interactions with nonAsians, but on the contrary they wished to build and maintain interpersonal relationship (i.e., to build rapport) as well as effective communication with East Asian ELF speakers, which seems to provide more space for positive identification of self as an English user.

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Short case studies of the participants in the questionnaire-based interviewing In this section, I introduce fifteen individual case studies of the participants in the questionnaire-based interview study. Due to a limited space, introductions for each participant will not be comprehensive, but, instead, a brief biography with the most salient aspects regarding their choices of pragmatic language use, subjectivities and L2-related identities will be presented. The order of the presentation here runs parallel with the list of the participants presented in Chapter 3 (see Table 3.1). The case studies illustrate how complex the relationships with the English language are for each individual and provide a glimpse of their L2-related identities. Each individual’s choices regarding their pragmatic language use and the major reasons behind their choices are included. The cases reflect the intricacy of an individual’s relationship to the languages

186

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

(English and Japanese), the contexts, subjectivities, and the interlocutors’ lived experience.

7.6.1 Takako’s case study She was a third-year undergraduate student at a Japanese university majoring in applied linguistics. She was also hoping to continue her study in education at the master’s level in the US after her first degree. She has been to Canada for short ski holidays with her family on numerous occasions since she was in her early teens. She attended a private English conversation school outside university and worked part-time as a secretary at a different English conversation school. Due to her constant exposure to an English-speaking environment from a relatively young age, she was quietly confident in her English language competence compared to her course mates. Besides this, she invested a considerable amount of time immersing herself in the English use environment (e.g., watching movies, reading books and so forth). English was a “very big part of my life”, she said. At university, she was frustrated by the fact that she could not satisfactorily practice English because many of her classmates were not willing to speak the language even in English language learning classes. This nurtured her sense of comfort in speaking with an NSE in Japan as it was “inevitable” and “natural” to speak English without being ill-judged by her peers. She reported that she tends to “speak directly” in English, which became part of her English-speaking self. Her perception of L2 English, that is, she needs to be overt to some extent, was constructed through educational input she received, particularly in the form of comments from English instructors at a private English school (her account in this regard is presented in Extract 4.21). Meanwhile, she enjoyed her English-speaking self and became “at ease” with it because she felt that English was not heavily constrained by social factors, in contrast to Japanese and its strict linguistic regulations (e.g., choosing an appropriate form or expression depending on the relationship with the interlocutor). She was one of the participants who chose different pragmatic language uses only when addressing East Asian ELF speakers, and not when addressing British and West Europeans. She was more comfortable interacting with East Asian ELF speakers because she had a cultural and emotional affinity to them, and this perception triggered her to make decisions on pragmatic language use when addressing East Asians (see her narrative and an example of her pragmatic language use in Section 7.4).

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

187

Apart from her pragmatic language use concerning East Asians, her pragmatic language use when addressing British and West Europeans were generally based on her perception of the Standard English norms: being outspoken, therefore, speaking directly and frankly. Furthermore, she did not make any distinctions in her pragmatic language use between British and West Europeans because she treated them as belonging to one group. Takako evidently said that Europeans and British are “lumped together. It’s after all, like, Asia, or Western countries”. Takako referred to “native speakers or people in the English-speaking countries” as mukoh no hito and acchi no hito ‘people of the other side’ or ‘other people’. Overall, Takako expressed positive communicative assumptions when speaking to East Asian interlocutors. On the other hand, she had a negative assumption about the reception of the message by a British interlocutor (see Extract 7.24 and Extract 7.26 for her narratives).

7.6.2 Hitomi’s case study She was also a third year BA student, majoring in international studies with an interest in linguistics, at a Japanese university. She had spent six months in a Canadian high school as a teenager and has been in touch with her friends overseas since that time. The extent of her English use in Japan was very limited; however, she tried to listen to English in some way every day. She was hoping to pursue her studies abroad on second language acquisition of young learners at the postgraduate level after completing her undergraduate study. She enjoyed her English-speaking self because “it is different from me talking in Japanese”. Although she enjoyed an alternative sense of self in English, she was not always comfortable talking to people in English. She expressed discomfort at times when an interlocutor spoke so fast that she could not communicate well enough with them. Moreover, she mentioned that she became tense when speaking to somebody with whom she was not very familiar. She reported, “if I speak to somebody I know, I don’t mind making mistakes but if I don’t know the person, I don’t want to make mistakes”. It appeared that she had anxiety making linguistic mistakes or not making herself understood. For instance, responding to Questionnaire 2, she intentionally made a longer and more detailed response in English compared to her response in Japanese. This, she revealed, reflected her insecurity about her linguistic competence. She explained that the reason was to compensate for her lack of confidence in the “correctness” of her English.

188

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

Generally, she tried to conform to the perceived Standard English norms, which were observed in many parts of her interview. Her perception of the English language was related as follows: Extract 7.34 After all, well, I think I have to make thing clear like no is no, yes is yes. English speaking people say things clearly. I think it’s not good if I’m indecisive like “umm, well, ahh”. So, I try to respond as clearly as possible in English like when it’s yes, I say yes, and when it’s no, I say no.

She repeatedly explained her pragmatic language use to a British interlocutor as “there is the idea in my mind I have to say explicitly [in English]”. On the other hand, she “indirectly refused” an offer of a dessert to an Asian interlocutor in English. She cited as a reason for her refusal that East Asians are similar to Japanese, and thus she applied how she would speak to a Japanese person when addressing an East Asian interlocutor. She thought she would be more accepted by East Asians if she showed her consideration in a “Japanese way” (Hinkel 1996; LoCastro 2001). She did not feel appropriate to speak explicitly, particularly to an East Asian interlocutor because she was afraid of being regarded as impolite. Thus, she intentionally deviated from what she perceived as appropriate in Standard English. She seemed to negotiate her pragmatic language use according to how she would like to be regarded by an interlocutor, in other words negotiating her L2-related identity.

7.6.3 Nina’s case study She was a third-year Japanese university student in the Department of International Studies. The opportunity of using English for her was very limited in Japan. She had never had contact with non-Japanese until she took part in an intensive EMI peace study programme a few weeks prior to this interview study. During the peace study course, she realised again that “English really connect one person to another person. If I could speak English, it would broaden my horizons. […] It’s like something will be produced through English.” Simultaneously, she was frustrated with her perceived low command of English, and she gave me the impression that she was a less successful learner of English compared to other participants of the present study. She frequently expressed her annoyance at being unable to voice what she wanted to say because of her low level of English proficiency. However, her responses to the English elicitation task did not show obvious signs of lower proficiency compared to other participants. It might be the fact that she was more uncomfortable speaking English rather than writing because of the

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

189

spontaneous and concurrent characteristics of speaking (Norton 2000). Because she was not confident with her speaking in English, she saw her English-speaking self negatively. English signified something “great” that she “aspires for”. She described her classmates who were good English speakers as “virtuous people”, and as people whom she wished to be like. Similar to other participants, she had a clear perception of Standard English, which were “mixed with the image of Americans”. She further described it as “Americans assert themselves clearly. It’s good to assert as explicitly as possible”. She also explained that the perception of collectivism in the Japanese society reflected her pragmatic language use in Japanese. This was in contrast to her perception of Anglo-American individualism that influenced her view of Standard English. Accommodating to what she perceived as the Standard English norms, she recognised the necessity of saying things directly and straightforwardly. Such accommodation to the perceived norms was frequently found in her pragmatic language use in English. For instance, she said she would choose a rather “harsh” complaint to a Briton to reflect the directness of the perceived norm. (25) We promised when we first moved in, didn’t we? Why don’t you keep it? Can’t you more quiet after 11 p.m.? (Questionnaire 2. No. 2. To a British interlocutor, Original in English)

In addition, she mentioned elsewhere that she did not have enough English competence to express herself appropriately, and this made her choose as few words as possible, which also appeared to explain the directness of her pragmatic language use when addressing a British interlocutor. On the other hand, accommodating to the Standard English norms did not apply to her pragmatic language use when addressing East Asian ELF speakers because of the perceived similarity between Japanese and Asians. She explained that the similarity was socioreligious, as both she and an East Asian interlocutor would be from Buddhism based areas; thus, she chose to speak “slightly softer” to the East Asian interlocutor. (26) Do you remember our promise? You don’t seem to keep it. Why can’t you more quiet after 11p.m.? (Questionnaire 2. No. 2. To an East Asian interlocutor, Original in English)

Furthermore, the differences in her pragmatic language use when interacting with British and East Asian interlocutors were chosen according to her assumption of whether she could make herself understood in the interactions with the respective interlocutors. She noted, “I have to say clearly, and otherwise [a British interlocutor] wouldn’t understand if I said things in a roundabout way”. On the contrary, she mentioned that an East Asian interlocutor would understand

190

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

her even though she spoke in an indirect way, and therefore she would not say a matter explicitly, which also reflected the assumed similarity in sociopragmatic features among East Asians. Overall, it was important for her to follow the perceived norms of Standard English, which was a key factor in her pragmatic language use with the British interlocutor, notwithstanding that it did not, at times, apply to addressing East Asian ELF speakers.

7.6.4 Mutsumi’s case study Mutsumi’s only opportunity to spend time abroad was in Bangladesh for a oneweek study tour organised by the city council. She was a third-year university student majoring in English literature with an applied linguistics minor, and she had a desire to be a more confident English speaker. Extract 7.35 I believe that English is really important as a tool for communicating. If I could speak English more, I would be able to exchange opinions with many people, and I would be able to know many things. It would expand my world. Yeah, English does.

Because of the lack of confidence in her own English use, her sense of Englishspeaking self was negative and she felt “frustrated” about not being able to speak well. Extract 7.36 In Japanese, I never feel self-conscious about communicating what I think, but in English I absolutely become bashful. […] I need a lot of courage to speak to someone. […] Real me likes to talk, but I can’t do it [in English].

She wished that English would be part of herself more in the future by becoming more proficient in English, and that she would find a positive sense of English-speaking self. With regard to her reasoning for deciding on pragmatic language use, her clear perception of English, which contrasts with the L1 Japanese norms, was quite transparent. She repeatedly mentioned that her perception of English was “it is better speaking straightforwardly”. “Reading English textbooks, watching TV programmes, and instructions by teachers” constructed such perceptions. This tendency was common among other participants in the present study. She explained that she got the impression that people spoke casually, for example, in American films. Information through media and entertainment is the only way that she “understands the world”.

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

191

She reported that she should send a direct, frank, and straightforward message to “Europeans and Americans”, in which she included British. This belief indicated her perspective toward Standard English derived from Anglo-American culture. This tendency of grouping all Westerners together, regardless of their diverse linguacultural backgrounds, was prevalent among participants in the study as well. Regardless, having a clear perception of L2 English norms, similarly to other participants, she applied different pragmatic language use to East Asian ELF speakers than to Westerners. She mentioned that she tended to address East Asian ELF speakers more politely and indirectly by choosing similar pragmatic strategies to when she speaks Japanese. The reason also accorded with something she had learnt in class, namely, that East Asians are ethnically close to the Japanese and they view things in a similar way to the Japanese. Her account reveals that educational input and information from the entertainment industry influence how pupils create general perceptions of the world. The examples of her pragmatic language use and her accounts from the interview are presented in Section 7.4.

7.6.5 Fuyuka’s case study After spending a year as an exchange student at a British university a few years ago, Fuyuka returned to the same British university to pursue her master’s degree. She had several experiences of participating in one-month homestay programmes mainly in the US during her late teens, though, she did not have much confidence in speaking English. Because of a lack of such confidence, she tended to plan what she wanted to say before she actually spoke in order to avoid a series of interactional exchanges. She stated that “even though for something I can say in a word in Japanese, but in English I add something more as much as I can. I say everything at once and whatever I can think of”. In terms of the basis for her pragmatic language use in English, she explained as follows: Extract 7.37 The basic is based on experiences in Japan. For instances, when the other side is a teacher or somebody like that, the contents of conversation wouldn’t differ either in English or Japanese speaking situations. So, my responses [in the questionnaire] are pretty similar, right? But, when the other side is a neighbour or flatmate, I would think that they wouldn’t understand things the Japanese would normally understand. So, I tend to add things [to say]. This is based on the kind of information and

192

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

the senses I acquired while I was here [in the UK] two years ago. I say a lot to the British, but Asian friends would understand me [without saying a lot]. Like they are close to Japanese. I do have such perceptions.

Another significant aspect that influenced her pragmatic language use was that she would give as much information as possible when she starts speaking. By doing so, she puts herself in positions where it would be easy for her to handle the conversation. In real life, she generally prepares what she wants to say in advance. As a result, she hopes to get away from being asked further questions by an interlocutor. She explained why she wanted to avoid a longer dialogue as follows: “well, in English, it’s just being asked back something equals what I said was incorrect. Like that, I’m brainwashed”. The possibility for exchanges of longer interactions in English gave her great anxiety and nervousness. This seemed to stem from her lack of confidence in her own English proficiency. Such anxiety and a lack of confidence in English interactions appeared robust only when she spoke to an NSE and a fluent NNSE. She got “stiffen” and positioned herself as a somewhat powerless and tried to keep a distance from them. She told a story about a previous experience when she attempted and failed to become friends with a British flatmate, which led her to have distant feelings toward the British people. (This account was presented in Extract 7.22.) On the other hand, her lack of self-confidence in English interactions eased a great deal when she addressed East Asian ELF speakers because she and they could “collaborate each other during interaction”. Besides, she persistently mentioned that she perceived that East Asian ELF speakers would understand her feelings and what she said because she believed that Asians are “culturally similar” to the Japanese. Therefore, her sense of self when she spoke to East Asian ELF speakers was very similar to her sense of self when she spoke Japanese. This similarity gave her a positive self-identification as an English user where she can “be herself”.

7.6.6 Hiromi’s case study Hiromi was an applied linguistics major and a third-year undergraduate student at the time of data collection. Unlike most of the other participants, she has never been abroad; however, her supervisor described her English as one of the best among other students in the course at a Japanese university. She showed she had a more positive sense of self as an English speaker compared to as a Japanese speaker.

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

193

Extract 7.38 In English, I can speak without worrying about status differences, so I can express my opinion firmly. I can express myself in English with more confidence compared to when I speak in Japanese.

It sounds as though English provided her with a different set of identities, which set her free from being a speaker of Japanese, a language which has various constraints on linguistic choices depending on to whom she talks. Her positive view of herself as an English speaker was enhanced by another view of English, as something to aspire to. Extract 7.39 When I’m speaking English well, I can regard myself cool who speak English. I think that people who can speak English equals cool. […] I like myself more [as a speaker of English] compared to myself as a Japanese speaker.

Even though she was not yet satisfied with her level of English proficiency, her love of how she feels when speaking English provided her with an affirmative identity. In relation to her L2 English pragmatic language use, her L2 English use was influenced by her perceptions of how she should talk to each individual from different regions, i.e., British, West European, and East Asian. She deliberately chose different pragmatic strategies when speaking to a West European or to an East Asian interlocutor than she would with a British interlocutor. Overall, her pragmatic language use when addressing British interlocutors were made based on her perception of the Standard English norms. Such perceptions were described as people expressing their opinions clearly. She also mentioned that she was unsure about the British people due to having no experience of encountering them; therefore, she could only apply her perception of the Standard English norms to her pragmatic language use when addressing the British. On the cases of talking to West Europeans, she repeatedly explained that she made her pragmatic language use to sound “softer” or “more indirect” than to a Briton based on “the image” she had. When I asked why she thought that she wanted to speak more softly to West Europeans, she kept saying it was based on the image she had but could not quite explain why she had such a perception. However, she managed to clarify a little why she has such an “image”: Extract 7.40 There are many countries in West Europe where mother tongue is not English. So, I had a selfish image of insisting [my opinion] strongly to the British where English is their mother tongue.

194

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

She also devised deliberately different pragmatic language strategies when addressing an East Asian rather than a Briton (see an example of differences in her pragmatic language use with British and East Asian interlocutors in Section 7.4). As a reason for the differences in her pragmatic language use, she referenced the similarity of Japanese and other Asian cultures, and she thought that saying things more politely to an Asian interlocutor was important. The findings from her data set suggested that the perceived Standard English norms could only apply to the interaction with NSEs (i.e., British), but there were alternative ways for interactions with NNSEs.

7.6.7 Umi’s case study Umi has spent one year of her high school time at a Canadian high school and was in her third year at a Japanese university majoring in international business at the time of data collection. She has also been studying Spanish as her third language at university and recently went to Spain for a month for further study. She was planning to go to Hawaii to learn English at a language school for half a year at the beginning of her fourth year of the university study. When speaking in English she “can say own opinions more freely”, but in Japanese she tends to be “reserved”. She also mentioned that English became part of herself, and said, “it is not my mother tongue but I feel like it approximates to mother tongue” at times, in particular, when she is abroad and situated in an English speaking context. When asked why she held such a sense of her English-speaking self, she explained as follows. Extract 7.41 I realised that people in the English-speaking countries tend to express their own feelings. So I felt like I could say things in English.

In the English elicitation task, she frequently chose different pragmatic language strategies according to the English speaker’s linguacultural background, which were, in essence, influenced by her lived experience during her studies in Canada and Spain. As an example of her pragmatic language use, in the refusal scenario where she was to turn down an offer of dessert by the host at a dinner party, she deliberately made different pragmatic language use when talking to a Briton rather than a West European interlocutor. She said to a British interlocutor: “I’m really full. But I’d like to try some”, and did not refuse the offer. Nevertheless, to a West European interlocutor, she clearly declined the offer saying: “No thank you. I’m really full”. She explained the reason for such a difference with reference to her experience in Spain.

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

195

Extract 7.42 Oh, here, Europe. When I went to Spain, Europe, it was ok to have said clearly like ‘I’m full. I cannot eat’. So, that’s why I said like I don’t want to eat any more. But I wasn’t sure about British, so I expressed like I eat a little.

Moreover, she elsewhere talked about how having had experiences of communicating with West European friends influenced her pragmatic language use with West Europeans, and thus she could speak to them “friendlily”. On the other hand, the fact that she did not have any British friends affected her choice, and she was not sure about how to address the British interlocutors. Consequently, she generally accommodated the perceived norms of English linguaculture based on her experience in Canada, or chose something safe to say based on her subjectivity, e.g., showing deference. She also intentionally made different pragmatic language use between a British interlocutor and an East Asian interlocutor. She repeatedly elucidated the reason as being one of how “Japanese and Asian are culturally similar” in the interview. Therefore, she chose to address East Asian speakers of English in the same way she would in Japanese. She further described that the feeling of closeness to East Asian English speakers influenced her level of comfort when speaking to them. She felt more at ease because “they will understand [her] even though [her] English is not very good”.

7.6.8 Yoshito’s case study Yoshito’s interest in English started with his love of British musicians when he was a teenager, and later the interest shifted to English linguistics. He was a PhD candidate in theoretical linguistics at a British university. At the time of the interview, he had lived in the UK for three years. Even though he was conducting research at the highest level of education in English, he had poor selfconfidence as an English speaker, and described himself as “a little withdrawn” when speaking English. He felt most comfortable talking with his close friends and housemates “who in particular try to understand [his] English even if it’s not perfect”. This was because he believed they would understand him “although [his] English is incorrect” and “so there is a feeling of security”. Under such circumstances, he enjoyed trying new vocabularies. He “gives a try to many things” and uses such opportunities as a “trial” time to practice English. He was able to invest in learning and using English more when he felt secure. In contrast, he expressed his discomfort speaking English to someone he does not know very well because of the insecurity coming from his lack of self-confidence in English.

196

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

Extract 7.43 I feel I have to convey my message clearly and accurately to somebody who I don’t know. […] There is anxiety if I don’t preparer what I want to say beforehand. Well, it makes me nervous. There is like a pressure about I have to pronounce clearly and have to make myself understood clearly.

This indicates that anxiety and self-confidence is constructed socially rather than existing as an L2 learner’s intrinsic trait (Norton 2000). In terms of his pragmatic language use in English, he generally conformed to perceived Standard English when speaking to a NSE; however, he departed from it when talking to a NNSE. For example, in the situation of refusing a dessert offered by a host at the party, to a British interlocutor he said: (27) I’m afraid that I’m too full to eat more. But I’d like to try what you’ve made. So can I have a just a little bit? (Questionnaire 2. No. 6. To a British interlocutor, Original in English)

Alternatively, he said to a West European interlocutor: (28) Well, I’m too full to eat more. But can I have a little bit? (Questionnaire 2. No. 6. To a West European interlocutor, Original in English)

He explained this difference as follows: Extract 7.44 Yoshito: For instance, when turning down something, I thought I should speak indirectly if the conversational partner is a native speaker. And if the conversational partner is not a native speaker, well, the other side is not a native speaker either, so even though the message is conveyed directly, they might get hurt, but it’s OK, I thought. Interviewer: So telling the purpose comes first? Yoshito: Yes, yes, yes, yes. […] Yes. When turning down, and the other side is a native speaker, if the message is conveyed directly, the other side might get hurt because of the strength of the expression. As they understand the language. I thought so.

By summarising his accounts on his English pragmatic language use, it seemed his pragmatic language use with a Briton was driven by his desire to express himself in a pragmatically appropriate way, in other words, to conform to the perceived pragmatic norm of Standard English. Conversely, different pragmatic language strategies were used in order to convey the message as clearly as possible for the NNSE interlocutor to understand his intention efficiently. This tendency was also found as a characteristic of ELF interaction in a study by Hülmbauer (2009).

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

197

Among NNSE interlocutors, when he decided to address an East Asian interlocutor with different pragmatic language use than from those to a Briton, the reason was because there was “something comfy” about speaking to East Asian speakers of English. He considered sharing a NNSE status as well as an East Asian background with them (his pragmatic language use in this regard can be found in Section 7.4). In contrast, when asked how he feels about communicating with West Europeans, in spite of the fact that he expressed the sense of sharing non-nativeness with West Europeans too, he mentioned having some difficulty talking to them because of his uncertainty about the degree of cultural difference with them, and thus he was unsure about what kinds of linguacultural rules they would use when interacting in English.

7.6.9 Kaori’s case study It has been about three and a half years since Kaori first came to the UK. At the time of the interview, she had just started her final year of the undergraduate study in sociology and politics. Outside the course, she was a skilled basketball player and played as a member of the university basketball team. The English language played a significant role in her development as a person. She described English as “it’s a friend who has shifted my thinking in 18 years of my life”. She told her life story of the process of how English played an important role for her character formation, in particular after she arrived in the UK a few years ago. She had countless friends including of British, European, and Asian backgrounds; however, she pointed that the number of her friends of Asian background (not including Japanese) were much less than those with other cultural backgrounds. Unlike other participants in the study, she voiced having a slight disbelief in people with Chinese background. Such mistrust appeared in her pragmatic language use toward East Asian speakers of English. In this sense, she was the deviant case in the present study because many other participants expressed acknowledging similarities with and feelings of closeness toward Asian English speakers. For example, in the complaint scenario where she talks to her flatmate about making noise at night, she spoke to a British flatmate as follows: (29) Um.. actually I have to say that you are making some noise recently, so I can’t sleep well nowadays. . . So pretty please to not be noisy at night??? (with funny way) (Questionnaire 2. No. 2. To a British interlocutor, Original in English)

198

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

Whereas, to an East Asian flatmate, she added more explanation for her complaint in order to make it clear that she was complaining. (30) Um.. actually I have to say that you are making some noise recently, so I can’t sleep well nowadays. . . If you know you have to do, or you should make noise a bit at night, please inform me beforehand? I will put earplugs to protect my lovelysleeping!! (Questionnaire 2. No. 2. To an East Asian interlocutor, Original in English)

She explained this deliberate differentiation of her English use as follows: Extract 7.45 I’m not like a racist, but […] well, difficult, don’t know how to put it. Probably, based on my experience, when I hear “East Asian”, I think of China. I have an image that I have to insist or say with a strong-ish nuance; otherwise Chinese people wouldn't listen to you. So, if I say like “I wear a earplug”, although it like a joke, it makes them think I’m serious. But to a British person, it may be because I imagined my friend, but they might say, “I’m sorry. I’ll be careful” straightaway. The noise will never stop in both cases, but I felt [the British] would say “I’ll be careful”, so I said like this. In both cases, I imagined my friends. […] When I complain to an East Asian, I feel I have to say strongly.

In another scenario (request) where she asked a classmate for lecture notes for a class she missed, when she spoke to a British interlocutor, she added a joke (to offer to buy a cup of tea for them) because she regarded that British people love tea and they would appreciate such a joke.44 Yet, when I asked how she would speak to an East Asian classmate (after she talked about her mistrust of the Chinese people), she responded that she would not ask an East Asian classmate unless there is nobody but East Asians. She explained, “There are many noncommittal [East Asian] people around me. Like, who do not take notes in classes”. Elsewhere, she talked about her next-door neighbours on both sides who are Chinese families. She showed irritation about how the family spoke their language so loudly that she heard them from her house and how their daughter played the piano late into the night. The real-life episodes she shared in the interview showed that her negative evaluation toward the Chinese students and the neighbours affected her perception toward East Asian English speakers in general. All in all, her pragmatic language use were influenced by her

44 Her pragmatic language use to a British interlocutor was: “Hi, I am so sorry that . . . I have to say . . . can I borrow your lecture note? I missed the last lec because I went to the airport to see my friend off. Ahh . . . would you like a cup of tea? You ARE more than invited!!”. Whereas, her pragmatic language use to a West European interlocutor was: “Hi, I am so sorry that . . . I have to say . . . can I borrow your lecture note? I missed the last lecture because I went to the airport to see my friend off” (Questionnaire A. No.3).

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

199

perception of East Asians, meaning one aspect of subjectivity, which are developed through her life experiences.

7.6.10 Tae’s case study Tae is an English language teacher at a Japanese high school. Prior to her current teaching job, she spent one and a half years in the UK for an English language course and a postgraduate study in English language teaching, where she obtained a Master’s degree. Before going to the UK, she was a contract English teacher at high schools for several years after graduating from a university in Japan. At the time of data collection, she had limited opportunities to interact in English in Japan, which were confined to with her three English-speaking (two middle-aged American and a young British) colleagues at work. Due to this limited use of English, she reported that her English use tended to be influenced by Japanese hierarchical linguacultural norms. Nevertheless, she admitted that it was fine to use English in a “kind of Japanese way” because her students would not understand, which shows her fluctuating identities as an English user and ELT teacher. During the interview session, she elaborated on her confidence and comfort in herself as an English speaker. Extract 7.46 With the English self, well just uttering English itself means that I have to raise my spirits, like I make myself a cheerful self. Well, in a sense that it’s like passive and aggressive. I become aggressive in English. Well, English-speaking me is, well, I’ve studied English; I have a bit of confidence. I’m conformable with myself when speaking in English. These are the factors, and I like myself of speaking English, and have positive image of myself. So, English-speaking self is good sense of self or who is getting close to an ideal self.

She elsewhere mentioned that she was proud of being able to speak English with a good pronunciation. She was a confident speaker of English although she acknowledged there was more that she could do to improve her English proficiency. Regarding her English pragmatic language use, she did not choose a different way of addressing her interlocutor with respect to the interlocutor’s background (i.e., a NSE or NNSE with European or Asian background). She explained her reasoning as follows: Extract 7.47 When speaking English, for me, although the interlocutor is Asian, non-Japanese, or British, well, I don’t know how to put it, they are not the same nationality with me.

200

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

Because of my level of English, as long as the other side is a speaker of English, it’s like I only have this expression. Making distinction in use, well, I cannot use different words depending on the interlocutor. Well, speaking English itself is established. I have only one pattern. So, no matter who I speak to, any kind of interlocutor.

Generally, her English pragmatic language uses were as a result of accommodating to the perceived norms of English (i.e., speaking directly). Additionally, her positive sense of self and how she would present herself as an English speaker played an important role in her pragmatic language use in English. At the same time, she explained that her directness in English utterances was due to her non-nativeness, which led her not to have the “inner reserves” to alter her speech depending on each situation and the atmosphere that an interlocutor would create during the conversation. Throughout her interview and her responses on the elicitation task, she showed her ambivalent relationship with English. Although she expressed great confidence within herself as a speaker of English, she acknowledged that she was “not a native English speaker”, therefore, she was not always certain that the way she talks is appropriate or not, unlike when she speaks Japanese. Yet she maintained that English is her own language, her voice. English gave her a different sense of who she is than from Japanese.

7.6.11 Naofumi’s case study Naofumi was a doctoral student in international politics at a Japanese university at the time of data collection. Apart from English, he had a good command of Malay. He recently spent two and a half years in Malaysia conducting fieldwork for his PhD research. He had stayed for short periods of time in Australia and England to study English when he was an undergraduate student. He was the only participant who experienced an extensive period of time living in an Asian country by using English as a means of communication. He described feelings of insecurity and inferiority in English interactions when fluent L2 English speakers or NSEs were present. In contrast to this, “Asian English” gave him comfort and security (see his narrative in Extract 6.14). This was probably due to his prolonged sojourn in Malaysia communicating with Asians in English, and his earlier experience of sojourning in Britain and Australia where he told me about his feeling of not being welcomed by his Australian host family and his discriminative experiences suffered at the hands of some of the locals. Surprisingly, his unique experiences did not affect his pragmatic language use elicited by the questionnaires. In other words, his choices of pragmatic strategies did not vary depending on the interlocutor’s linguacultural profile.

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

201

He explained the reasons: “I don’t know specifically”, but partly it was due to his lack of pragmatic competence. He admitted, though, that he might behave differently in an actual conversation depending on whether he was speaking to a NSE or a NNSE. In reality, he would be worried about his English ability such as making mistakes and speaking in “inappropriate” pronunciation, when speaking to an NSE. He was even worried that he might “be laughed at” by NSEs because of the inappropriateness of his English. A similar account of his feelings of inferiority toward NSEs is shown in Section 7.2, as his reasons for his pragmatic language use in English (Questionnaire 1. No. 9). Another significant element that influenced his English use was his L2related identity. He had a liberating feeling when speaking in English as opposed to a suppressed feeling when speaking in Japanese (see an example of his account in Extract 4.19). English allows him to be an individual, free from being a member of collective Japanese society. He explained that such a difference in his sense of self as an English speaker and as a Japanese speaker appeared in his pragmatic language use in both languages. His English-speaking self parallels his perception of English linguaculture. In the following example, such a contrast in sense of self between the two languages appeared in his choices of pragmatic language use. He illustrated his sense of self as being an individual in English, and in contrast, reflected collective Japanese social norms in his Japanese pragmatic language use. To complain in English to a flatmate who has been making noise late at night, he stated: (31) Hi. Can I talk with you now? I am sorry to say this but I can not avoid to saying this. I can not tolerate the noise that you make every midnight. We have made a promise that we do not make noise after 11pm, right? What do you think about that? (Questionnaire 2. No. 2, Original in English)

On the other hand, in Japanese, he stated: (32)

ちょっといいかな。共同生活するためにはお互いがルールを守って 気持ち良く住めるようにするべきだよね。最近、君は夜遅くに物音を立 てて周りの人たちに迷惑になってるんじゃないかな。最初に11時以降 は静かにするって約束したよね。 ‘Do you have a minute? I think we should follow the rules for everybody who share the same flat to live comfortably, right? Recently, I think you’ve been making noises and making trouble to other people. We promised to be quiet after 11p.m. at first, didn’t we?’ (Questionnaire 3. No. 4.)

As for these pragmatic language uses, he explained that the English version was the way he could express himself in English as an individual rather than as a member of the collective Japanese community when speaking Japanese.

202

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

7.6.12 Yoriko’s case study Yoriko was a law student at a Japanese university. At the time of the interview she was studying in a British university using the credit transfer system. She said she was “not a very outgoing person” but loved communicating with nonJapanese people in English because she “can listen about the person’s country, culture and stuff”. Even though she generally liked to communicate with others in English, she suffered from some level of anxiety in English interactions. Extract 7.48 I can talk to anybody in Japanese, but in English I cannot talk depending on the person. If the person is rather friendly, I can jump in [the conversation] but if they is not very friendly or if they is a teacher or something, I tend to hesitate.

At the time of the interview, she was suffering from loneliness in the university’s flat where she shared with British first year female students who did not care to socialise with her very much even though it was apparent she was isolated. Although she developed some fear towards British students at the university based on this experience of her accommodation arrangements, she had a positive identification of herself as a university student in the UK. She showed her appreciation for how much university professors/lecturers in Britain show interest in the students, and she condemned those in Japan for not doing so. She was grateful for how the professors/lecturers at the British university treated students as somebody worthy enough with whom to interact. She generally felt at ease with English speakers with Asian backgrounds because of the perceived ethnic and cultural similarities. Her experiences of communicating with them also led her to realise that their communication style suited her. With Europeans, based on her experience in the classrooms at the British university, she felt distant from them because the European students were outspoken even though their English was not perfect like NSEs, which made her nervous and anxious. She also talked about self-perception in regard to her English proficiency level and what she regarded as inferiority while participating in social interactions in English. Such feelings of inferiority were even more accentuated when she saw NSEs “who speaks perfect English” and fluent English speakers like Europeans. Such symbolic power affected her confidence level detrimentally. Her narratives regarding these issues are presented in Extract 7.8. As for the elicitation task in English, she chose the same pragmatic language use for all interlocutors – British, West European and East Asian interlocutors. She explained the reason behind the same choice: “I didn’t think it was necessary to change [the responses depending on the interlocutor’s linguacultural

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

203

background]”. However, interestingly, the findings indicated that even though the choices of pragmatic language use were the same despite the different background of interlocutors, the reasoning behind her choices was often different for each group of interlocutors. For example, to complain to a flatmate who has been making a lot of noise at night, she wrote as follows to both British and East Asian interlocutors. (33) Hi, can I talk with you for a while? Do you remember a rule that we do not make noise after 11:00p.m? I think you don’t care about this rule these days. Can you stop making noise at late night? (Questionnaire 2. No. 2, Original in English)

She explained that her pragmatic language use to the British interlocutor was because she felt she “could not blend into foreigners”. Furthermore, she repeatedly expressed that her poor self-confidence in English competence was the reason behind her English use to NSEs. This negative sense of self in L2 led her to make more “polite” linguistic choices for the British interlocutor since it seemed a safer strategy and thus prevented further complication. On the other hand, to an East Asian interlocutor, the choice of “polite” pragmatic language was to show respect because she felt that East Asians respect her in general, and she wanted to show her respect to them in return.

7.6.13 Motoya’s case study Motoya was an undergraduate student studying politics and international relations at a British university where he had already spent three years at the time of the interview. He reported that he also spoke French at such a level that he would not find difficulty whilst travelling. He was an articulate individual. For him, the English language was his own tool for communicating with others, and English was detached from Anglo-European linguaculture. He mentioned that whether or not his interlocutor was a monolingual or a bi/multilingual English speaker would make a difference to him. Extract 7.49 If even though a native speaker of English, but who has studied another language, for instance, this person would appreciate the hard work of a non-native English speaker, and they would be understanding. Well, even British people who study such as French or Japanese languages understand the difficulty of studying another language; this person would explain things with different expressions if they knew I didn't understand. So, it’s not quite nationalism, but those who think completely 100% like ‘you ought to

204

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

be able to speak English’, speak very fast without thinking back, it’s very hard for me to follow.

The fact that an interlocutor is an NSE or NNSE does not have a great impact on his emotions and his use of English. Nevertheless, as a multilingual speaker himself, sharing the state of a bilingual or multilingual speaker has a significant influence on him. This suggests that he acknowledges people who know a second language as multicompetent people who understand the difficulties of learning a different language and put effort to mutual understanding. Understandably, regarding his pragmatic language use elicited by the task, his English responses were the same regardless of the interlocutor’s background (NSE and NNSE with West European or East Asian background). The reason for choosing the same pragmatic language use was based on how he would talk to English speakers on a daily basis without distinguishing them based on their linguacultural backgrounds. His English pragmatic language uses were often decided because of his sense of his English-speaking self. He explained that he holds a different sense of self in English than his Japanese self. He referred to this Englishspeaking self as “open”, the self who can express his opinions, thoughts, and feelings freely compared to the self who is a Japanese speaker. For example, to refuse a request to give a speech in public, he responded in English as follows: (34) I am quite honoured to be chosen. But I have so many things to do, and I don’t think I am capable of it. Basically I am really shy person. So please ask other good student. (Questionnaire 2. No. 8, Original in English)

On the other hand, in Japanese he responded as shown below: (35) 指名してくれて嬉しいのですが僕は最近忙しく、できそうにありま せんので別の人に頼んでもらってもいいでしょうか？ ‘I’m happy that you appointed me but I’ve been busy and don’t think I will be able to do it. Would you mind asking somebody else?’ (Questionnaire 3. No. 1)

The main difference in the above pragmatic language use was that he stated the reason why he wanted to decline the request clearly in English, but rather vaguely in Japanese. He explained that the reason for saying “I’m really shy person” in the English version was a result of his sense of who he is when speaking English, that is, “being open” and true to himself. Moreover, he further commented that “I want

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

205

them [i.e., the interlocutors] to know what kind of person I am” when speaking in English.

7.6.14 Takeo’s case study Takeo arrived in the UK half a year before I interviewed him in November. After completing a preparatory English course in the summer, he had just started his LLM degree in international human rights. He generally did not have self-confidence in his English ability. The difficulties he faced in his daily English conversations were mentioned in connection to his lack of vocabulary, fluency, and general ability to speak English. His low level of confidence in English caused him anxiety speaking in English and influenced how he sees himself as an English speaker, which he regarded as “negative”. However, when it came to speaking to an Asian ELF speaker, he appreciated interacting with them, since he believed he and they were at a similar level of English proficiency, spoken in familiar pronunciation at a slower speed. Such awareness was constructed based on his day-to-day experiences of interacting with Asian speakers of English in contrast to non-Asian English speakers surrounding him. When it came to his English pragmatic language use, his choices appeared to be the same for all types of English speakers (British and West European/ East Asian). He explained the reason for choosing the same pragmatic language use for different types of English speakers as “for me, I just thought that it was not necessary to differentiate them” and “I only think of whether I can make myself understood or not”. His pragmatic language use in English was mainly based on his perception of Standard English, even though he voiced uncertainty about how to be appropriate to speak pragmatically. Moreover, he always worried about how an interlocutor perceived his message. Such anxiety can be seen in his multiple usages of apologies in his English responses. One can be seen in his request to a professor: (36) Hi I have to apologize to you. Unfortunately I can not attend next meeting time. Can I make an appointment again?

In the refusal to a professor: (37) Unfortunately I have another appointment in same date. . .I am so sorry, but if you do not in trouble, can I make an appointment in another date?

206

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

In another refusal to a friend: (38) No thank you. Unfortunately I am full. . .I am sorry. But can I have a cup of coffee?

In the refusal to a stranger: (39) I think this is good opportunity for me, but I want to decline your offer. I have a lot of work until the end of the next month. I want to concentrate on my work. I’m so sorry.

He explained the use of apologies as a marker of politeness, a technique that seeks a compromise between his lack of ability to use other linguistic expressions and his desire to portray himself as polite. Another primary influence on his English pragmatic language use was his perception of English use: speaking straightforwardly. Extract 7.50 Basically, I think that it should be better if I say a matter straightforwardly, and thus it’s easier to get across the message to the other.

His perception of English linguaculture of expressing straightforwardly seemed to have been accentuated by a comment from his French friend. Extract 7.51 Well, I’m like that, but I’m often told that Japanese people often say like “maybe” which doesn’t give a committal answer. […] So, in such an aspect, if I don’t say things clearly, umm, the other side wouldn’t understand, right? Japanese people are like, well, the Japanese language is tacit, which is different from English.

His English pragmatic language use seem to have been influenced mainly by his perception of English linguacultural norms, but it was in this arena where he negotiated his lack of self-confidence in his use of English.

7.6.15 Tomomi’s case study Tomomi was a final year undergraduate law student at a British university when I interviewed her. She told a fascinating story about how the English language developed her as a person. Extract 7.52 I owe English for the formation of myself for the last 4 years as I have lived here (in the UK) between age 19 and 22. I have a feeling that as my English has improved, I become more mature. So I think English is part of me.

7.6 Subjectivities and pragmatic language use: Case studies

207

English for her was not only a tool for communication, but also something meaningful for her life and personal development (see further account in Extract 4.10). In other words, learning English was not about merely acquiring a new language, but it provided her with various opportunities to meet people with different linguacultural backgrounds, to develop her as a person, and to expand her identity (Wenger 1998). She held a positive view of herself as an English user. She said, “I think I’m more cheerful when I speak in English”. Such a positive sense of self as an English user triggered her pragmatic language use in English (see the example of her pragmatic language use and her narrative in Section 7.1). The affirmative sense of English self was at times supported by a positive comment made by a Korean co-worker when she worked as an intern during the previous summer. The Korean co-worker told her that she preferred Tomomi as an English speaker compared to her as a Japanese speaker because Tomomi shined as an individual when speaking English (see the account in Extract 4.14). The English language provided Tomomi with an identity that is different from her Japanesespeaking self. She also explained that speaking Japanese confines her individuality because of the collective and hierarchical characteristics of Japanese linguaculture. Although she held a positive view of herself as an English user, she expressed difficulty in speaking to NSE classmates at the British university, in particular, because of an experience where she received a discouraging comment about her being an NNSE by an NSE classmate when she first tried to speak to the classmate (see her narrative in Extract 5.26). Such first-hand experiences of rejection by a NSE led her to develop a fear of speaking to NSEs in general. Then, she lost opportunities to invest in speaking to NSE peers. The data revealed that that most of her English-speaking friends are those with Asian backgrounds. Regarding this, she explained that Asian students in her classes were minorities, and therefore their bond was strong. She also perceived that Asian students had a similar sense of values, and as a result, she developed more affection for Asian students in Britain (see her account in Extract 6.10). She had a positive sense of self as an English user, even though her lived experiences negatively influenced her L2-related identity, which illustrates how one’s sense of self regarding the English language can differ socially depending on the context in which they are situated. Overall, most of her English pragmatic uses were chosen based on her perception of the Standard English norms. With regard to this, she often described

208

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

how her perception was developed based on her own experiences of her utterances being understood or not understood by English speakers in Britain.

7.7 Discussion and conclusion 7.7.1 ELF users and social agency Previous studies linking learners’ subjectivities and L2/FL pragmatic language use such as Ishihara (2006), Iwasaki (2010) and Siegal (1996) discussed learner agency in relation to cases of resistance to the L2 norms and evidence of divergence. To add a further perspective, the findings of the present study demonstrate that the L2 users’ pragmatic language use that appear on the surface as conformity to the norm of Standard English could also be made as a result of the expression of their own sense of selves. The findings illustrate that the participants often chose pragmatic language use based on their subjective positions rather than simply uttering whatever came into their subconscious mind. In other words, they acted as social agents who made their own decisions about their L2 English uses (Ishihara 2006; Iwasaki 2010; Siegal 1996). The term agency draws different connotations from different theoretical strands45; however, I use the term following Ishihara’s (2006: 22) definition: “self-reliant, independent, or self-defining capacity to operate with volition and power to bring about an effect, change, or decision in a given context.” LoCastro (2003: 298) explains similarly that individuals (i.e., agents) “are not passive, but can contest a particular way in which they have been positioned in a social site, seeking to create a new social position for themselves.” This counters the traditional view of an EFL learner as a passive recipient of instructional input and a producer of what they have acquired, but rather accords with how ELF-informed research views ELF users as legitimate English language users who are capable of achieving efficiency and mutual intelligibility in intercultural communication (Cogo 2008; Jenkins 2006a). Also, with this framework, ELF users’ pragmatic language use can be regarded as their sociolinguistic rights. Each of my participants acted as a social agent, exercising their linguistic rights as an ELF user by making conscious decision about their pragmatic language use.

45 Block (2009: 221) advises applied linguists who research identities to be more aware of the complex interrelation of social structure and agency. There is an issue of “how to steer a course between the view that human beings and their actions are determined by social structures that pre-exist them and the view that human beings are free agents who act on their own behalf and interest and make that world around them without constraints on their activity”.

7.7 Discussion and conclusion

209

7.7.2 Pragmatic language use as manifestation of identity negotiation The findings presented in this chapter demonstrate my participants’ negotiation of multiple identities and how that was reflected in their pragmatic language uses in English and their reasoning behind them. First of all, the participants’ deliberate pragmatic language use in English often appeared as an expression of their sense of English-speaking selves. In Chapter 4, the findings showed how their English-speaking selves are constructed through the course of their English language learning and experience of engaging in intercultural communication. The English-speaking selves the participants described were often people who could be outspoken and speak frankly or explicitly. They enjoyed it as a sense of being an individual who is set free from the restrictive Japanese linguacultural norms (see Block 2006 for similar accounts by Japanese women living in the UK). Not surprisingly, a sense of English-speaking self was partly triggered by their perception of English linguaculture acquired through their formal English language education they had received over the years. Thus, their pragmatic language use in English sometimes looked like their accommodation to the Standard English norms. However, as the participants’ narratives revealed, their pragmatic language use were actually made because of their expression of English-speaking selves. Therefore, their choice of pragmatic language use appeared to be their unique way of self-representation of their alternative linguistic identities or English-speaking selves. The English language is a medium of their self-expression, and communication in English can be a means that they positively express their alternative identities (Block 2006; Pavlenko 2002; Ushioda 2010; Witte 2014). Not only does the English language provide a medium for L2 English users to express their English-speaking selves, but it also endows them with a place to negotiate multiple identities (Ushioda 2011). At times, application of L1based linguacultural norms in ELF contexts was observed. In these cases, the English users’ deliberate pragmatic language use challenged the perceived Standard English norm. The similar findings were reported by other SLA researchers such as Ishihara (2006) and Siegal (1996), and my participants often reported that they followed more familiar L1-based linguacultural norms even though they were aware of the fact that the Standard English norms would be different from what they would say. They were wary of conforming to perceived Standard English because they did not wish to sound rude to the interlocutor in ELF communication where the counterparts may not wish to communicate based on Standard English norm. They were aware that resistance to and divergence from Standard English might result in misunderstanding or miscommunication; nevertheless, they decided to follow their hearts (i.e., subjectivities).

210

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

They expressed their identity or sense of self, using L1-based linguacultural norms in new and interesting ways when communicating through ELF by exercising their sociolinguistic rights. Meanwhile, many participants often struggled between their English-speaking self and L1-based subjectivity, in particular during intercultural communication where English was used as a lingua franca, which supports the notion that ELF users may not necessarily desire to express their L1-based identity all the time in an ELF context (Jenkins 2007). The participants sometimes faced having to decide what norm to follow, at times opting to follow the perceived Standard English norm without feeling completely comfortable about their own choices. Also, even though they sometimes enjoyed expressing their English-speaking self as their “true” self in English without concerning any Japanese sociocultural constraints, at other times they chose to express “Asianness” by employing more L1/C1 based strategies in pragmatic language use. Their ambivalent attitudes show that they were constantly navigating the use of English while negotiating their multiple identities. As Norton (2000) argues, identity construction is often contradictory and is a site of struggle. Thus, it is inevitable that L2 users’ multiple identities may conflict with and contradict each other in various ELF contexts (Sung 2014). Considering the participants’ deliberate pragmatic language use through negotiation of their multiple identities, the concept of multicompetence provides new light for re-conceptualising linguistic/cultural knowledge and competence. The term first coined by Cook (1991) refers to “knowledge of two languages in one mind” (Cook 2007: 17, 1992, 1999). In this concept, Cook condemned the traditional view of L2 learners as unsuccessful NNSEs in SLA research, and advocated their being regarded as L2 users who possess multicompetence in their own right. This concept of multicompetent L2 users is attuned to the position that ELF research takes on ELF users. ELF users are rightfully multicompetent users of languages who can mediate and negotiate between different linguacultures (Baker 2009), as my participants appeared to be. Even though having successfully expressed their identity as multicompetent ELF users through their choices of pragmatic language use, there were moments when the participants expressed their lack of confidence in English language use. Their pragmatic language use were sometimes provided with feelings of deficiency when comparing their language ability to that of NSEs, representing EFL learner identity. Developing NSE communicative “competence” or linguistic proficiency is perceived as an ultimate (but unattainable) goal for EFL learners in Japanese school education (Iino and Murata 2016); thus their L2-related identity is still socially constrained by idealised NSE norms and values. My participants often spoke of their “lack of confidence” in English competence or proficiency, and as a result, they designated themselves a weaker

7.7 Discussion and conclusion

211

status as an EFL learner or NNSE of limited competence (for similar attitudes of Japanese ELF users, see Iino and Murata 2016). EFL learner or NNSE identity often represents a power imbalance between NSEs and NNSEs in communication, hindered by unequal, coercive power relations negatively influencing positioning of L2 English users. The pragmatic language uses by my participant under this discourse can be seen as manifestations of themselves as EFL learners/NNSEs rather than rightful ELF users. That said, even though their identities and L2 English use were occasionally constrained by the discourse of native-speakerism, my participants’ pragmatic language use were made as a result of their negotiation of multiple identities relating to L2 English communication (Ishihara 2006; Siegal 1996), which does represent their multicompetence. It appears that the English language is a medium to express themselves and negotiate their identities and the way they relate to the social world (Norton 2000; Ushioda 2010).

7.7.3 Toward cultural practice among East Asian ELF speakers This chapter presented several examples of pragmatic language use which the participants reported as reflecting their emotional closeness and perception of cultural and ethnic affinity with East Asian speakers of English. When addressing East Asian ELF speakers, the participants often diverged from their perceived NSE norms; in other words, they appropriated English to what they perceived as “Asian ways” of ELF use. Based on the strong sense of sharing with East Asian ELF speakers, many participants deliberately chose pragmatic language use that they understood to be different from the NSE norms. They brought global, local and individual orientations into communication (Baker 2009; Phan 2008, 2009) with East Asian ELF speakers. This can be seen as a celebration of the participants’ communicative capability (Seidlhofer 2011; Widdowson 2015). ELF users are often described as successful multicompetent L2 users who are capable of effectively using ELF by exploiting its communicative potential and employing whatever linguistic and cultural resources are available to them (Seidlhofer 2011: 197–202). When the participants were in a situation where the interlocutors were perceived to be members of the same cultural group, they explained their deliberate pragmatic language use as their own attempts to build interpersonal relationships, sometimes by displaying deference or camaraderie and friendliness, and at other times by attempting to exchange shared cultural identities. The findings support the discussion in earlier research on ELF interaction that linked ELF speakers’ pragmatic strategies with marking solidarity and establishing rapport among interactants (e.g., Cogo 2009; Kalocsai 2011; Kordon 2006; Pullin Stark 2009).

212

Chapter 7 Identity and pragmatic language use through ELF

The participants tended to desire interpersonal connection with East Asian ELF speakers to build meaningful personal relationships. Realisation of such a shared goal in ELF communication represents the participants’ ELF competence (Kalocsai 2011: 131) in the imagined community of East Asian ELF speakers, which was constructed through the participants’ perception of themselves as part of the same cultural group, connected through their perceived sense of sharing. Their “Asian-flavoured” pragmatic language use can be considered as a way in which the participants developed their own shared practices to build solidarity and maintain rapport in the imagined community of East Asian ELF speakers (see Ehrenreich 2009; Kalocsai 2014; Pedrazzini and Nava 2011 for the manner in which ELF is used to index and construct membership in ELFrelated communities in European contexts). Mutually engaging in the practice of communication and developing shared repertoires, ELF users co-construct a unique ELF-resourced community or group (Kalocsai 2014; Pitzl 2018). On the other hand, my participants were ready to sacrifice the opportunity to establish close interpersonal relationships in order to ensure intelligibility when addressing the unfamiliar Others in ELF communication. When addressing a non-Asian ELF speaker, many participants decided to accommodate to the perceived NSE norms because they understood that West European ELF speakers would carry similar linguacultural norms to that of NSE. Considering the participants’ accounts further, a lack of experience-based knowledge of West European interlocutors’ linguaculture often prompted them to follow the NSE norms, which was a safe strategy for delivering their intention effectively. On the other hand, when addressing East Asian ELF speakers, the participants went further than just ensuring intelligibility in order to promote solidarity and signal cultural identity through their choices of pragmatic language use. It can be said that that is how the participants do cultural membership and cultural identities in ELF contexts when relevant. Even though the present study did not draw linguistic data from authentic ELF interactions, the findings demonstrate the manner in which cultural norms, associations and identities are constructed and negotiated in interaction, hence interculturality of ELF interaction. The participants appeared to take advantage of the hybrid and fluid nature of ELF in terms of pragmatic language use by focusing on a range of functions of communication (e.g., ensuring intelligibility, fostering solidarity, and indexing cultural identity) and on their interlocutors as people from different linguacultural backgrounds. The English speakers reveal their own desired identities by adopting English to their own purposes in ELF settings (Pölzl 2003; Sung 2014). Thus, intercultural communication through ELF provides them an arena where L2 users develop and engage in hybrid linguistic practices (Sung 2014).

7.7 Discussion and conclusion

213

Lastly, the participants’ deliberate ELF pragmatic language use can be appreciated as the Japanese ELF speakers’ creativities drawn from a sense of sharing and understood as a marker of their multilingual/multicultural repertoire. Such creativity in pragmatic language use in ELF contexts could be seen as the potential emergence of shared cultural practice among East Asian ELF speakers, which is discursively constructed in negotiating relevance of cultural identities in ELF communicative episodes (Zhu 2014). ELF speakers are known to collaborate with their peers from various linguacultural backgrounds, effectively using various strategies and turning them to their advantage. Further investigations are needed, however, to determine if there may be patterns of social interactions through ELF in East Asia shaped by people’s shared cultural values (Kirkpatrick 2010), thus coconstructing a mutual practice.

Chapter 8 Conclusion This concluding chapter first summarises the findings and discussion presented in the earlier chapters and then offers educational implications regarding interculturality, investment, identity, ELF, the NS ideology and instruction of L2 pragmatics in relation to higher education in ELF contexts. A methodological implication regarding diary-writing as an exercise for reflection and observation of L2 learners’ experiences will follow. Then, while acknowledging the limitations of the present study, some suggestions for future studies will be offered. Lastly, the book will conclude with my own reflection on conducting the study as a final remark.

8.1 Summary of the book Based on a narrative approach, this study, in short, investigated identity construction of Japanese L2 English users through their lived experiences and the ways their expression of identity was reflected on their choices of pragmatic language use in various ELF contexts. At the onset of this book, the following four questions were posed as a point of departure for the research: 1) What kinds of identities do the Japanese L2 English users construct relating to the English language? 2) How do power relations emerge in ELF communication and influence the Japanese L2 English users’ identities? 3) How do the Japanese L2 English users’ identities reflect a feeling of cultural closeness with ELF interlocutors? 4) How do the Japanese L2 English users account for their deliberate pragmatic language use in ELF contexts? First, as a way of concluding this monograph, I will summarise the findings and discussion by revisiting each of the four questions one by one.

8.1.1 What kinds of identities do the Japanese L2 English users construct relating to the English language? The participants’ narratives reveal that the English language has played an important role in their past, current and future lives. The English language affords https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-008

8.1 Summary of the book

215

the Japanese L2 English users the platform to construct new identities. Many participants expressed the joy of having an English-speaking self, and enjoyment of being different from their L1-based self. This L1-based, Japanese-speaking self often represented their conformity to the rather rigidly hierarchical and sometimes patrilineal sociocultural norms of Japan. In contrast, their English-speaking selves as alternative selves enabled them to be set free from such a conformity-based sense of self and be unique individual human beings. They developed a somewhat different linguistic persona in relation to L1 Japanese and L2 English, which manifests the notion that L2 English serves as a “unique means of self-representation” for the participants (Pavlenko 2002: 285; Block 2006). At the same time, however, the participants sometimes seemed to have struggled between their different language-based identities when engaging in communication, especially in an ELF context, depending on how they wanted to be viewed as by the interlocutor. Such struggle itself also shows how individuals negotiate multiple identities anew in each interaction. Furthermore, L2-related identities were also closely related to what symbolic capital the participants saw in the English language. English was valued for having its lingua franca status and for opening doors to the wider English-speaking world (Phan 2009). A certain level of English language proficiency provided the participants with the prospects of more access to the wider world and a sense of belonging to global citizenship (Phan 2008), and these prospects along with competence to use ELF efficiently were all identified as types of symbolic capitals that the English language represented. The more the participants were exposed to intercultural communication through ELF, the more they came to associate themselves as successful, multilingual communicators gaining more symbolic capital. They constructed new and alternative identities as an ELF user which they embraced, rather than as a “failed learner of English”. The English language became a language of their own for those Japanese L2 English users in ELF contexts. Formation of identities with respect to L2 English is, in one part, about how they view themselves in relation to the English language itself and what they perceive that the English language can afford them. Meanwhile, identity construction is, in another part, also deeply related to what circumstances or what kind of interactional environment the L2 users encounter, and what kind of relationship they form with other participants during interactions in the present study, in particular with respect to power relations and cultural affinity. Speakers’ identities are always under negotiation with the ways power relations are recognized and the extent to which speakers create cultural affinity among themselves during interactions. Identity construction in relation to these issues is relevant more specifically to Research Questions 2 and 3, the findings of which will be summarized separately in the following two sections.

216

Chapter 8 Conclusion

8.1.2 How do power relations emerge in ELF communication and influence the Japanese L2 English users’ identities? This research question focused on how power relations are negotiated by the Japanese L2 English users, and how the constructed power relation consequently influences their positioning of themselves as English users. The detailed findings and discussion regarding power relation were presented fully in Chapter 5; thus in this section, I intend to summarise what was discussed in Chapter 5. There were power relations that the Japanese L2 English users recognised through their engagement in ELF interactions, and the power relations were established by what symbolic resources the participants saw in the English language and/or speakers of it. The symbolic capital of an English speaker was often related to how the participants evaluated their own proficiency or fluency by comparing it to that of communication counterparts. When one perceived others as having such a symbolic capital in the course of communication, it created unequal power relations between them. So it was when those with the symbolic capital forced their power upon the others. Such unbalanced power relations often appeared to work coercively on the participants’ identity negotiation, leading them to position themselves as socially weaker and vulnerable English learners or NNSEs who never could stand on equal ground with people who had the symbolic power (e.g., NSEs). Similarly, the symbolic capital of their NNSE counterparts (i.e., those with perceived higher proficiency and/or fluency) at times had a similar effect on the identity of the Japanese L2 English users. It induced negative emotions such as anxiety, insecurity, a lack of confidence and inferiority in relation to use of the English language. Such emotional factors adversely affected their linguistic performances (e.g., fluency) during their participation in communicative situations in English as well as their level of investment in learning and participation in further interactional opportunities. This kind of power relation represented the discourse of native-speakerism that saw NSEs as the ultimate goal of competence for NNSEs, and also implied NNSEs were ranked according to their proficiency or fluency. Yet the unbalanced power relations occasionally exercised a positive influence. For example, discovering that a NSE interlocutor was not a perfect or allknowing user of the English language, some Japanese L2 English users were encouraged to use English more unreservedly. More often, the participants were empowered by recognising the symbolic resources of fluent ELF users, namely, a higher degree of capability of communicating successfully through ELF. Such symbolic capital was the focus of admiration and aspiration that compelled the Japanese L2 English users to seek greater access to the imagined communities of English users (Phan 2008).

8.1 Summary of the book

217

In sum, in what manner L2 users acknowledged the symbolic capital of the English language and/or the speakers of it informed the formation of power relations, which appeared to have an effect on L2 users’ identity construction both collaboratively and detrimentally. It is imperative to note that power relations are situationally constructed and negotiated, therefore emergent and not static. The power relations the Japanese L2 English users dealt with while communicating with their interlocutors were not entirely pre-determined by the speakers’ native or non-native English speaking status or different levels of English proficiency as variables. The circumstances in which power relations were recognised differed contextually and individually even though the power relations were occasionally informed by the existing ideology of native-speakerism. As much as the aforementioned symbolic resources of ELF users acted as the objective of academic and social achievement for the Japanese L2 English users, the participants commonly recognised equal status with peer ELF speakers, promoting their investment in learning (thus their future self). Realising that they shared the same status as a multilingual speaker and a NNSE helped establish equal power relations among ELF users. The participants also appreciated, based on their past experiences, the ways that peer NNSEs collaborated with each other during interactions to achieve successful communication, which represented their shared practice (Kalocsai 2009). Such a sense of sharing helped them feel secure and positively affirmed their positions as English users who were legitimate and successful (Kalocsai 2009; Virkkula and Nikula 2010). Even though ELF speakers are generally characterised as successful communicators mutually managing intercultural communication collaboratively and skilfully in the ELF-oriented literature, communicative situations involving ELF should not be considered power neutral in terms of linguistic ability. There were times that participants recognised unequal power relations among interlocutors and felt unable to contribute to the communication or collaborate with one another (Nogami 2018). Power relations exist inexorably in any form of communication, and thus the ELF phenomenon is no exception, especially while the NS ideology prevails especially in the ELT sectors. The recognised power relation sometimes influenced how the participants used the English language pragmatically. The findings on this matter will be summarised later in Section 8.1.4 regarding Research Question 4. Before that, I move to summarise of the findings regarding Research Question 3 about the relationship between identity construction and speakers’ sense of cultural affinity with interlocutors in the next section.

218

Chapter 8 Conclusion

8.1.3 How do the Japanese L2 English users’ identities reflect a feeling of cultural closeness with ELF interlocutors? This research question was posed to investigate how the relationship between the Japanese L2 English users and other speakers of English is described by the research participants, in particular in terms of cultural affinity, and to explore the role of cultural and ethnic awareness with respect to the L2 English users’ identities in imagined communities of ELF speakers. The findings and the discussion in relation to this research question were mainly presented in Chapter 6. Much ELF research investigates what linguistic features and pragmatic strategies are commonly employed by ELF speakers. This study, meanwhile, revealed what the Japanese ELF users perceived to share commonly with some ELF speakers and how that perception guided construction of their identities in an ELF context. The participants’ narratives revealed their rather emotionally attached relationships with East Asian ELF users. They described their psychological closeness and what they perceived as cultural similarities with East Asian ELF speakers, which came to be acknowledged through their lived experiences of interacting with East Asian ELF speakers in the past (Bayham 2015). Meanwhile, their narratives indicated the prevalence of the discourse of the Others, revealing that European ELF speakers were often regarded as Others along with NSEs represented by American and British English speakers. Recognising European ELF speakers as Others was largely due to their limited exposure to interactional opportunities with them. Such a lack of contact with European ELF speakers contributed to their unfamiliarity, uncertainty, and cultural insensitivity toward European ELF speakers. Seemingly stable identity positions (e.g., Asian ELF speakers, European ELF speakers and NNSE or EFL learner positioning) often thought of as essentialised are in fact sedimental and built up over time through many repeated encounters or lack of. (Bayham 2015: 84) Reinforced by the existence of Others in ELF contexts, the sense of familiarity and cultural affinity with East Asian ELF speakers grew into a robust sense of sharing, which was stronger than the sense of sharing with ELF speakers in general. Not only a shared NNSE status, but also what aspects they perceived to share with them, such as cultural values, beliefs, racial traits and the L2 educational background and level of ability of English language use, all became factors contributing to constituting their idea of “shared culture” or sharedness with East Asian ELF speakers and recognition of a cultural grouping among them. Such a heightened degree of sense of sharing with other members of the same cultural group forged a significant emotional attachment to the group and its members, and then steered construction of their cultural identities in relation to intercultural communication through ELF.

8.1 Summary of the book

219

To summarise, culture in intercultural communication in contemporary mobile and global society represents a symbolic dimension of intercultural contact, i.e., the way that individuals take into account one another’s identity as a member of one’s own or another group and make allowance for the way they behave and how they analyse on another’s behaviour (i.e., interculturality.) In such ways people are able to enjoy identities that transcend their first language, ethnicity or place of birth (Canagarajah 2013: 194). Culture is an idealised construct associated with group belongings, and cultural identity is developed through interactions with peer group members. The findings prompted me to argue that the Japanese L2 English users were active members of imagined communities of East Asian ELF speakers: a community which was created and linked through their imagination or vision based on their lived experience. In this imagined community, they regarded themselves as legitimate members and had a positive identification of themselves. Identity is about a sense of security, surety and positive identification of self, as well as being identified by other members of the same cultural group they choose to participate in, which my participants’ narratives revealed they perceived to have. Furthermore, in this imagined community, they seemed to be in the process of developing shared repertoires of knowledge through their choice of pragmatic language use, which demonstrated their active and legitimate participation in the community. Through such an active participation and positive identification of themselves in this imagined community, their identities as ELF users or L2 users appeared to be empowered. Nevertheless, I never intend to argue that the cultural affinity among East Asian ELF speakers is something universally shared by all the participants or in operation all the time. Culture is not a fixed or inherent notion that is specific to any national or regional areas or people who live within a certain boundary. Cultural identity is not “the” identity that was relevant to all ELF speakers all the time in every ELF communicative situation, but rather one of their multiple identities that sometimes became relevant in a particular ELF interactional situation, which is also as a transcultural dimension of ELF communication (Baker 2016; Zhu 2014, 2015). The perceived cultural affinity with East Asian ELF speakers often played a significant role in the Japanese L2 English users’ pragmatic language use in ELF contexts, in particular when they addressed East Asian ELF speakers. The findings are relevant to the last research question, which I summarise in the next section.

220

Chapter 8 Conclusion

8.1.4 How do the Japanese L2 English users account for their deliberate pragmatic language use in ELF contexts? This research question focused on investigating the link between ELF users’ identity and their choice of pragmatic language use in ELF communication. As summarised in Section 8.1.1, many participants held a sense of English-speaking self, which differed from that of Japanese. They were fond of the sense of being English-speaking selves, and enjoyed being able to express their thoughts and feelings as they wished without feeling concerned about complying with the constraints of the Japanese social norms. As a result, quite naturally, the participants reported that their pragmatic language use in English often reflected their English-speaking selves. Meanwhile, the Japanese L2 English users at times struggled over deciding what pragmatic styles to follow, such as perceived Standard English, Japanese socioculture-based or other styles potentially matching the interlocutor’s preference, due to their different subjectivities that may be relevant to the situation, and showed their ambivalent feelings about their eventual choices, especially in ELF communicative situations. Different ELF users can bring different linguacultural styles into interaction; therefore when the participants decided on their pragmatic language use, they were sometimes concerned with how they might be perceived by the interlocutor, for instance, polite enough, Japanese enough, English sounding enough and so forth. In relation to the issue of power imbalance among interlocutors, there were often cases in which the Japanese L2 English users positioned themselves as weak, powerless and inferior to NSEs. The narratives revealed that their English pragmatic language use often manifested their sense of insecurity and a restricted self-positioning as a “powerless” English learner due to their mindset influenced by native-speakerism. In many cases, they tried to avoid uttering many words or exchanging many turns with a potential NSE interlocutor because of their lack of confidence in interacting with somebody with symbolic power. This finding contrasted with their enjoyment of expressing their English-speaking self, and displayed the reality of social interaction where power relations can influence one’s sense of self and the complexity of identity in intercultural communication. Additionally, cultural identity of the Japanese L2 English users influenced their pragmatic language use in ELF contexts too, especially when interacting with East Asian ELF speakers. The participants’ narratives revealed that they often chose to diverge from what they perceived as Standard English in order to follow their familiar culture-based subjectivities showing what they perceived as a “Japanese way” or “Asian way” in their ELF use. By acknowledging sharedness with East Asian ELF speakers, the participants deliberately chose pragmatic

8.2 Educational implications

221

language use at times to exhibit deference and at other times to signal solidarity and friendliness toward East Asian ELF speakers. In such ways, the individual’s cultural realities are expressed through act of identity via the use of language (Borghetti 2019: 26). The findings support the discussion of earlier research in ELF interaction linking ELF speakers’ pragmatic strategies as a marker of solidarity and of establishment of rapport among interactants (e.g., Cogo 2009; Kalocsai 2011; Kordon 2006; Pullin Stark 2009). The findings of the present study suggest that the Japanese L2 English users strongly desired to build rapport with East Asian ELF speakers compared to times when speaking to nonEast Asian ELF speakers, which represents their shared cultural identity in the imagined communities of ELF users. The participants’ deliberate pragmatic language use that signify rapport can also be seen as their creativity drawn from sharedness and as a marker of their multilingual and multicultural repertoire. Such creativity in pragmatics through ELF can be argued to represent the emergence of ELF cultural practice among East Asian ELF speakers (Kirkpatrick 2010). In conclusion, the findings revealed that L2 English users are active social agents who often make deliberate choices in pragmatic language use with various reasons behind them that derive from their identity work. L2 users negotiate their L2 language use as they navigate different identities with respect to L2 English. The English language can afford a place for the L2 users to express alternative identities that differ from their L1-based self, and on the other hand the relation of power and culture has some bearing on L2 users’ sense of self in a variety of intercultural communication through ELF and consequently motivates their pragmatic language use. Keeping the summary of the findings in mind, I present educational implications in the next section.

8.2 Educational implications In this section, I address educational implications for the future of English language education with a Japanese context as a reference point. This, I believe, is relevant to any contexts where English is taught and learned as a foreign language. I will discuss them in terms of interculturality in language education; investment in learning and identity in relation to the concept of multicompetent L2 users and ELF users; awareness-raising among learners regarding their perception of the English language and power relations in the prevailing ideology in the current ELT; global users of English and ELF; and L2 pragmatics instruction and EMI in ELF contexts.

222

Chapter 8 Conclusion

8.2.1 Interculturality in language education It is often the case that the English language learning is associated with intercultural learning. In any societies affected by contemporary globalisation where global mobility is relevant, when it comes to intercultural learning, the notion of culture goes beyond geographical boundaries or nation states (Baker 2015). Not only the English language but also its associated “culture” is no longer of the legacy of British colonial past or America’s economic power. In fact, intercultural communication through ELF is not about communication between cultures, but rather about exploration of diversity or multiplicity in language, culture and identity (i.e., interculturality) (Baker 2016; Zhu 2014, 2015). Similarly, in ELF-oriented understanding of intercultural communication, there are no native speakers or no specific standardised social and communicative practices, meaning there is no specific benchmark for intercultural language learning. Research show that ELF speakers themselves negotiate culture and communicate practices depending on interactional situations or interlocutors from diverse linguacultural backgrounds. However, to this day, culture and identity in intercultural communication is often misinterpreted with an essentialist approach, especially in language and intercultural education. The simplistic correlations between language, culture, nationality and identities are often assumed and represented in various ways (e.g., teaching materials and media source) and then passed on to learners. As my research participants demonstrated rather essentialist descriptions of “Self and the Other” by stereotyping and simplifying. Therefore, adoption of a non-essentialist view of culture in intercultural language education should be sought more (Borghetti 2019). To help demolish essentialist understanding of culture, Borghetti (2019) suggests identity-oriented language pedagogy by replacing “culture” with “identity” in intercultural language education. In order to multiculturally competent, it has little to do with understating the social, linguistic, communicative norms or values of specific groups, but rather to grasp the others’ cultural belongings (i.e., cultural identities) in situ and to be able to act upon such awareness. Learners need to be aware the ways that individuals take into account each other’s identity as a member of a group in terms of the way people behave and how they analyse each other’s behaviours (Zhu 2014, 2015). In order to develop such competence, learners need to explore how different identifications are negotiated in situ and emerge from interactions and how people use a range of symbolic and indexical cues related to linguistic and other resources for identity negotiation. This may be achieved by introducing situations and characters that are culturally and linguistically rich multicultural and multilingual and to make explicit that various dimensions of diversities (e.g., socio-economical, generational, gender-related) through the language they learn

8.2 Educational implications

223

(Borghetti 2019), and to guide the students’ critical observation on language use. This may also allow students greater freedom to position themselves in desired identities. Identity management in language classes can make a way from “culture to “identity” in intercultural language education (Borghetti 2019).

8.2.2 Investment in learning and in identity Second language educators need to become more aware of recognising their learners’ L2-related identities and their investment in learning (e.g., Norton 2000). The present study revealed that learners tend to invest in using and learning the L2 when they encounter events that remind them that investing in learning is investing in their future L2 self. In other words, investing in learning is closely related to investing in a learner’s own identity for their future in the globalized world (Kanno and Norton 2003; Kanno 2000; Norton 2000). Whether they can envisage themselves as successful L2 users in the real world can be a key to facilitate their investment in language learning. So, what can L2 educators do to enhance the students’ investment in learning and their identities? It may be easier said than done, but a potential lies in educating L2 learners to be L2 “users” who can value their multilingual and multicultural competence. In fact, several applied linguists have advocated that new models for L2 learners should be shifted to a multicompetent speaker model rather than the predominant native speaker model (e.g., Cook 2007; Kobayashi and Rinnert 2012, 2013; Ortega 2010; Ortega and Carson 2010) because having NSs as a learning goal does not constitute a positive outcome for learners’ sense of selves. In the alternative model, multicompetence46 is regarded as comprising three aspects of knowledge on language use (Rinnert 2010) as a dynamic range of communicative repertoire (Hall et al 2006: 232). One is Cook’s (2008) notion of multicompetence: “two languages in one mind” that focuses on the linguistic aspects as the merger of L1 and L2. Second is multicompetence as hybrid knowledge of socially contingent L1 and L2 language use (Hall et al 2006). The third is the expanded and merged knowledge of L1 and L2 literacy (Kobayashi and Rinnert 2012). In this model, L2 learners are not treated as imitators of NSs nor as embryonic NSs but in fact multicultural and multilingual beings who manage their extensive knowledge of both L1 and L2 46 Cook (1991) first coined the term multicompetence that is defined as “knowledge of two languages in one mind” (Cook 2007: 17). This refers to L2 users’ minds being different from monolingual native speakers in many aspects of language such as lexicon, syntax, phonology and pragmatics.

224

Chapter 8 Conclusion

for the development of multicompetence as their linguistic and cultural repertoires. Helping learners to recognize themselves as L2 users regardless of the level of English proficiency or as multicompetent L2 users, L2 educators can increase students’ chances of developing a positive sense of self with respect to L2 English. For instance, Pavlenko (2003) incorporated material-readings such as the articles of Vivian Cook (1992, 1999, 2007) about the multicompetence of L2 users in MA TESOL teacher education programme for this purpose. Reading such articles, the students shifted their self-perception as NNSEs (who are in endless pursuit of complete NS competence) to being multicompetent L2 users. Thus, any instructors could provide such reading materials and hold discussion sessions in classes, which may result in the students heightening their recognition of themselves as being or becoming multicompetent L2 users. In this regard, helping L2 learners visualise their own membership in the multicompetent L2 users’ community not only can facilitate learners’ positive selfidentification as empowered English users (Cook 2007; Pavlenko and Norton 2007; Pavlenko 2003), but also is likely to affect their engagement in learning (Kanno and Norton 2003). Kanno’s (2003) study showed that schools’ visions of imagined communities for their students ultimately influenced the students’ identities, i.e., their vision of future selves. When L2 educators encourage the learners to create future visions as members of an imagined community of multicompetent L2 speakers, it can further lead the learners to expand the range of L2 identities in relation to English as a global language and then invest more in learning. For this aim, it is vital to offer students an actual learning environment that introduces them to an imagined community of multicompetent L2 users. Increased exposure to authentic English language speaking environments can change learners’ conceptualization of the English language and help the learners form a better relationship with it and their sense of self. Unless L2 learners have such opportunities to use English to communicate either inside or outside of the classroom, they are unable to associate themselves with the real English using world (Miyahara 2015). Yashima’s (2009) study provides a practical suggestion for English language teaching in a context, like Japan, where an L2-speaking environment or community is not readily accessible. Yashima proposes a content-based approach to language teaching such as the Model United Nations (MUN) which maximizes the students’ realistic L2 experience in order for them to begin visualising their future ideal L2 selves. In the MUN programme, groups of students represent different nations as delegates, and they are assigned, for instance, to make delegate speeches and negotiate with delegates from different nations to reach agreement with the representing country’s interest to the maximum. Participating in such activities that deal with “real life problems”, the students get emotionally and cognitively involved and subsequently tend to develop a higher level of international posture or their

8.2 Educational implications

225

vision of themselves as active participants in a community that is globally connected (Yashima 2009; Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide 2008). More exposure to content-based curriculum like MUN can provide students with more opportunities to use English in realistic situations (Aiello 2017; Yashima 2009; Yashima and Zenuk-Nishide 2008), which virtually links them to the global world outside the classroom. Through such exposure, they also actively participate in learning by being connected with other members of the imagined community and jointly engage in constructing shared knowledge and resources. It has an impact on how successful the students are in developing more realistic and achievable possible L2 selves and envisaging a future L2 self in an imagined community, or sustaining a successful, empowered L2 self that they may already have, as well as investing further in learning.

8.2.3 Challenging the ideology: Developing awareness of the English language and power relations Providing students with opportunities to envisage themselves as L2 users and multicompetent L2 users is important, and meanwhile, equally important is to provide them with opportunities to reflect on the power of language and to question the underlying ideology in English language teaching. Aiello (2017: 142–144) proposes a possible activity that can be used in classrooms. Applying a Matched- or VerbalGuise technique introduced by Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner and Fillenbaum (1960), the activity encourages students to examine how different varieties of Englishes are perceived and what perceptions exist among them. Students are prompted to rate audio-recordings of different speakers of English on various scales, deciding how much a speaker is deemed to be, for example, educated, friendly, likable, successful, prestigious, attractive, intelligent and so forth. Once students’ ratings are done, the speakers’ backgrounds are revealed. Then, students’ ratings can be used as a starting point for discussion about their perceptions and attitude toward, for instance a certain accent: whom they rated as sounding more intelligent or not and what aspect of the speech led them to their rating and why. Through such an activity, students may come to realise that their perceptions could have been indeed influenced by the existing ideology in ELT such as nativespeakerism and Standard English (Seidlhofer 2018), and how power relations derived from the ideology may influence intercultural communication in English such as what is regarded as prestigious. They can start to question their own assumptions, beliefs and presuppositions toward the English language and develop a critical attitude toward their own beliefs and challenge their own prejudices. Furthermore, similar activities using video-recordings may equally be useful to

226

Chapter 8 Conclusion

guide students to a lively discussion. In the present study, the participants used not only audible but also visual cues to decide whom they regarded as “legitimate” English speakers (e.g., Yayoi’s case study). Along with such activities, the most readily available teaching practices are to expose students to diverse instances of the English language used globally, as I mentioned in the previous section. The more they are exposed to different variety of Englishes, the more they can develop acceptance and tolerance of differences (Aiello 2017: 142), which also can help change their possibly limited picture of the English language and its users and develop positive identification of their own English.

8.2.4 Realisation of ELF-oriented language learning Furthermore, second language educators need to consider the current social reality of intercultural communication in English that the learners may encounter and with whom they potentially speak outside classrooms. In this era of proliferation of English use, students are more likely to engage in interaction with English speakers from various linguacultural backgrounds. Nevertheless, the mainstream ELT practices still tend to offer North American and British Englishes as the norm of teaching and the target for learning. Many ELT textbooks only include audiorecordings of standard North American or British English speakers, which do not represent a majority of English speakers around the world (e.g. see an investigation in a Japanese context: Kawashima 2019). Students need to listen to and learn about other speakers of English than American and British speakers. There are videos and audios of English speakers of various linguacultural backgrounds easily accessed and retrieved online. Using such materials for instruction, students can engage in exercises for listening skills and check their comprehension of different varieties of Englishes (Aiello 2017: 142). It not only can facilitate better knowledge and conception of different variety of Englishes, but also can validate and legitimatise them, including their own English. Luckily for ELT practitioners who do not have time to create their own materials, there are more ELT textbooks that incorporate English speakers of diverse linguacultural background available. These textbooks (which are published in Japan) not only include descriptions of different varieties of Englishes (i.e., prosodic features of their English as well as the speakers’ first languages and countries of origin) but also provide audio- or video- recordings of English speakers from various corners of the world (e.g., World Adventures by Berlin and Kobayashi 2011; Working in Japan by Gordenker and Rucynski 2015; Understanding Asia by Honna and Takeshita 2009). As such, some Japanese publishers’ growing interest in publishing World Englishes and ELF-informed ELT textbooks indicates that there is a

8.2 Educational implications

227

slow but steady changing atmosphere moving away from North American and British English in ELT in Japanese secondary and higher education (cf. Kawashima 2019). Such a change would challenge the prevalence of idealised middle-class NSEs as the only model and may eventually shift the current ELF practice to reflect the contemporary social reality of English used globally as a lingua franca. Raised awareness and wider knowledge of English used across the world, may not be sufficient in order to nurture students as effective communicators who are able to deal with the variability present in intercultural communication through ELF (Kaur 2015: 251). It is also valuable for students to develop strategic competence, namely, the ability to use strategies skilfully and effectively to overcome potential communication problems they may encounter in ELF contexts (Kaur 2015: 252). Students can be taught conversational and negotiation strategies used by ELF speakers for effective intercultural communication. For instance, Kaur (2015: 251) proposed employing learning activities to cultivate learners’ ability to (1) use lexical items that are appropriate in conveying intended meaning in a given context, (2) monitor the on-going interaction attentively and detect the signs of communication problems, (3) adjust speech when facing difficulty in understanding by using strategies such as lexical replacements and insertions to increase the clarity of what is said, and (4) exploit strategies such as repetition, paraphrase, asking direct questions and self-repair when mutual understanding is under threat. Teaching such communication strategies may not be new to ELT practice; however, it is imperative not to focus on “correct” use by the idealised NSE standards; it needs to be informed by how ELF speakers use various strategies to communicate with each other successfully and effectively (Kaur 2015). To complement awareness-raising and development of strategic competence for ELF communication, again, students need to be given opportunities to try and test the strategies they have learned and put them into practice by engaging in realistic and meaningful communicative situations. To reiterate, such classroom activities as a MUN programme (Yashima 2009) may provide the students with a platform to do so. When they are able to acknowledge that they have strategic competence to achieve successful communication in real situations, they may finally appreciate themselves as legitimate L2 users or ELF users who are equipped with multicompetence and a positive sense of self. In sum, individual’s perceptions and orientation to the English language greatly influence their learning and their vision for their future. Exposing students to only a limited option such as standard American and British English is not only unrealistic as a learning goal in this age of global Englishes, but also detrimental for development of their sense of self as legitimate English users. When students are given a better vision of a potential and attainable goal for learning, like people who use English across the world, a sense of how successfully they communicate through ELF and social reality of diversity in terms of cultures and identities, they

228

Chapter 8 Conclusion

may be encouraged and empowered to invest in learning more and develop a positive self-perception as successful ELF users rather than “failed” NNSEs. Social environments both inside and outside classrooms offer a possibility or opportunity for learners to develop as global citizens; thus to provide them with knowledge and resources that they can exploit and capitalize on for their future is an educator’s job. Thus, the teachers’ role is important when attempting to educate students as multicompetent L2 users or ELF users. Teachers’ attitudes toward the English language shape their teaching practices, from choice of materials to learning activities. Their visions for their students’ future also greatly influences students’ learning outcomes as well as their level of investment in learning, their relationship with the English language and their future selves. Thus, it is also important to have ELF and World Englishes-aware teacher training (both in-service and preservice) to support teachers in their efforts to make their teaching practice reflect the plurality of Englishes.

8.2.5 Learning about pragmatics and EMI in ELF contexts Now I turn to educational implications regarding pragmatic language use and issues of identity. Pragmatic language use, regardless of the language a speaker uses, varies individually because it carries the speaker’s moral judgment of the context and the relationship between the speaker and the hearer that is often influenced by a sociocultural custom of a more or less collective group in which the speaker grew up. The present study showed that L2 English users’ pragmatic language use were strongly connected to their identity work; in other words, their subjectivities at the time of interaction played a significant role in their language use. Thus L2 English users’ pragmatic language use in English represents their sociolinguistic rights. Such discussion raises a question for language instruction targeting the idealised Standard English norm only, especially concerning pragmatic language use47 in ELF contexts in which speakers of diverse linguacultural background participate. Second/foreign language pragmatics educators need to plan

47 One part of the data in my study supports this issue. A small number of pragmatic language use by native British English speakers were collected by using Questionnaire 2. Many of them chose various pragmatic language uses when interacting with a peer British person, but not when interacting with non-British (i.e., West European and East Asian). There is no backup data from the participants’ perceptions to explain why this has happened in my study. However, it raises issues about whether there is a wide range of variation in pragmatic language use among British English speakers depending on how the speaker observes the context and the relationship with the interlocutor.

8.2 Educational implications

229

instruction of pragmatic language use that reflects L2 users’ desires and rights to express their fluctuating identities as well as that ensures their production matches their intention. For instance, in Nogami (2012), I shared an idea for a classroom activity that seeks to raise students’ awareness on the issues of a speaker’s identity and sociopragmatic reality in ELF contexts. By examining their own pragmatic language use in intercultural communication with this activity, students are able to appreciate the possibility of diverging from the Standard English norms and of creating their own varieties of English use. Employing a DCT containing various realistic communicative situations, students in groups are prompted to evaluate the context in terms of relative social distance, social power and familiarity of communicators, and then individually or in pairs to envisage who would be their interlocutors in each situation. Once they decide what they would say to a certain person in the particular situations, students are given time to reflect on their reasoning and intentions of their responses. After this, students gather in groups and compare their responses and intention as well as reasoning for their pragmatic language use. They can discuss whether their responses match their intentions and reasoning while taking notes on the differences and similarities of each student’s responses. They may challenge each other to justify their language choices. The instructor then summarises the students’ discussions by focusing on the possible expressions used in a range of ELF communicative situations, putting an emphasis on the diversity rather than having a single correct answer. The instructor may conclude the lesson by suggesting various pragmatic strategies or lexical items that the students may find useful when evaluating the appropriateness and effectiveness of their utterance for each situation and whether their choice of expressions matches their intended meanings. Moreover, based on the findings regarding speakers’ pragmatic language use and their sense of selves in the present study, the participants’ pragmatic language use can be regarded as a social phenomenon that is dependent on context, in which voice and identity are key concerns. Also their pragmatic language use may well exemplify ELF speakers’ accommodating behaviour according to the communicative environment they are situated in. This brings to light what kinds of resources may be used and produced through an EMI academic community in higher education. Mauranen (2003: 518) asserts, “particular discourse communities using ELF might plausibly develop their own norms of use, that is, standards of what is acceptable, comprehensible, and adequate for efficient communication more or less spontaneously”. Such discourse communities include the academic community using EMI, for instance, in Japanese higher education. As part of the drive for “internationalization” of Japanese academic education endorsed by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), offers of EMI courses for local Japanese students and

230

Chapter 8 Conclusion

international students have been promoted. Also, a majority of international students studying in Japanese universities are from Asian countries such as China, Vietnam, Nepal, and Korea (JASSO 2016). In fact, the top nine countries of origin for international students in Japan are Asian countries. Considering the large population of students with Asian background in the context, it is inevitable that selfregulatory mechanisms would operate in shaping the communicative practice in this kind of emerging academic community (Mauranen 2003: 518). When it comes to pragmatic language use in particular, it reflects speakers’ social values and moral code, which have something to do with their identity (Morizumi 2009). Thus, preferred pragmatic language use would be different from North American or British norms in EMI courses in the Japanese academic context. Accommodation to the contextualized language use may reflect Japanese discretion, modesty and respect for seniority (Kirkpatrick 2010; Morizumi 2009), which bring cohesion to the community and mark its identity (Mauranen 2003: 519), cultivating ELF communication with a Japanese or Asian flavour (Iino and Murata 2016: 127). A similar phenomenon of emerging communication practices reflecting local values and student population would occur in any contexts where EMI courses are provided. Further research on EMI is needed to find out what kinds of linguistic practices are created and employed collectively among ELF users in a particular community; nevertheless, it seems clear that conformity to Standard English would not be relevant for real internationalisation of higher education in any EMI settings, including Japan. It will be important to realise EMI-specific use of ELF in the specific context, which may well be “the point of departure for establishing standards for teaching and assessment” (Mauranen 2003: 518–519).

8.3 Methodological implications I would now like to draw a methodological implication with reference to the diary study as a potential tool for self-reflection in the educational setting. Diary writing in the present study seemed to have played a role in raising the awareness of some of the participants about their L2 English use, particularly in terms of how their relationship with the language is shaped by their daily as well as their past experiences. Such a sign of raised awareness was observed in some of the diarists’ reflective essays. At the end of the diary study, several diarists agreed to write a reflective essay, and they were asked to report how writing diaries led them to realise something they were never aware of before and how they thought such realisations might have changed their perspective on

8.3 Methodological implications

231

their use of English. The willing writers’ reports demonstrate how their participation in the diary study benefited their L2-related identities. For example, Isuzu had experienced perceived discrimination when she felt that she was mistreated by British store staff on several occasions (as I presented in Section 6.3.2). With regard to such experience, she said that the way she perceived such events changed through the diary-writing experience by reflecting back on the events. She used to think that her perceived lack of English competence was part of the blame; however, through writing diaries, she came to realise that there was nothing wrong with her or her language proficiency, and stopped blaming those factors for what she perceived as discrimination; rather she recognised that the person who had prejudicial tendencies was the problem. This realisation provided her with an opportunity to reset her mindset and feel empowered as an English user. As another example, Section 4.4.1 reported how Mio’s relationship with the English language changed from when she was in the US to when she was in the UK with reference to her sense of (non-)participation in the respective communities. After spending several years for her first college degree in a small town in the US, Mio arrived in the UK to pursue her master’s degree. Her reflective essay revealed how her psychological relationship with English changed because of her sense of participation or lack of it in the respective communities. She felt that she was welcomed as a new comer to the local community in the US; but in the UK, she never felt that she was involved in the community. She became aware that she was a speaker of English as a second/foreign language who do not have much legitimacy granted from the core members of the British community. In the reflective essay, she discussed how her relationship with and perception toward the English language and her positioning as an English user had changed, and reported that such realisation arose through writing diaries. As the last example, Hana’s day-to-day English language use occurred mainly at her work in Japan at a small international food trading company. She spoke English on the phone occasionally and wrote emails regularly. Throughout the diary study, she discussed how she felt about receiving interpersonal or unsociable messages from business associates overseas. When she received a businessrelated message in which she felt the writer paid attention to writing something interpersonal, she appreciated such messages because she felt she was being acknowledged as a person. On the other hand, when somebody sent her a message without any emotional attachment to it, she felt resistance to such messages. In the reflective essay, she disclosed that diary-writing about such realisations allowed her to become more aware of the importance of writing messages to build an interpersonal relationship with her business counterparts even though the correspondence is about a business matter. As she became aware of it, she herself

232

Chapter 8 Conclusion

became more careful about writing messages that reflected her own personality and put that awareness into the practice. Through reflection on her experiences of writing diaries, she recognised what is important for her as a user of English and gained opportunities to explore her L2-related identities. (See Appendix E for extracts of Isuzu, Mio, and Hana’s reflective essays) As the diarists revealed, reflecting on their experiences, the participants came to understand and became more aware of their use of English, their relationship to the language and issues surrounding it in the communities they participated in. In other words, the writing activity was an opportunity for awareness-raising by the diarists themselves. Keeping a diary is not an easy task for any individual; however, it helps a writer to be mindful of what goes on while engaging in English interactions, and it also stimulates further learning of the language and expansion of L2-related identities. When appropriate instructions and regular encouragement are provided, diary-writing can be a valuable experience for learners, especially when the learners experience intercultural encounters such as studying abroad (Jackson 2008) because of the self-reflective and self-analytic elements of diary-writing. Moreover, based on the learners’ diary entries, a classroom instructor could share the learners’ experiences and discuss them with other learners, for instance, how the relations of power and culture are recognised and negotiated in intercultural communication in real life encounters. Observing and reflecting on experiences via diary-writing could facilitate learners’ awareness of English language use in relation to the larger social communities and help them “find spaces for the enhancement of human possibility” (Norton 2000: 153).

8.4 Limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies The following limitations of the present study need to be acknowledged. First, considering the nature of the qualitative narrative approach of the study, I do not intend to claim any statistical generalizability48 of the findings and discussion I

48 Generalizability implies “the extent to which one can extend the account of a particular situation or population to other persons, times, or settings than those directly studied” (Maxwell 1992: 293). The term fittingness (Schofield 2002) is also used in application to qualitative research. Generalization from the statistical analysis of representative sampling to the wider population is commonly used in quantitative research. However, this kind of generalization is less helpful for qualitative studies as most qualitative researchers do not intend to generalize their explanations in such a way.

8.4 Limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies

233

presented. However, like any empirical research, qualitative research also seeks out external validity that may be applied to a wider general population. Thus, the measures I took to ensure a certain level of generalizability are addressed here. Generalizability is often considered in two ways: generalization from samples to the wider population (e.g., quantitative research), and theoretical generalization (Mason 1996). The latter is relevant to generalization in qualitative research, which is managed through the process of development of a theory. “Generalizability is normally based on the assumption that a theory may be useful in making sense of similar persons or situations” (Maxwell 1992: 293), which in this study can be addressed in the following ways. First, even though the sampling of the participants cannot provide empirical generalization the way quantitative research can, the participants were selected by a purposive sampling method (see details in Section 3.2). The participants were selected as Japanese L2 English users who used English frequently. Therefore, there is a possibility for application with a broader resonance because there is “no reason to suspect atypicality” (Mason 1996: 153). Second, as explained above, to ensure the validity of the study, this study provided “rich and thick description” of the participants’ accounts. This allowed the readers to “assess the potential transferability, appropriateness for their own setting” (Miles and Huberman 1994: 279); in other words, it allows possibilities for relevance to wider populations. Third, the inductive approach to coding in the present study could contribute to the generalizability of the explanations drawn from the analysis because the codes emerged from and were applied to the whole of the data sets. Lastly, the findings in the present study were discussed in connection with an established theory and the findings provided by previous research to show the extent to which the findings are “congruent with, connected to, or confirmatory of prior theory” (Miles and Huberman 1994: 279). Therefore, even though the present study discussed the participants’ individual sense of selves that are unique in different circumstances and followed trajectories of their identity construction influenced by their lived experience, the findings grounded from the participants’ narratives are not exceptional or too distinctive that they cannot pertain to any other L2 English users. Next, because of the methodology implemented in the present study and the relatively large number of research participants (24 participants in total) for qualitative research, each individual participant’s process of identity construction could not be explored in more depth, with regard to their life histories and lived experiences, and their participation in the immediate communities. Alternatively, ethnographic longitudinal case studies (with a smaller number of participants and using multiple methods) could provide deeper understanding of L2 English users’ identities and the process of identity formation as well as their pragmatic language use. For instance, Jackson (2008) conducted a study following Hong Kong university

234

Chapter 8 Conclusion

students’ study abroad experiences from before, during, and after the sojourn in the UK. A similar approach could be used to explore Japanese L2 English users’ negotiation of identities, delving into understanding of the process in which the relations of power and culture are constructed and reconstructed in the course of an extended period. Also, replicating the present study, but having the same participants for both methods (diary observation and questionnaire-based interviewing), may provide even more insight into the relationship between identity negotiation and L2 language use. Similar ethnographic research would also advance better understanding of the possible patterns of social interactions through ELF as well as speakers’ participation in communities, for instance, in EMI contexts. Such study would contribute further to developing ELF-oriented ELT practice in higher education in any ELF contexts. Third, as is the case with any language elicited data, the linguistic data gathered in the present study (the participants’ pragmatic language use elicited by written questionnaires) do not represent “actual” use of the English language in ELF contexts; nor do they reflect authenticity of real-life interactions. However, the linguistic samples introduced in the present study were only intended to demonstrate the “essence” of how speakers’ identity influences their pragmatic language use in an ELF context, or in other words, the study focused on exploring how speakers negotiate their identities through ELF use, but not the actual linguistic features per se. For this reason, the participants’ pragmatic language use were not analysed systematically by using variables such as social distance among interlocutors (where it is designated by interlocutors’ status as, for example, professors, strangers and friends), directness of the head act, the features of supporting move and so forth. Again, this was due to the main aim of the study, which was on investigating the participants’ own perspectives on their language use. Moreover, to note another caveat in relation to the linguistic data of the present study, it is possible that the design of the questionnaire items (such as delegating interlocutors as East Asian, West European or British) influenced how the participants responded to the language elicitation tasks. Nevertheless, follow-up interviewing revealed that the participants made their pragmatic language use deliberately and often provided clear reasoning for their choices, which should mitigate the methodological influence on the findings. The same reservation should be voiced for the participants’ interview responses. How the participants constructed interview responses also may have reflected the researcher-imposed distinction of conversational counterparts (i.e., East Asian, West European and British), given the saliency in the provided scenarios. Further investigation using more “naturalistic” linguistic data (i.e., naturally occurring interaction) with follow-up interviews would complement the findings of the present study, revealing a range of speaker/

8.5 Final remarks

235

hearer identity construction that determines which particular pragmatic forms are utilised at any particular point in a given interaction. It also could provide better understanding of interactional participants’ management of interaction, along with elucidating the negotiation of their identities during on-going interactions. In sum, by combining longitudinal, qualitative studies with an more ethnographic element involving investigation of interactional data, a study would reveal not only linguistic features of ELF interactions but also the process of learning about and changing pragmatic aspects of ELF use in connection with speakers’ identity negotiation. It would also facilitate our understanding of ELF speakers themselves, the environment they are in, and sociocultural factors that may influence their actual participation in intercultural communication through ELF.

8.5 Final remarks For me, investigating identity construction of Japanese L2 English users in the era of English used as a lingua franca was an academic endeavour but also my personal mission too. Throughout the investigation, I was lucky enough to have such wonderful participants who shared their lived experience and feelings with me. Their thoughts were mine and my thoughts were theirs. I felt that we were all on the same boat paddling thorough a big ocean called intercultural communication, sometimes being hit by a huge waves of coercive power relations, caught in a whirlpool of NS ideology, and sometimes recuperating on islands of ELF speakers and creating an imagined community. I found them gaining much joy from learning and using L2 English, but also there were struggles of identifying themselves or being labelled as “non-native speakers” within the NS supremacy. I wonder such struggle is necessary in this era of English used as a lingua franca. I hope not. Even though ELF research is gaining momentum, there is much that needs to be changed in the wider field of the ELT profession where the discourse of native-speakerism still prevails. One distinctive example in Japan is that a majority of non-Japanese ELT practitioners are of North American or British background, even though there are some rare cases where universities hire ELT instructors from various linguacultural backgrounds (Oda 2017). If “internationalisation” of higher education in Japan is to be truly achieved, it needs to reflect a reality of internationalisation in every aspect of ELT practice, rather than confusing internationalisation with Anglosaxonisation any further. It will take time (if it ever happens) for the Ministry to take the initiative to make a shift of the current orientation of ELT to an ELF-oriented one. However,

236

Chapter 8 Conclusion

there seems to be a slight change of atmosphere in Japan at least on the grassroots level. I recently read a few news articles calling for a change of people’s perception of “English” (i.e., the kind represented by white European English speakers) to global Englishes. Such a small step can start to change people’s perception toward the English language in the general public, and more can be done when individual instructors start to put ELF-informed teaching practice into action. Having ELF as an alternative source of study potentially facilitates students’ learning because there is an attainable and achievable goal set for them. It would also empower the students as multicompetent L2 or ELF users, so that they would be able to use the language rightfully, expressing their fluctuating identities while acknowledging the diversity of cultures in relation to the English language used globally. With such a possible change in ELT practice, I hope the younger generations of ELF speakers and future learners of English will be able to recognise themselves as L2 users or ELF users at the onset of their learning path. After this journey of trying to find my sense of self in the English-speaking world, I retrieved “me” as a legitimate L2/ELF user. Now as I am working as an ELT practitioner as well as an applied linguist who is equipped with knowledge about “English languages”, it’s my turn to share my experience with the students and nurture them as multicompetent L2 user or ELF users.

Appendices

Appendix A: Guideline for the diary study English Language Use Diary Study Yoko Nogami PhD student Department of Language and Linguistics University of Essex Dear participants First of all, I would like to show my appreciation for your participation in the study. If there is any enquiry about your diary entry, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. Through the diary study, I would like to explore what opportunities you have to interact in English (not necessarily with native speakers of English), and what you feel about interacting in English in certain circumstances. I understand that diary keeping can be unusual habit for many of us. Therefore, I would like to ask you to keep your diary only once a week minimum and to be typed in the MS-Word file. There is no rule about how much you should write and in which language (Japanese or English) you should write. When you have a diary entry, please send the file of your diary entry EACH TIME to me at [email protected]. as an attached file. After receiving your diary entry, I will correspond with you via e-mail each time after receiving your diary entry, which may include questions about issues you have raised in the diary. Please respond to the questions I will have asked. In this way, we can communicate each other by email and exchange our thoughts/ideas on your diary entries. As you get used to keeping diary, I hope you will start feeling less hassle to keep diary. If possible, you will continue for six months maximum. If there are any circumstances when you cannot keep up with the diary keeping, please confirm in writing. For your information, a file that shows two sample diary entries and a file of diary entry format will be provided with this letter. Before you start diary entry, please read the following instructions carefully. The main objectives of your English language use diary are as follows. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-009

240

Appendix A: Guideline for the diary study

Please read the instruction each time before you put a diary entry. 1) To record occurrences, actions, and events that surprise you, strike you as unusual, or make you feel and think in either good or bad way related to English language use/interaction 2) To analyse and comment on your engagement in such English use/ interaction (E.g., What did you feel and think during or after the event/activity, and why did you feel/think so? For example, were you happy or upset; did you feel comfortable/uncomfortable etc.?) – Please give details of when it happened (TIME), where it took place (PLACE), and who is involved (PEOPLE), as well as the detail description of the EVENT/ACTIVITY, and your ANYSYSIS. – Put each entry in as soon as possible after the event/activity occurs. – The occurrences you would record can be small matters. – Put a diary entry at least ONCE a week – Send the file of your diary EACH TIME you enter as attached files to Yoko Nogami at [email protected]. Thank you!

Appendix B: English elicitation task (Questionnaire 2) Questionnaire 2 (English Elicitation Task) Instruction (Please read carefully) You will be given 9 situations you may encounter in daily life. For each situation, there are two blanks to be filled in depending on your conversational partner. Please fill in the column in the manner of what you would say orally where you communicate with a speaker of English (including a native and a nonnative speakers). The length of the response can be as long or as short as you wish. Do not spend too much time thinking what to write in each response. You may want to think about speakers of English you know personally and complete your responses in the ways you would speak to them. If you think you would not say anything in such a situation, cross out the column. N.B. All the conversation is taken place in ENGLISH. 1A. You are a university student in Japan. You have made an appointment to meet and talk with your supervisor (an East Asian professor, but you always talk in English; the same gender as you) about your project. However, a few days later, you realized that you promised before hand to have lunch on the same day with some of your friends. The day is the only one all of you can make, and you don’t want to miss it because your friends will be leaving for a different town shortly after. So, you decided to talk to your supervisor and ask to change the schedule of the meeting. You knock at his/her office. Your supervisor says “Come in.” You:

1B. What would you say if you are a university student in the U.K. and your supervisor is British? You knock at his/her office. Your supervisor says, “Come in.” You:

242

Appendix B: English elicitation task (Questionnaire 2)

2A. You have been sharing a flat with some other university students in Britain. One of the flatmates (British; the same gender as you) has been making a lot of noise late at night these days. You all agreed not to make noise after 11p.m. when you first moved in. You cannot put up with the noise and decided to talk to him/her tonight. You:

2B. What would you say if you are a university student in an East Asian country and the flatmate is an East Asian (not Japanese)? You:

3A. You are studying in a West European country. You missed a lecture yesterday because you went to see off one of your friends who was moving to a foreign country. In order to catch up with the lecture, you need to know what was covered in the last lecture. You will talk to one of the classmates (West European; the same gender as you) to borrow his/her lecture notes. You approach the classmate. You:

3B. What would you say if you are a university student in Britain and the classmate is British? You approach the classmate. You:

Appendix B: English elicitation task (Questionnaire 2)

243

4A. You live in the U.K. You are inviting your friends over for lunch next weekend. Some of your friends said they would drive to your place. However, you don’t have enough space for the numbers of cars they drive in. So, you decided to ask your neighbours (a British couple) whether one of your friends could park her car in front of their house for a few hours at the weekend. You come and knock at the neighbours’ door. You:

4B. What would you say if you live in an East Asian country and the neighbours are an East Asian (not Japanese) couple? You come and knock at the neighbour’s door. You:

5A. You are a student in a British university. The professor (British; the same gender as you) whose seminar you attend regularly invited you and other students for a dinner at a restaurant. However, on the same night you have already been invited to your friend’s place to have dinner together. The scheduled day is in one week’s time. You:

5B. What would you say if you are a student in a West European country and the professor is a West European? You:

244

Appendix B: English elicitation task (Questionnaire 2)

6A. You are staying in a West European country. You are invited to an informal dinner party at one of your friend’s house (West European; the same gender as you) along with some other friends. After having a meal, he/she started to serve dessert, which she/he said to have made by her/himself. The dessert is not something you particularly like, and you don’t want it really. Your friend says: “Would you like some dessert?” You:

6B. What would you say if you are staying in Britain and the friend is British? You:

7A. You are a student in Britain. You received the result of your term paper, but the score you got was much lower than you expected. You are not convinced about the score you received regarding the fact that you received a much higher score in different subjects and worked hard on every subject equally. You decided to talk to the professor (British; the same gender as you) about this. You knock at the professor’s door. The professor says “Come in”. You:

7B. What would you say if you are in an East Asian country and the professor is an East Asian (not Japanese)? You knock at the professor’s door. The professor says “Come in”. You:

Appendix B: English elicitation task (Questionnaire 2)

245

8A. You go to a school in an East Asian country. One day, when you go into the departmental administration office, an administrator (an East Asian not Japanese; the same gender as you) asked whether you are willing to give a speech next month in front of new students who are studying in your department. But you don’t think you want to do it. You:

8B. What would you say if you go to a British school and the administrator is British? You:

9A. You live on the outskirts of a city in Britain. Recently, your neighbour’s dog has been barking through the night. The barking dog has been wakening you up in the middle of the night and you have not been able to get a decent sleep for several nights. Your patience wore thin, and decided to visit your neighbour (British; the same gender as you) and talk. You knock at the neighbour’s door, and he/she opens the door. You:

9B. What would you say if the conversation is taken place in a West European country and the neighbour is a West European? You knock at the neighbour’s door, and he/she opens the door. You:

This is the end. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

“East Asians are culturally similar, so they are easy to get along with, [. . .] so that’s why I chose to say like that.” “I wrote like that because I considered that Asians are soft/ mild.” “With East Asians, English is not the L for both of us, I thought I didn’t have to say [. . .].”

.... Feeling close/similar to an Asian interlocutor .... Perception of Asians/Asian culture (which cannot be included in ....) .... Perceived shared (degree of) non-nativeness

... Perceived interpretation by the interlocutor (Reasons for own PC)

... Explanation (reasons) of own PC

. Different PC in English to the interlocutor with Asian backgrounds

“I thought East Asians would understand me even though I didn’t say explicitly.” “When East Asians make a complaint, [. . .] I thought I could make myself understood even though I didn’t say this.”

...a. Assumption of being understood without talking explicitly ...b. Assumption of being understood without giving a rationale/reason of the speech act

“When I speak English, [. . .] I have only one pattern of expression to speak regardless of the interlocutor’s background.”

.. Reasons for the Same English PC to the interlocutors with any cultural backgrounds

Example

.. Reasons for the Same English PC to the interlocutors with any cultural backgrounds

Code & Description

. Talks in relation to the participants’ pragmatic language use (PC)

Sub-category

Category

Interview parts

Table A1: List of Codes and Definition of Codes (Questionnaire-Based Interview).

Appendix C: Coding scheme for the questionnaire-based interview study

.. Different PC in English to an interlocutor with European background

... Explanation of own PC (Reasons)

“I said like this because West Europeans are not native English speakers and they are culturally different.” “I don’t know how Europeans and British differ. That’s why I said like that to Europeans”

.... Impression of Europeans different from that of British

.... Impression of Europeans similar/same to that of British

(continued )

“If the West European is not a native English speaker, I thought I should say like that.”

“I thought East Asians would understand me even though I didn’t speak (politely).”

...a. Assumption of the interlocutor’s successful/desired reception (where it’s nothing related to being explicit or giving concrete reasons) .... non-nativeness

“I thought East Asians would understand me when I give a specific reason for doing so.”

...b. Assumption of NOT being understood without giving a specific reason of speech act/ assumption of being understood with giving a specific reason of speech act

...a. Assumption of NOT being “East Asians wouldn’t understand me understood without talking explicitly/ unless I say things with strong Assumptions of being understood nuance.” with talking explicitly

Appendix C: Coding scheme for the questionnaire-based interview study

247

Interview parts

.. PC in English to the British interlocutor (which is same to/different from those to Asians/Europeans)

Category

Table A1 (continued)

... Explanation of own PC (Reasons): (key word: “because”)

“I thought the purpose of the massage would be conveyed even though I don’t speak politely.”

.... Need of minimum understanding

“I said so because English is XYZ kind of language.” “Because the interlocutor is a NS, I decided to say like this.” “Because I’m a non-native speaker, I’m not confident that my English is correct. That’s why I chose to say like this.”

....Perception of English linguacultural norms .... Native-speakerness of the interlocutor .... Positioning oneself in a weaker position because of nonnativeness (incl. lack of confidence)

...b. Assumption of the “A West European might keep the interlocutor’s unsuccessful/undesired desert I don’t want (when I say this)”. reception (where it’s nothing related to being explicit or giving concrete reasons)

“I thought West Europeans would sense that I don’t want it if I explained softly.”

...a. Assumption of being understood without talking explicitly

... Perceived interpretation by the interlocutor

Example

Code & Description

Sub-category

248 Appendix C: Coding scheme for the questionnaire-based interview study

... Perceived interpretation by the interlocutor

“They would say ‘it’s ok’ even if I don’t explain the reason.”

...b. Assumption of being understood without giving a rationale/reason of speech act

...b. Assumption of NOT being understood without giving a specific/ concrete reason of speech act/ – of being understood with -

(continued )

“I thought they would understand well if I explain the reasons in detail.”

...a. Assumption of NOT being “They wouldn’t understand me if I understood without talking explicitly/ don’t speak frankly.” Assumptions of being understood with talking explicitly

“They would understand me if I say straightforwardly.”

“I say this because I am Japanese.”

.... Sense of being Japanese in English ...a. Assumption of being understood without talking explicitly

“I can say this in English.”

.... L English self

Appendix C: Coding scheme for the questionnaire-based interview study

249

.. Feeling comfortable/positive/secure in relation to English interaction

. Other parts (the beginning and end) of interview

Sub-category

Category

Interview parts

Table A1 (continued)

“I’m ok if they just understand that I cannot go.” “They’d understand me if I explain a lot.”

.... Need of minimum understanding ...a. Assumption of the interlocutor’s successful/desired reception (where it’s nothing related to being explicit or giving concrete reasons)

“I feel close to East Asians because we look similar etc.” “East Asians are easy to speak to because (they show interest me in too).” “It’s easier to speak to people who is non-native speaker.”

... Closeness/Similarity with Asians ... Asian (no mention about closeness/similarity) ... Shared degree of nonnativeness

...b. Assumption of the “They might have got angry if I have interlocutor’s unsuccessful/undesired said it.” reception (where it’s nothing related to being explicit or giving concrete reasons)

Example

Code & Description

250 Appendix C: Coding scheme for the questionnaire-based interview study

.. Feeling Uncomfortable, Negative, Anxious, Difficulties in relation to English interaction

“If I don’t know the person, I get pressured from the feelings that I need pronounce clearly.”

... Somebody with social/cultural distance (e.g.,: teacher/doctor/ European/stranger)

(continued )

“It’s hard if the non-native speaker speaks fast and fluently like a NS.”

... Fluent non-native speaker (Degree of non-nativeness)

“I like to talk about each other’s culture.”

... Familiar/Shared topic

“It makes me nervous to speak to a NS because I worry about making mistakes.”

“I’m comfortable when I talk to my close friends, such as my housemates who particularly try to understand my English even if it’s not perfect.”

... Somebody showing understanding to my English

... Native speaker

“I can speak to friends word by word.”

... Friends/Somebody familiar

Appendix C: Coding scheme for the questionnaire-based interview study

251

Interview parts

Sub-category

.. Personal meaning of English

Category

Table A1 (continued) Example

“English is a convenient tool for communicating with non-Japanese.” “English is a part of myself. It’s like the mother tongue.” “English helped me develop as a human being.”

... English as part of myself ... English as a life partner (E.g., English has been and will be beneficial for personal development)

“I felt distant from the host family. They didn’t talk to me much.”

... Marginalized/Racialized experience ... Tool for communication

“I don’t have a confidence in my English.”

... L ability (Lack of selfconfidence in L ability)

... Academic/Specialized/Formal/ “I’d be in trouble because I don’t Unfamiliar SETTING or TOPIC know medical terms when I see a doctor.”

Code & Description

252 Appendix C: Coding scheme for the questionnaire-based interview study

. Discourse of the Other (Language use throughout the interview)

. Discourse of the Other

.. Sense of self

... L English self “I tend to be introverted because I cannot speak much.” “I can express myself well with confidence.”

“I can express myself more in English, but I cannot speak well.” “I tend to be reserved when speaking Japanese.” “I was told that I speak more frankly in Japanese compared to I did before.” “English is that kind of language, i.e., frank and straightforward.”

.... Negative (Because of L ability) .... Frank .... Mixed ... L Japanese self ... Bilingual self (L influence on L or L influence on L) .. Perception of English/English culture

.. Seeing Europeans and Americans “Americans, British and Europeans together, which the informant sees are in the same category.” different from him/her

“Foreigners”, “The other side” vs. “us” “Japanese and Asians”

“I like it. Speaking English is something cool.”

.... Favourable

.. Differentiation of self and other

“I cannot say it’s a part of me, yet. It is still like a subject of school study.”

... English as not a part of myself because of lack of L ability

Appendix C: Coding scheme for the questionnaire-based interview study

253

. Sense of self

.. Resistance to other’s pragmatic language use based on subjectivity

. Pragmatic language use in relation to subjectivities

Contrasting/comparing own linguistic-behaviour speaking in English and in Japanese, or English linguistic-behaviour in Japan

..a. English self vs. Japanese self

E.g., anxiety in English interactions, lack and loss of self-confidence in English proficiency during English interactions E.g., happy about having being able to communicate in English

.. Sense of insecurity

.. Self-affirmation/self-appreciation as an English speaker

..b. Struggle between English self vs. Japanese self

Personality related to as a user of English

‘Subjectivity’: own moral, believes, feeling of not being acknowledged etc.

Further explanation

.. English self

.. Own pragmatic language use deliberately based on subjectivity

Code & Description

Category

Table A2: Coding Scheme (Diary Study).

Appendix D: Coding scheme for the diary study

. Power relations

. Sharedness (feeling comfortable and/or secure because of what they perceive to share with the interlocutor)

d. More investment in learning/ communicating in English (motivated and desire for the future self)

c. Positive psychological effect (empowered) (feeling comfortable, and secure, and admiration to the interlocutor)

b. Loss of investment in using/ learning English

a. Negative psychological effect (discomfort, anxiety, perceived discrimination, withdrawal)

(continued )

*(Codes .–.) Symbolic resources: Resources that the diarist sees something symbolic in the following people (.. – .) *(Additional codes: a, b, c, and d) In relation to interaction with the interlocutor (.–.), (if any) influence of symbolic resources to the speaker

Not related to one’s English proficiency/competence

.. Being non-native speaker

.. NS (including “British”)

With East-Asian interlocutors.

.. The relation of culture/ethnicity .. The degree of non-nativeness

Appendix D: Coding scheme for the diary study

255

Category

Table A2 (continued)

.. Multilingual/ multicultural people (Not being related to English proficiency)

.. More fluent NNS (In relation to English proficiency/competence compared to a diarist)

Code & Description

b. Loss of investment in using/ learning English

a. Negative psychological effect (discomfort, anxiety, perceived discrimination, withdrawal)

d. More investment in learning/ communicating in English (motivated and desire for the future self)

c. Positive psychological effect (empowered) (feeling comfortable, and secure, and admiration to the interlocutor)

b. Loss of investment in using/ learning English

a. Negative psychological effect (discomfort, anxiety, perceived discrimination, withdrawal)

Further explanation

256 Appendix D: Coding scheme for the diary study

. Perception of English

d. More investment in learning/ communicating in English (motivated and desire for the future self)

c. Positive psychological effect (empowered) (feeling comfortable, and secure, and admiration to the interlocutor)

b. Loss of investment in using/ learning English

a. Negative psychological effect (discomfort, anxiety, perceived discrimination, withdrawal)

.. Perception of English lingua-culture (including evaluation of English lingua-culture)

.. Appreciation of English as Lingua Franca

.. Oneself (symbolic resources as an English speaker)

d. More investment in learning/ communicating in English (motivated and desire for the future self)

c. Positive psychological effect (empowered) (feeling comfortable, and secure, and admiration to the interlocutor)

Appendix D: Coding scheme for the diary study

257

Appendix E: Extracts from Isuzu, Mio, and Hana’s reflective essays 1 Isuzu I live in the U.K. at the moment, but English is the second language, I don’t’ have 100% confidence in it. So when I cannot join in a conversation, and when I receive a cold attitude by a lady at a till, I used to think that it is because of my lack of ability to use English. But, when I replace it in the situation in Japan, I started to regard the situation in other ways. Like, the reason why I cannot join in a conversation actively is because of my personality, and the lady at the till is just in bad mood or just somebody who have racial prejudice. Also, I started to think that even though my English is like near-native, such kind of situation wouldn’t change. (Isuzu reflective essay: 2009-12-16)

2 Mio When I was in the US, there weren’t so many international students around me. Naturally I just had to work hard to acquire English. Since I came to the U.K., I don’t know the facts, but I felt that British and American English were very different. Also, I had to study harder contents in English, and people whom I shared the flat with and my classmates didn’t have English as their mother tongue. I could share the difficulties of using a foreign language with them. Therefore, there were more opportunities that I realised English is ‘second language’ for me. […] At first (when I started to acquire English and my time in America), English was just what I like, interesting and fun thing. But after graduating the university [in the U.S.], and starting a postgraduate study in the UK, English became something not just I like, but more complex existence, now I think. But I’d like to keep company with it for a long time with having fun and learning. (Mio reflective essay: 2009-12-14)

3 Hana The thing that has changed since started to write diaries, I became more aware of wringing heartfelt messages that reflect me. Up until now, because I wanted to save times and I worried about making mistakes, I tended to write only necessary matter to a minimum mechanically. But after all, in order to build a firm interpersonal relationship, I again recognised the importance of writings that reflect the writer’s personality. […]

Appendix E: Extracts from Isuzu, Mio, and Hana’s reflective essays

259

I started to be aware of humour. More there are language, national, and cultural distance between the other and me, more I write something trifling. That’s a characteristic of mine as a user of English. […] In particular when using English, I often exchange messages with somebody who is in very different environment with mine. So as to be felt intimate even a little by the other side, it is necessary. (Hana reflective essay: 2010-01-13)

References Alaszewski, Andy. 2006. Using diaries for social research. London: Sage. Aliello, Jacqueline. 2017. Negotiating Englishes and English-speaking identities: A study of youth learning English in Italy. New York: Routledge. Anderson, Benedict. 2006 [1984]. Imagined communities: Reflections of the origins and spread of nationalism, revised edn. London: Verso. Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bailey, Kathleen M. 1980. An introspective analysis of an individual’s language learning experience. In Robin C. Scarcella & Stephen D. Krashen (eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers of the Los Angeles second language research forum, 58–65. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Bailey, Kathleen. M. 1983. Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In Herbert W. Seliger & Michael H. Long (eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition, 67–102. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Baker, Will. 2009. Language, culture and identity through English as a lingua franca in Asia: Note from the field. The Linguistics Journal 4. 8–35. Baker, Will. 2011a. Culture and identity through ELF in Asia: Fact or fiction? In Alasdair Archibald, Alessia Cogo & Jennifer Jenkins (eds.). Latest trends in ELF research, 32–52. Newcastle on Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Baker, Will. 2011b. Intercultural awareness: Modelling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication 11(3). 197–214. Baker, Will. 2012. From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT Journal 66(1). 62–70. Baker, Will. 2015. Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Baker, Will. 2016. Identity and interculturality through English as a lingua franca. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 26(2). 340–347. Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. (V. McGee, Trans.). Austin: Texas University Press. Bayham, Michael. 2015. Identity: Brought about or brought along? Narrative as a privileged site for researching intercultural identities. In Fred Dervin & Karen Risager (eds.), Researching identity and interculturality, 67–85. Oxton: Routledge. Beebe, Leslie M. & Howard Giles 1984. Speech accommodation theories: A discussion in terms of second language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46. 5–32. Belsey, Catherine. 2002. Poststructuralism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benson, Phil, Gary Barkhuizen, Peter Bodycott & Jill Brown. 2013. Second language identity in narratives of study abroad. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Berlin, Scott & Megumi Kobayashi. 2011. World adventures. Tokyo: Kinseido. Block, David. 2005. What do we mean by “second” in second language acquisition. In Yuji Kawaguchi, Susumu Zaima, Toshihiro Takagaki, Kohji Shibano & Mayumi Usami (eds.),

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-010

262

References

Linguistic informatics – State of the art and the future: The first international conference on linguistic informatics, 221–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Block, David. 2006. Multilingual identities in a global city: London stories. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Block, David. 2007. Second language identities. London: Continuum. Block, David. 2009. Identity in applied linguistics: The need for conceptual exploration. In Vivian Cook & Li Wei (eds.), Contemporary applied linguistics: Language teaching and learning, Vol. 1, 215–232. London: Continuum. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. The CCSARP coding manual. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 273–294. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Elite Olshtain. 1986. Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8, 165–180. Borghetti, Claudia. 2019. Interculturality as collaborative identity management in language education. Intercultural Communication Education 2(1). 20–38. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information 16(6). 645–668. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5). 585–614. Canagarajah, Suresh. 1999. Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2007. Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 91. 993–939. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2013. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London: Routledge. Cogo, Alessia. 2008. English as a lingua franca: Form follows function. English Today 24(3). 58–61. Cogo, Alessia. 2009. Accommodating differences in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 254–273. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Cogo, Alessia. 2010. Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznán Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46(3). 295–312. Cogo, Alessia & Martin Dewey. 2006. Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2). 59–93. Cohen, Andrew. 1997. Developing pragmatic ability: Insights from the accelerated study of Japanese. In Haruko M. Cook, Kyoko Hijirida & Mildred Tahara (eds.), New trends and issues in teaching Japanese language and culture, 137–163. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center Cook, Vivian James. 1991. The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research 7(2). 103–117. Cook, Vivian James. 1992. Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning 42(4). 557–591. Cook, Vivian James. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2). 185–209. Cook, Vivian James. 2002. Background to the L2 user. In Vivian James Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 user, 1–28. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

References

263

Cook, Vivian James. 2003. Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In Vivian Cook (ed.), Effects of second language on the first, 1–18. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, Vivian James. 2007. Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition research? In Zhaohong Han (ed.), Understanding second language process, 16–26. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Corti, Louise. 1993. Using diaries in social research. Social Research Update 2. Guildford: University of Surrey.http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU2.html (accessed14 April 2011). Coulmas, Florian. 2005. Sociolinguistics: The study of speakers’ choices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Creswell, John W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Crystal, David. 2018. The Cambridge encyclopaedia of the English language, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, Jim. 1996. Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education. Darvin, Ron & Bonny Norton. 2015. Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35. 36–56. Davies, Alan. 2003. The Native speaker: Myth and reality, 2nd edn. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Davis, John McEwan. 2007. Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning 57(4). 611–649. De Fina, Anna. 2006. Group identity, narrative and self representations. In Anna De Fina, Deborah Schiffrin & Micheal Bamberg (eds.), Discourse and identity, 351–375. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denzin, Norman K. 1989. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dervin, Fred & Karen Risager. 2015. Researching identity and interculturality. New York: Routledge. Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2009. The L2 motivational self system. In Zoltán Dörnyei & Ema Ushioda (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, 9–42. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Duff, Patricia. 2006. Beyond generalizability: Contextualization, complexity and credibility in applied linguistics research. In Micheline Chalhoub-Deville, Carol A. Chapelle & Patricia A. Duff (eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple research perspectives, 65–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Duff, Patricia. 2008. Language socialization, higher education, and work. In Patricia Duff & Nancy Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education Vol. 8: Language socialization, 257–270. New York: Springer. Duff, Patricia & Yuko Uchida. 1997. The negotiation of sociocultural identity in post-secondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 31(3). 451–486. Edmondson, Willis & Juliane House. 1991. Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. In Robert Phillipson, Eric Kellerman, Larry Selinker, Mike Sharwood Smith & Merrill Swain (eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research, 273–286. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

264

References

Ehrenreich, Susanne. 2009. English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations – Exploring business communities of practice. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 126–151. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Fiedler, Sabine. 2011. English as a lingua franca – a native-culture-free code? Language of communication vs. language of identification. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 5(3). 79–97. Firth, Alan. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26. 237–259. Flick, Uwe. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research 4th edn. London: SAGE. Foucault, Michel. 1984. The history of sexuality Vol. 3: The care of the self. London: Penguin Books. Fukazawa, Seiji & Kumi Nozawa. 1995. Eigoka kyôiku jissyû ni okeru diary studies no kokoromi [A pilot study of analyzing student teachers’ diaries in English language teaching practice]. Hiroshima Daigaku Gakkô Kyôiku Gakubu Kiyô 1(17). 47–53. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gordenker, Alice & John Rucynski. 2015. Working in Japan: Video interviews with 14 professionals. Tokyo: Cengage Learning. Gumperz, John J. & Jenny Cook-Gumperz. 1982. Introduction: Language and the communication of social identity. In John J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and social identity, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, Joan Kelly, An Cheng & Matthew T. Carlson. 2006. Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27(2). 220–240. Haneda, Mari. 1997 Second language learning in a “community of practice”: A case study of Japanese adult Japanese learners. Canadian Modern Language Review 54(1). 11–27. Haneda, Mari. 2006. Classrooms as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL Quarterly 40(4). 807–816 Hansen, Jette G. & Jun Liu. 1997. Social identity and language: Theoretical and methodological issues. TESOL Quarterly 31(3). 567–576. Higgins, Christina. 2011. Identity formation in globalizing contexts: Language learning in the new millennium. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hinkel, Eli. 1996. When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors. Journal of Pragmatics 26. 51–70. Honnna, Nobuyuki & Yuko Takeshita. 2009. Understanding Asia. Tokyo: Cengage Learning. House, Juliane. 1999. Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In Claus Gnutzmann (ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language, 73–89. Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. House, Juliane. 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4). 556–578. Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2009. “We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand” – The shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in ELF. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 323–347. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Hynninen, Niina. 2016. Language regulation in English as a lingua franca: Focus on academic spoken discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Iino, Masakazu & Kumiko Murata. 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in an Englishmedium academic context in Japan: From EFL learners to ELF users. In Kumiko Murata

References

265

(ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualization, research and pedagogic implications, 111–131. London: Routledge. Ishihara, Noriko. 2006. Subjectivity, pragmatics use and instruction: Evidence of accommodation and resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota doctoral dissertation. Ishihara, Noriko. 2010. Maintaining an optimal distance: Nonnative speakers’ pragmatic language use. In Ahmar Mahboob (ed.). The NNEST lens: Nonnative English speakers in TESOL, 35–53. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Ishihara, Noriko & Andrew D. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. London: Routledge. Ivanic, Roz. 1998. Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Iwasaki, Noriko. 2010. Style shifts among Japanese learners before and after study abroad in Japan: Becoming active social agents in Japanese. Applied Linguistics 31(1). 47–71. Jackson, Jane. 2008. Language, identity, and study abroad: Sociocultural perspectives. London: Equinox. Jackson, Jane. 2010. Intercultural journeys from study to residence abroad. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. JASSO (Japan Student Services Organization). 2016. Result of an annual survey of international students in Japan 2015. https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2015/ index.html. (9 April, 2020). Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006a. Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 40. 157–181. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006b. English pronunciation teaching and second language speaker identity. In Tope Omoniyi & Goodith White (eds.). The sociolinguistics of identity, 75–90. London: Continuum. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2014. English as a lingua franca in the international university: the politics of academic English language policy. Abingdon, GB: Routledge. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3). 49–85. Jenkins, Jennifer, Alessia Cogo & Martin Dewey. 2011. Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44(3). 281–315. Jenkins, Jennifer, Marko Modiano & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2001. Euro-English. English Today 17(4). 13–19. Joseph, John E. 2004. Language and identity: National, ethnic, religious. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Randolph Quirk & Henry G. Widdowson (eds.). English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kalocsai, Karolina. 2009. Erasmus exchange students: A behind-the-scenes view into an ELF community of practice. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 3(1). 24–48.

266

References

Kalocsai, Karolina. 2011. The show of interpersonal involvement and the building of rapport in an ELF community of practice. In Alasdair Archibald, Alessia Cogo & Jennifer Jenkins (eds.). Latest trends in ELF research, 113–137 Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kalocsai, Karolina. 2014. Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca: A study of Erasmus students in a central European context. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter Mouton. Kamada, Laurel D. 2009. Hybrid identities and adolescent girls being “half” in Japan. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kanno, Yasuko. 2000. Bilingualism and identity: The stories of Japanese returnees. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 3(1). 1–18. Kanno, Yasuko. 2003. Imagined communities, school visions, and the education of bilingual students in Japan. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 2(4). 285–300. Kanno, Yasuko. 2008. Language and education in Japan: Unequal access to bilingualism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kanno, Yasuko & Bonny Norton. 2003. Imagined communities and educational possibilities: Introduction. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 2(4). 241–249. Kasper, Gabriele. 2000. Data collection in pragmatics. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.). Culturally speaking, 316–341. London / New York: Continuum. Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth R. Rose. 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in language teaching, 1–9. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaur, Jagdish. 2009. Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.). English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 107–125. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kaur, Jagdish. 2011. Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca: Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 2704–2715. Kaur Jagdish. 2015. Using pragmatic strategies for effective ELF communication: Relevance to classroom practice. Exploring ELF. In Kumiko Murata (ed.). Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic implications, 240–254. London: Routledge. Kawashima, Tomoyuki. 2019. Background research on developing teaching materials for listening comprehension in World Englishes. JACET ELF SIG Journal 3. 25–47. Kelsky, Karen. 2001. Women on the verge: Japanese women, Western dreams. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kinginger, Celeste. 2009. Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave/Macmillan. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2007. World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2010. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Klimpfinger, Theresa. 2009. “She’s mixing the two languages together” – Forms and functions of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.). English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 344–371. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kobayashi, Hiroe & Carol Rinnert. 2012. Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction.

References

267

In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives, 101–134. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Kobayashi, Hiroe & Carol Rinnert. 2013. L1/L2/L3 writing development: Longitudinal case study of a Japanese multicompetent writer. Journal of Second Language Writing 22. 4–23. Kordon, Kathrin. 2006. “You are very good” – Establishing rapport in English as a lingua franca: The case of agreement tokens. Vienna English Working Papers 15(2). 58–82. Kraft, Bettina & Ronald Geluykens. 2007. Defining cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics. In Bettina Kraft & Ronald Geluykens (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics and interlanguage English, 3–20. Munich: Lincom. Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, Claire. 2003. Identity, role and voice in cross-cultural (mis)communication. In Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper & Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk, 129–153. London: Longman. Kramsch, Claire. 2006. The Multilingual subject. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 6(1). 97–110 Kramsch, Claire & Michiko Uryu. 2012. International contact, hybridity and third space. In Jane Jackson (ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication, 211–225. London: Routledge. Kubota, Mitsuo. 1996. Acquaintance or fiancée: Pragmatic differences in requests between Japanese and Americans. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 12(1). 23–38. Kubota, Ryuko. 2004. Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In Bonny Norton & Kelleen Toohey (eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning, 30–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lambert, Wallace E., Richard C. Hodgson, Robert C. Gardner & Samuel Fillenbaum. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60(1). 44–51. Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee Su Kim. 2003. Multiple Identities in a multicultural world: A Malaysian perspective. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 2(3). 137–158. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. LoCastro, Virginia. 2001. Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System 29(1). 69–89. LoCastro, Virginia. 2003. An Introduction to pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Markus, Hazel & Paula Nurius. 1986. Possible selves. American psychologist 41. 954–969. Mason, Jennifer. 1996. Qualitative researching. London: Sage. Matsumoto, Yumi. 2011. Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis on ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. Modern Language Journal 95(1). 97–114. Matsumoto, Yumi. 2014. Collaborative co-construction of humorous interaction among ELF speakers. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1). 81–107. Mauranen, Anna. 2003. The Corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly 37. 513–527. Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177. 123–150. Maxwell, Joseph A. 1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review 62. 279–300.

268

References

McKay, Sandra Lee & Sau-Ling Cynthia Wong. 1996. Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review 66(3). 577–608. McNamara, Tim & Carsten Roever. 2006. Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Meierkord, Christiane. 2000. Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of non-native-/non-native small talk conversations in English. In: Karin Pittner & Anita Fetzer (eds.), Linguistik Online 5(1). https://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik-online/article/view/ 1013/1673%25;20%25C3%258F%25C6%2592%25C3%258F%25E2%2580%259E%25C3% 258E%25C2%25B9%25C3%258F%25E2%2580%259A%252015 (accessed 25 June, 2018). Meierkord, Christiane. 2002. “Language stripped bare” or “linguistic masala”?: Culture in lingua franca conversation. In Karlfried Knapp & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua Franca Communication, 109–133. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Miles, Matthew B. & Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications. Miller, Jennifer. 1999. Becoming audible: Social identity and second language use. Journal of Intercultural Studies 20(2). 149–165. Miller, Jennifer. 2000. Language use, identity and social interaction: Migrant students in Australia. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(1). 69–100. Minichiello, Victor, Rosalie Aroni, Eric Timewell & Loris Alexander. 1995. In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis. Melbourne: Longman Australia. Ministry of Education. 2005. Heisei 16 nendo kôtôgakkô ni okeru kokusai kôryû tô no jôkyô [Current state of international exchange activities in high schools in 2004–2005]. www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/17/10/05102501/001.pdf. (accessed 11 April, 2011). Miyahara, Masuko. 2015. Emerging self-identities and emotion in foreign language learning: A narrative-oriented approach. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Morgan, Brian. 1997. Identity and intonation: Linking dynamic processes in and ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 31(3). 431–450. Morita, Naoko. 2000. Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly 34(2). 279–310. Morita, Naoko. 2004. Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly 38 (4). 573–603. Morizumi, Mamoru. 2009. Japanese English for EIAL: What it should be like and how much ahs been introduced. In Murata Kumiko & Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts: Current and future debates, 73–93. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. Muramatsu, Chie. 2013. Portraits of second language learners: Agency, identities, and second language learning. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa doctoral dissertation. Murata, Kumiko, Masakazu Iino, Mayu Konakahara & Noboru Toyoshima. 2017. ELF experience in EMI and business settings: Changes of attitudes. Paper presented at the 2nd EMI-ELF Workshop, Waseda University, 25 February. Nogami, Yoko. 2011. Japanese L2 English users’ second language identities and pragmatic use in relations of power and culture. Colchester, Essex: University of Essex doctoral thesis. Nogami, Yoko. 2012. Cross-cultural diversity of English (EIL/ELF) speech acts. In Jim Ronald, Carol Rinnert, Tim Knight & Ken Fordyce (eds), Pragtivities: Bringing pragmatics to second language classrooms, 153–156. Tokyo: The JALT Pragmatics SIG. Nogami, Yoko. 2013. Negotiation of second language identities in shifting power relations: Voices of Japanese L2 English users. Hiroshima Journal of International Studies 19. 93–112.

References

269

Nogami, Yoko. 2018. Identity and pragmatic language use among East Asian ELF speakers and its implications for English-medium education. In Kumiko Murata (ed.), English-medium instruction from an English as a lingua franca perspective: Exploring the higher education context, 176–197. London: Routledge. Norton Peirce, Bonny. 1993. Language learning, social identity, and immigrant women. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto doctoral dissertation. Norton Peirce, Bonny. 1995. Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 29(1). 9–31. Norton, Bonny. 1997. Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 31(3). 409–429. Norton, Bonny. 2000. Identity and language learning. Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Norton, Bonny. 2001. Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In Michael Breen (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research, 159–171. Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Norton, Bonny. 2006. Identity: Second language. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics vol. 5, 2nd edn., 502–507. Oxford: Elsevier. Norton, Bonny. 2013. Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation, 2nd edn. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Oda, Masaki. 2017. CELF reflection: A journey to the establishment of a university ELF program. JACET ELF SIG Journal 1: 3–17. Olshtain, Elite & Andrew Cohen. 1983. Apology: A speech act set. In Nessa Wolfson & Elliot Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, 18–36. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Omoniyi, Tope & Goodith White. 2006. The sociolinguistics of identity. London: Continuum. Ortega, Lourdes. 2009. Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education. Ortega, Lourdes & Joan Carson. 2010. Multicompetence, social context, and L2 writing research praxis. In Tony Silva & Paul K. Matsuda (eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing, 48–71. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press. Oxford, Rebecca L. & Lourdes Cuéllar. 2014. Positive psychology in cross-cultural narratives: Mexican students discover themselves while learning Chinese. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 4. 173–203. Park, Jae-Eun. 2007. Co-construction of nonnative speaker identity in cross-cultural interaction. Applied Linguistics 28(3). 339–360. Patron, Marie-Claire. 2007. Culture and identity in study abroad contexts: After Australia, French without France. Oxford; Peter Lang Pavlenko, Aneta. 2002. Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In Vivian James Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 user, 277–302. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, Aneta. 2003. “I never knew I was a bilingual”: Reimagining teacher identities in TESOL. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 2(4). 251–268. Pavlenko, Aneta & Adrian Blackledge. 2004. New theoretical approaches to the study of negotiation of identity in multilingual contexts. In Aneta Pavlenko & Adrian Blackledge (eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts, 1–33. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, Aneta & Bonny Norton. 2007. Imagined communities, identity, and English language learning. In Jim Cummins & Chris Davison (eds.), International handbook of English language teaching, 669–680. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

270

References

Pedrazzini, Luciana & Andrea Nava. 2011. Researching ELF identity: A study with non-native English teachers. In Alasdair Archibald, Alessia Cogo & Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Latest trends in ELF research, 269–284. Newcastle on Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pellegrino Aveni, Valerie A. 2005. Study abroad and second language use: Constructing the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pennycook, Alastair D. 2012. Lingua francas as language ideologies. In Andy Kirkpatrick & Roland Sussex (eds.), English as an International language in Asia: Implications for language education, 137–154. Dordrecht: Springer. Phan, Le Ha. 2008. Teaching English as an international language: Identity, resistance and negotiation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Phan, Le Ha. 2009. English as an international language: International student and identity formation. Language and International Communication 9(3). 201–214. Piller, Ingrid. 2011. Intercultural communication: A critical introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2009. “We should not wake up any dogs”: Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 298–322. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2012. Creativity meets convention: Idiom variation and remetaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1). 127–55. Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2018. Transient International Groups (TIGs): Exploring the group and development dimension of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 7(1). 25–58. Pölzl, Ulrike. 2003. Signaling cultural identity in a global language: The use of L1/Ln in ELF. Vienna English Working Papers 12(2),3–23. Pölzl, Ulrike. & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2006. In and on their own terms: The “habitat factor” in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177. 151–176. Pullin Stark, Patricia. 2009. “No joke – this is serious!”: Power, solidarity and humour in business English as a lingua franca (BELF). In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 52–177. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press. Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. New York: Longman. Rinnert, Carol. 2010. Whose pragmatic norms? Cultivating multicompetent language users. Plenary delivered at the 18th International conference on pragmatics and language learning, Kobe University, 19 July. Rivers, Damian J. 2011. Intercultural processes in accented English. World Englishes 30. 375–391. Roever, Carsten. 2004. Difficulty and practicality in tests of interlanguage pragmatics. In Diana Boxer & Andrew D. Cohen (eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning, 283–301. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Rose, Kenneth R. & Gabriele Kasper. (eds.), 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rubin, Herbert J. & Irene S. Rubin. 2005. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Sacks, Harvey. 1972. On the analyzability of stories by children. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 325–345. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Irene Koshik, Sally Jacoby & David Olsher. 2002. Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22. 3–31.

References

271

Schofiled, Janet Ward. 2002. Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In Michael Huberman & Matthew B. Miles (eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion, 171–203. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Originally published In Elliot W. Eisner & Alan Peshkin (eds.), 1990. Qualitative inquiry in Education, 201–232. Teachers College Press.] Schumann, Francine E. & John H. Schumann. 1977. Diary of a language learner: An introspective study of second language learning. In H. Douglas Brown, Carlos Alfredo Yorio & Ruth H. Crymes (eds.), On TESOL ’77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice, 241–249. Washington, DC: TESOL. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11. 133–158. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24. 209–239. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2007. English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In Sabine Volk-Birke & Julia Liert (eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings, 307–318. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2). 195–215. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2018. Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation. In Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker and Martin Dewey (eds), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca. London: Routledge, pp. 85–100. Seidlhofer, Barbara, Angelika Breiteneder, Marie-Luise Pitzl. 2006. “English as a lingua franca in Europe”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26. 1–34. Shardakova, Maria. 2013. “I Joke You Don’t”: Second language humor and intercultural identity construction. In Celeste Kinginger (ed.), Social and cultural aspects of crossborder language learning in study abroad, 207–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Siegal, Meryl. 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17(3). 356–382. Silverman, David. 2000. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage Publications. Silverman, David. 2006. Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text, and interaction 3rd edn. London: SAGE. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Introduction. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory, 1–8. London: Continuum. Stokoe, Elizabeth & Frederick Thomas Attenborough. 2015. Prospective and retrospective categorization: Category proffers and inferences in domestic, institutional and news media interaction. In Richard Fitzgerald & William Housley (eds.), Advances in membership categorization analysis, 51–70. London: Sage. Sung, Chit Cheung Matthew. 2014. Global, local or glocal?: Identities of L2 learners in English as a lingua franca communication. Language, Culture and Curriculum 27(1). 43–57. Tanck, Sharyl. 2004. Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A comparison of native and non-native English speakers’ production. www.american.edu/cas/tesol/pdf/upload/WP2004-Tanck-Speech-Act.pdf. (accessed 15 April, 2011). Ten Have, Paul. 1999. Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.

272

References

Thesen, Lucia. 1997. Voices, discourse, and transition: In search of new categories in EAP. TESOL Quarterly 31(3). 487–511. Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4. 91–112. Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman. Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2005. Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication, 211–234. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Tsuchiya, Keiko. 2013. Behaviours in ELF: Analysing interruption sequences in discussions in an EAP course. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 2. 59–83. Ushioda, Ema. 2011. Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning 24(3). 199–210. Virkkula, Tiina & Tarja Nikula. 2010. Identity construction in ELF contexts: A case study of Finnish engineering students working in Germany. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20(2). 251–273. Wagner, Johannes. 1996. Foreign language acquisition through interaction: A critical review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics 26. 215–236. Weedon, Chris. [1987]1996. Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, Etienne. 2006. Communities of practice: A brief introduction. http://www.ewenger. com/theory/ (accessed 15 April, 2011). West, Cornel. 1992. A matter of life and death. October 61(summer), 20–23. Widdowson, Henry. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, Henry. 2012. ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1). 5–26. Widdowson, Henry. 2015, ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(2). 359–372. Witte, Arnd. 2014. Blending spaces: Mediating and assessing intercultural competence in the L2 classroom. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton Yashima, Tomoko. 2009. International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In Zoltán Dörnyei & Ema Ushioda (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, 144–163. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Yashima, Tomoko & Lori Zenuk-Nishide. 2008. The impact of learning contexts on proficiency, attitudes, and L2 communication: Creating an imagined international community. System 36. 566–585. Yin, Robert K. 1989. Qualitative research: Design and methods. London: Sage. Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zhu, Hua. 2014. Exploring intercultural communication: Language in action. Abingdon: Routledge. Zhu, Hua. 2015. Negotiation as the way of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca communication: Frames of reference and interculturality. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1). 63–90.

Index accommodation 42, 230 – theory 44 – to the norms 3, 184, 189, 209 agency 3, 14, 32, 40, 41, 208 American 5, 6, 12, 18, 19, 27, 39–44, 67, 93, 94, 97, 98, 104, 105, 119, 122, 132, 134, 137, 151, 158, 176, 189–191, 218, 226, 227, 230, 235 anxiety 141, 142, 153, 154, 187, 192, 196, 202, 205, 216 Asia 1, 3, 9, 19, 22, 37, 66, 69, 70, 74, 76, 77, 110, 114, 125, 131, 134, 145, 150, 156–161, 174–185, 186, 187–195, 197–205, 207, 211–213, 218, 230, 234, 241–244, 245 – ELF speakers 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 18, 19, 34, 36, 37, 45–47, 50, 112, 113, 120, 126–128, 132, 140–145, 147–150, 153, 157–161–213, 218–221 attitude – ambivalent 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 200, 210, 220 – positive 33, 36 – toward ELF 35–37 – toward the English language 25, 32–34, 228 awareness – and diary writing 232 – cultural 218 – intercultural 160 – of ELF 160, 227, 229 – of English language 221, 225–227, 232 – of Self and the Others (of us vs. them) 145–147 – of self 158 – of the others 158 – raising 221, 227, 229, 230, 232 belief 12, 16, 18, 27, 43, 47, 73, 88, 157, 159, 191, 218, 225 British 1, 5, 6, 18, 19, 27, 58, 66, 69, 70, 76, 77, 93–97, 105, 112, 121, 124, 125, 136, 145, 146, 155, 157, 158, 165, 174–181, 183, 186–189, 191–199, 202, 203, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504211-011

205–207, 218, 222, 226, 227, 230, 231, 234, 235, 243–245 citizenship – global 37, 111, 215 – second-class 22, 125 code-switching 4, 46, 47, 50, 64 commonality 140, 158 – shared 36, 139, 140 communities of practice (CoP) 31, 48–51, 54, 107 competence 210 – multi- 53, 143, 144, 204, 210, 211, 221, 223–225, 227, 236 – multilingual 137, 223 – negotiation of 22 – pragmatic 38, 39, 41 – sense of 31, 32 confidence – a lack of 33, 35, 141, 142, 155, 156, 168–173, 187, 190, 192, 195, 206, 210, 216, 220 – self- 29, 125, 155, 170–173, 192, 195, 196, 203, 205, 206 conformity 41, 208, 215, 230 context – academic 31, 230 – American 40, 97 – Asian 3, 9 – business 46, 105–108 – classroom 2, 32 – educational 33, 57 – ELF 1, 3, 4, 10, 34, 46, 56, 162, 165, 209, 210, 213–215, 218–221, 228–230, 234 – English as a foreign language (EFL) learning 28, 32 – English as a second language (ESL) 32, 93–97 – European 34, 212 – Japanese 33, 58, 89, 110, 136, 163–166, 174, 221, 226, 230 – situated 33, 93, 104, 141, 158 – study abroad 124 – Thai 34

274

Index

conversation analysis (CA) 26, 28 correctness 34, 35, 45, 104, 115, 122, 137, 187 culture 1 (See also linguaculture) – and cultural group 13, 19, 20, 157–161, 211, 212, 218, 219 – and cultural practice 160, 211–213, 221 – and ethnicity 13, 15, 150, 152, 153 – definition 18–20, 219 – global 19 – host 3, 23, 43, 155 – -in-action 19 – -nation nexus 157 – Japanese 30, 90, 99, 100, 135 – local 30 – target 18 data triangulation 61, 79 deference 26, 168, 179, 182, 195, 211, 221 diary – entry 64–66, 80, 81, 85, 94, 98, 100, 103, 105–107, 114, 117, 119, 120, 122, 128, 129, 131, 132, 135, 137, 151, 162, 165, 232 – study 9, 57, 58, 59, 61–66, 75, 76, 79–81, 83, 93, 97, 98, 101, 105, 128, 132, 135, 136, 154, 230, 231 dichotomy 8, 39, 123, 143, 161, 174 – NS-NNS 7, 27, 52, 53, 142, 143 discourse completion text (DCT) 43, 66, 68–71, 229 discourse – communities 142–144, 229 – definition 17 – of colonialism 19, 20 – of native speakerism 52 – of NS-NNS dichotomy 7, 27, 53, 143 – of the Others 158, 160, 218 – of us vs. them 146, 147 discrimination 22, 124, 125, 154–157, 231 divergence 208, 209 diversity 35, 227, 229, 236 – in cultures and identities 222, 227 – in languages 222 effectiveness 39, 229 elicitation task 66 (See also DCT)

emotion 15, 22, 29, 32, 33, 113, 121, 126, 141, 147, 148, 152–154, 159, 160, 182, 186, 204, 216, 218, 224, 231 – closeness 145, 182, 211 empowerment 116–120 English as a foreign language (EFL) 2, 12, 28, 32, 35–40, 168, 173, 184, 208, 210, 211, 218 English as a lingua franca (ELF) 1, 5, 6, 34–38 – and intercultural communication 1, 4, 6, 8, 14, 18, 20, 24, 28, 34, 50, 83, 85, 101, 111, 141, 142, 158, 218, 222, 227, 235 – capability 35 – communication 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 18, 27, 28, 34, 35, 46, 48, 50, 93, 97, 101, 105, 110, 112, 139, 142, 144, 160, 168, 209, 212, 216, 227 – context 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 32, 46, 56, 162, 165, 209, 210, 213–215, 218–221, 227–230, 234 – encounter 35, 37, 93, 97, 101, 109–111, 128, 150, 159–161, 174–182 – speaker/user 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 18, 19, 34, 36, 37, 45–47, 50, 66, 88, 112, 113, 120, 126, 132, 140–145, 147–151, 153, 157–159, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189–192, 205, 211–213, 217– 219, 221, 222, 227, 229, 235, 236 English as a medium of instruction (EMI) 35, 97, 100, 101, 132, 159, 221, 228–230, 234 English as a multilingual franca 6 English as a second language (ESL) 12, 29, 32, 41, 93–97 English language teaching (ELT) 27, 28, 35, 88, 143, 221, 226, 227, 234, 235, 236 essentialism 159 ethnicity 13, 15, 17, 22, 123, 131, 150, 152, 153, 159, 219 (See also culture and race) – group 20, 21 face threatening acts 46, 70 first language (L1) 5–7, 13, 18, 84, 93, 96, 136, 148, 159, 219, 226

Index

fluency 2, 116–118, 130, 141, 142, 205, 216 fluidity – culture 18, 23, 37 – identity 25, 29, 37 – subjectivity 42 friendliness 182, 211, 221 (See also solidarity) higher education 181, 214, 227, 229, 230, 234, 235 hybridity – community 161 – culture 19 – identity 12 – knowledge 223 – nature 212 – positioning 30 – practice 212 identity / identities – act of 221 – affirmative 20 – alternative 53, 83, 89, 90, 92, 99, 135, 164, 209, 215, 221 – ambivalent 29 – and applied linguistics 12, 14 – and CA 26 – and competence 22, 31, 137 – and CoP 31 – and cultural group 9, 13, 19, 20, 157–159, 219 – and culture 13, 18–20, 23, 157–160, 222 – and discrimination 154–157 – and education 17, 33 – and ELF 1, 3, 6, 8, 11–82, 93, 110, 111, 112–162 – and imagined communities 218 – and intercultural communication 4, 20, 22 – and interculturality 159–161, 212 – and investment 24, 25, 120–125, 223–225 – and L2 pragmatics 8, 40–45 – and language learning 2, 24 – and poststructuralism 14 – and power relations 1, 31, 53, 112–144, 214–220 – and pragmatic strategy 4, 5, 8, 11, 45–48 – and proficiency 126

275

– and research methodology 8, 55, 59–82 – and sense of self 16, 23, 93, 109, 164 – and sense of sharing 139–140, 151–154, 157–159 – and SLA 24 – and voice 3 – change 13, 21, 34, 105 – cultural 4, 9, 15, 24, 43, 47, 145–161, 211–213, 218–222 – definition 11–13, 15 – ELF user/speaker 36–48, 50, 55–82, 105, 110, 111, 220 – expert ELF user 144 – expression of 4, 47, 48, 214 – identity-oriented language pedagogy 222 – index of 45–48 – interpreter 136–138 – L1/C1-based 36 – L2-related 8, 11, 13–15, 19–22, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 40, 50, 53, 54, 61, 80, 185, 188, 201, 207, 210, 215, 223, 231, 232 – learner 2, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 24, 28–33, 35–38, 40, 41, 151, 168–174, 210 – link between pragmatic language use 38–48, 53, 55–82, 162–213 – management 223 – manifestation of 209–211 – misalignment 23, 125, 154–157 – negotiation 4, 14, 16, 20–24, 28, 30, 32, 48, 73, 74, 81, 94, 105, 106, 112–144, 165–168, 209–211, 222, 234, 235 – new 9, 27, 35, 37, 53, 83, 97, 104, 109, 110, 215 – option 27, 53, 109 – performance and development 108 – process of 16, 33, 47, 233 – professional 135–139 – shift 27–29, 101, 104, 110 – social 2, 12, 13, 15, 63 – teacher 2, 3, 12, 35–38, 143 – transformation 35 – transnational 99, 100 – unique 33, 80, 109, 233 – user 9, 11, 14, 37, 45, 55–82, 110–112, 126, 141, 143, 145, 157, 216, 217, 233 – work 11, 12, 228

276

Index

identity negotiation theory 20–24 ideology – culture and 35 – in ELT 143 – language and 27, 28 – power relations and 49, 141, 225, 226 imagined community – affiliation with 51, 52 – and discourse 53, 142–144 – and East Asia ELF speakers 159–161, 212 – and ELF 105, 108, 219, 235 – and future self 132–134 – and future vision 224 – definition 51, 53 – membership 52 – of business ELF users 105, 108 – of English users 102, 103, 218, 219 – participation 105, 107, 132, 134 implication 7, 14, 20, 25, 30, 43, 50, 214 – educational 10, 221–230 – methodological 10, 230–236 insecurity 110, 119, 128, 130, 136, 137, 141, 142, 169, 173, 187, 195, 200, 216, 220 (See also emotion) intelligibility 1, 135, 140, 144, 173, 184, 208, 212 intercultural communication – and culture 159, 219, 221, 222 – and ELF 1, 4, 6, 8, 14, 18, 20, 24, 37, 50, 55, 83, 85, 101, 105, 131, 141, 142, 158, 161, 165, 180, 212, 215, 218, 221, 222, 227, 235 – and identity negotiation theory 20 – and identity 4, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 159, 220, 222 – and power relations 9, 10, 26–28, 225 – and pragmatic language use 4 – experiences in 4, 22, 33, 57, 109, 209 – (un)success in 7, 20, 23, 24, 37, 105, 217 – opportunities for 1, 37 intercultural language education/ learning 222, 223 interculturality 18, 20, 212 – definition 222–223 internationalisation 99, 230, 235 – and West 99 – higher education 235

internationalist 30, 99, 100, 135 interpretive approach 8, 9, 55, 56 interview(s) – follow-up 40, 59, 65, 66, 72, 73, 234 – questionnaire-based 8, 10, 55, 57–59, 62, 66, 76–81 – semi-structured 66, 67, 73 investment – and motivation 25 – in identity 24, 25, 214, 223–225 – in language learning/use 216, 217, 221, 223, 228 – in social interaction 25, 154 Japan 5, 7, 12, 29, 32, 43, 44, 52, 57, 58, 65, 70, 77, 85, 86, 97, 99, 101, 104, 105, 121, 133–137, 143, 166, 177, 182, 186–188, 199, 202, 215, 224, 230, 231, 235 Japanese 1, 2–4, 9, 10, 12, 23, 28–33, 35, 39–44, 52, 56–59, 62, 64, 66, 70, 72–74, 76, 83–85, 87–93, 97–102, 109, 110, 112, 115–119, 121, 126–129, 132, 135, 136, 139, 141, 145–147, 151, 154, 157, 159, 160, 162–166, 168–170, 172–174, 177, 178, 182, 186–189, 190, 191–195, 199–202, 204, 207, 209, 210, 213–221, 226, 229, 230, 233–236 Jun-Japa 35 kikokushijo (returnees) 28–30, 136 language proficiency 28, 116, 118, 126, 127, 139, 142, 215, 231 learner 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 24, 25, 27, 104, 144 – definition 6 learning – ELF-oriented 226 – foreign language 2, 11, 67 – language 2, 12, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 37, 41, 42, 62, 63, 67, 95, 100, 105, 108, 162, 186, 222, 223, 226 – second language 187

Index

legitimacy – ELF/L2 speaker/user 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 50, 140, 159–161, 221, 227, 236 – membership 143, 160, 219 – speaker 7, 37, 52, 115, 128–132, 140, 226 – user 109, 116, 124, 125, 140, 143, 208 legitimate peripheral participation 48, 49 linguacultural 3 (See also culture) – background 3, 6, 18, 45, 64, 70, 75, 77, 144, 160, 165, 175, 181, 191, 194, 204, 207, 212, 213, 222, 226, 228, 235 – British 175, 226, 235 – Japanese 110, 164, 199, 209 – norm 3, 90, 164, 165, 168, 176, 206, 209, 210, 212 – perceived - / perception of 45, 64, 176, 206 lived experience 2, 8, 33, 42, 55, 56, 80, 92, 115, 116, 120, 141, 145, 147, 150, 158, 177, 186, 194, 207, 214, 218, 219, 233–235 local – community 37, 41, 95–97, 231 – culture 30 – expectations of teachers’ role 35 – language 3, 4, 7, 19, 34 – needs 34, 37 – norms 41 – practice 30 – repertoire 4 – students 31, 35, 95, 124, 229 – use of English 3, 19 localised experience 125 membership – categories 26, 158 – cultural (and ethnic) 13, 20, 158 – group 13, 21 – in imagined communities 52 migration 12, 28, 30 Model United Nations (MUN) 224 motivation 21, 25, 29, 32, 41, 65, 97, 132, 133 multilingual (multicultural) – background 4, 7, 120 – being / people 30, 33, 37, 43, 223 – city 30

277

– communicator / speaker 6, 52, 93, 136, 140, 143, 203, 204, 215, 217 – competence 148, 223 – identity 45 – participant 6 – phenomenon 6 – repertoire 6, 148, 213, 221 – resource 46 – self 19, 108 – speaker 6, 52, 136, 203, 204, 217 – subject 92 narrative 8, 9, 12–23, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 43, 47, 48, 50, 53–55, 79, 80, 81, 83–112, 114–116, 118, 123, 127, 130, 131, 135, 137, 140, 145–147, 150, 162, 168, 173, 175, 180, 183, 184, 186, 187, 200, 202, 207, 209, 214, 218–220, 232, 233 native speaker of English (NSE) 1, 5, 6, 8, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34–37, 41, 52, 66, 69, 70, 73, 76, 91, 96, 97, 100, 110, 114, 117–125, 131, 136, 137, 139, 141–144, 150, 152, 153, 158, 170, 173, 176, 180, 186, 192, 194, 196, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 207, 210–212, 216, 218, 220, 227 native speakerism – discourse 52, 142–144, 211, 216, 235 – ideology 217, 225 negotiation – of competence 31 – of identity 32 (See also identity) – of power 28, 215 – skill 70 – strategy 227 non-native speaker of English (NNSE) 1, 5, 6, 8, 22, 26–28, 31, 40, 41, 52, 66, 69, 70, 73, 76, 84, 96, 112–118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 137, 140–144, 150, 152, 153, 156, 157, 168, 170, 173, 180, 192, 194, 196, 199, 201, 204, 207, 210, 211, 216–218, 224, 228 norm – communicative 168 – EFL 6, 41 – L2 / L2 community 41, 42 – new 35

278

Index

– North American English 41 – NS 3, 44 – perceived 167, 168, 178 – pragmatic 196 Others 20, 23, 78, 146, 158, 160, 184, 212, 218 ownership 143 – of English 9, 37, 83, 85, 108, 109–111, 129, 131 perspective / feelings / thoughts – attitude perspective 47 – contextualised 47 – ELF-oriented 110 – emic / insider 4 – interculturality 20, 47 – learners’ 62 – participants’ 4, 145 – poststructuralist 20 – psychological 47 – social / sociocultural 63 – toward English language 110, 230 – toward Japanese language 182 physical – appearance 19, 148, 155 – engagement / involvement 50 – location 50 politeness – linguistic 174 – marker of 206 – negative – 174 positioning 2, 22, 25, 30–33, 52, 81, 104, 120, 123, 130, 131, 141, 142, 151, 158, 216, 220, 231 – powerless 173, 220 poststructuralist approach / conception / perspective / view 11–16, 19, 23 poststructuralist approach 14 power – access to 17 – American and British global 19 – and culture 45, 215, 221, 232, 234 – and identity 9, 16–18, 112–144 – and ideology 19, 26, 49, 141, 142, 225, 226 – and investment 120–128 – and source of empowerment 116–120

– and symbolic resources/capitals 70, 79, 141, 142 – asymmetrical / unbalanced / uneven / unequal 116, 123, 125–127, 139 – coercive 120–128, 142, 211, 235 – collaborative 116–120, 141 – definition 16 – ideological 19, 26, 142 – in ELF communication 9, 27, 28, 112–144, 216, 217 – in L2 use 18, 26–28, 32, 221 – negative 17, 141 – negotiation of 28, 215 – positive 17, 78 – relations / the relation(ship) of / 9, 10, 17, 18, 20, 25–28, 31, 46, 49, 53, 70, 76, 78–80, 112–144, 155, 170, 173, 211, 215–217, 220, 221, 225, 226 – relations / the relation(ship) of 1, 17, 235 – shifting 27 – site of struggle 13 – social 13, 24, 71, 108, 141, 220, 229 – symbolic 17, 26, 79 – Western 19 – within communications in English 9 pragmatic language use – and identity 4, 34, 38–48, 54–82, 162–213, 220 – and subjectivity 2, 3, 42, 162, 167, 185 – deliberate 10, 43, 56, 162, 174, 182, 185, 193–195, 209–211, 213, 214, 220, 221 – idealised NS 39 – in an ELF context 5, 10, 56, 162, 213, 214, 219, 220, 221, 228–230 – in intercultural communication 4 – reasons 68, 74, 76, 77, 163, 174, 176, 180, 190, 194, 201, 221 – toward British 76, 177–181, 188–190, 193, 194, 196, 203 – toward East Asian 179, 180, 182, 186, 193, 197 – toward NSE 34 – toward West European 70, 187, 193, 194, 202–205 pragmatics – cross-cultural 39, 66, 68 – definition 38

Index

– instruction of L2 learning 214 – intercultural 4, 38–40 – interlanguage 39, 42, 68 – research on 38–45, 68 pronunciation 26, 34, 41, 131, 199, 201, 205 psychological – aspect of identity construction 24, 37 – closeness 218 – distance 124 – effect 115, 121, 128, 159 – element 48 – insight 47 – perspective 20, 21, 24 – pressure 131 – relationship 231 qualitative – analysis 44 – approach 8, 56, 75, 232 – inquiry 8, 9, 34, 55–56, 67, 81 – interpretive 8, 55, 56 – interview 44, 55, 67 – investigation 56 – narrative approach 232 – questionnaire survey 41 – research method 67 – research 4, 37, 57, 58, 62–63, 75, 233 – survey study 41 questionnaire – -based interviewing 4, 8, 10, 55, 57–59, 66–76, 185 – background 66 – DCT 68 – English elicitation task 66, 68–70, 72, 74, 241–245 – Japanese elicitation task 66, 72, 74 – Likert scale 40 – survey 41, 67 – written 68, 234 race 15, 17, 19, 131, 159 rapport 46, 50, 107, 174–182, 211, 212, 221 repertoire – communicative 223 – cultural 221, 224 – ELF 113

279

– linguistic 50, 139, 224 – multilingual (multicultural) 6 – of Japanese language 42 – of knowledge 160, 161, 219 – shared 50, 107, 113, 144, 161, 212, 219 – situationally dependent 42 – sociolinguistic 4 resource 27 (See also capital) – linguistic 1, 7, 14, 38, 108, 144, 158, 211, 222 – material 16, 17, 24, 25 – symbolic 9, 16, 24, 25 respect 2, 17, 20, 26, 43, 55, 81, 88, 93, 96, 97, 109, 110, 116, 117, 119, 127–129, 131–135, 139, 142, 170, 179, 182, 184, 199, 203, 215, 218, 221, 224, 230 right – human 86, 93, 205 – linguistic 208 second language (L2) 1, 3, 11–54, 63–64, 83, 88, 96, 140, 187, 204, 226 Self 146 – alternative 88–90, 164, 187, 215, 221 – and the Others 145–147, 158, 222 – conception 121 – English-speaking 10, 74, 83–111, 162–164, 168, 186, 187, 189–191, 194, 201, 204, 209, 210, 215, 220 – evaluation 41 – expression 90, 129, 131, 184, 209 – future 33, 51, 106, 132–134, 141, 143, 217, 224, 228, 256, 257 – ideal 90, 199 – identification 34, 35, 107, 143, 153, 160, 185, 192, 219, 224 – Japanese-speaking 74, 89, 90, 92, 93, 109, 164, 207, 215 – L1-based 210, 215, 221 – L2-related 32, 33, 103, 104, 109, 110, 132–135, 223, 225 – multicultural / multilingual 19 – perception of 40, 143, 201, 202, 224, 228 – positioning 25, 30, 32, 141, 142, 220 – possible L2 143, 225 – presentation 90, 165 – reflections 42, 230

280

Index

– representation 109, 143, 215 – self-confidence 29, 125, 155, 170, 171, 173, 192, 195, 196, 203, 205, 206, 252, 254 – self-esteem 41, 154, 168 – true 116, 135, 140 sense of self 2, 11, 16, 24, 30, 32, 33, 53, 63, 74, 76, 78, 80, 87–89, 93, 96, 97, 109, 120, 125, 135, 137, 153, 164, 187, 192, 200, 201, 203, 204, 207, 210, 215, 220, 221, 224, 227, 236 – definition 16 sense of sharing (sharedness) 78, 80, 112–116, 128, 131, 139, 140, 145, 148–151, 153, 157–160, 174, 175, 197, 211–213, 217, 218 sociocultural – constraint 210 – custom 228 – factor 1, 47, 235 – norm 215 solidarity 45–47, 50, 211, 212, 221 speech acts 39 – complaint 70, 71 – refusal 70, 71 – request 70, 71 Standard English 27, 35, 46, 101, 110, 112, 113, 165, 167, 178, 184, 187–190, 191, 193, 194, 196, 205, 207–209, 220, 225, 228–230 standard – norm 34 – NSE 143, 227 – perceived / perception of / view of 100, 101 strategy – communication 227 – competence 227 – L1 / C1-based 210 – pragmatic / pragmatic language 4, 6, 8, 11, 45–48, 77, 191, 193, 200, 211, 218, 221, 229 – safe 203, 212 struggle 1, 19, 52, 110, 138, 154, 165–168, 210, 215, 220, 235 – a site of 13, 15, 25, 210

study abroad 12, 18, 22, 28, 34, 37, 44, 86, 98, 100, 101, 104, 123, 124, 187, 234 subjectivity / subjectivities 168 – and “Japanese way” 188, 199, 220 – and identity 2, 14–16, 42, 44, 67 – and linguistic behaviour 3 – and lived experience 14, 199 – and pragmatic language use 2, 3, 42, 162, 167, 185 – and resistance 42 – and sense of self 16, 109 – and SLA 3 – and willingness to adopt norms 41 – definition 14–16 – L1-based 167, 210 – learner 41–43, 67, 208 – social agency 208 – views and beliefs 88 target language 3, 18, 24, 39, 41, 43 teacher – attitude and identity 35, 36 – belief 12 – choice 228 – education 52, 224 – EFL / ELT 35, 36 – in Italy 49 – role 35 – teacher native English speaking 2 third place 19, 30, 161 transcultural 160, 219 trustworthiness 81 virtual – communication 50 – community 107 – network 50 vision – as a member of an imagined community 134, 219, 224 – collective 52 – for students 52 – for the future 32, 33, 51, 132, 134, 224, 227 – institutional 52

Index

– of current and future possible self 143 – of future self 51, 132, 134, 224 – of ideal L2 self 33, 224 – of imagined communities 224 – of Japan and the rest of the world 52 – of themselves 32, 33, 224 – teachers’ 12

281

West European 66, 69, 70, 74, 158, 186, 187, 193, 194, 195–197, 202–205, 212, 234, 242, 243, 244, 245 World Englishes (WE) 226 – aware / informed teaching material 228