Language Learning in Study Abroad: The Multilingual Turn 9781800411340

Citation preview

Language Learning in Study Abroad

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Founding Editor: Viv Edwards, University of Reading, UK Series Editors: Phan Le Ha, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA and Joel Windle, Monash University, Australia. Two decades of research and development in language and literacy education have yielded a broad, multidisciplinary focus. Yet education systems face constant economic and technological change, with attendant issues of identity and power, community and culture. What are the implications for language education of new ‘semiotic economies’ and communications technologies? Of complex blendings of cultural and linguistic diversity in communities and institutions? Of new cultural, regional and national identities and practices? The New Perspectives on Language and Education series will feature critical and interpretive, disciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives on teaching and learning, language and literacy in new times. New proposals, particularly for edited volumes, are expected to acknowledge and include perspectives from the Global South. Contributions from scholars from the Global South will be particularly sought out and welcomed, as well as those from marginalized communities within the Global North. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION: 89

Language Learning in Study Abroad The Multilingual Turn Edited by

Wenhao Diao and Emma Trentman

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/DIAO1333 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Diao, Wenhao, 1982- editor. | Trentman, Emma, 1981- editor. Title: Language Learning in Study Abroad: The Multilingual Turn/ Edited by Wenhao Diao and Emma Trentman. Description: Bristol; Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, [2021] | Series: New Perspectives on Language and Education: 89 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This book addresses the multilingual reality of study abroad across a variety of national contexts and target languages. The chapters examine multilingual socialization and translanguaging; how the target language is entwined in global, local and historical contexts; and how students use local and global varieties of English”— Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020048464 (print) | LCCN 2020048465 (ebook) | ISBN 9781800411333 (hardback) | ISBN 9781800411326 (paperback) | ISBN 9781800411340 (pdf) | ISBN 9781800411357 (epub) | ISBN 9781800411364 (kindle edition) Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages—Study and teaching—Foreign speakers. | Second language acquisition. | Foreign study. | Multilingual education. Classification: LCC P53 .L363 2021 (print) | LCC P53 (ebook) | DDC 418.0071--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020048464 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020048465 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-80041-133-3 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-80041-132-6 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2021 Wenhao Diao, Emma Trentman and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by SAN Publishing Services. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by NBN.

Contents

Acknowledgements vii Contributors ix Introduction: Multilingual Approaches to Language Learning in Study Abroad Emma Trentman and Wenhao Diao 1 Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania: Learning Swahili through Akan/Twi and Cultures of Storytelling Jamie A. Thomas 2 When the Foreign is Familiar: An Afro-DominicanAmerican Woman’s Experience Translanguaging Race, Ethnicity and Cultural Heritage Learning Portuguese in Brazil Uju Anya

1

13

43

3 An Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions in Short-Term Study Abroad Janice McGregor

72

4 Monolingual Expectations and Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad Emma Trentman

97

5 Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China Wenhao Diao 6 ‘Sorry, I don’t speak any English’: An Activity-Theoretic Account of Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea Lucien Brown 7 Study Abroad as a Transformative Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish Tracy Quan

v

121

145

170

vi  Language Learning in Study Abroad

8 Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad: Sojourners’ Orientations to Linguistic Diversity and Language Hierarchies in Barcelona Brandon Tullock

190

9 Research on Language Learning during Study Abroad: What Next? Lourdes Ortega

213

Index

225

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we would like to thank the authors of the individual chapters in this book, for sharing our vision for multilingual approaches to research and practice in study abroad. Several of the studies were presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics annual conference in 2018, where we also received positive feedback and helpful suggestions. In addition, we would like to thank colleagues in study abroad research that have encouraged our work and pushed us to strengthen our critical and multilingual approaches to language learning in study abroad: Khaled Al Masaeed, Kirk Belnap, Hang Du, Julieta Fernández, Martin Howard, Jane Jackson, Celeste Kinginger, Hsin-hsin Liang, Ros Mitchell, John Plews, Sonia Shiri, Rachel Shively, Victoria Surtees and Nicole Tracy-Ventura. We are also grateful for the contributions of the anonymous research participants, both study abroad students and local partners, who have shared their stories with us throughout the years, leading us to question dominant practices and beliefs about language learning during study abroad. We thank the various study abroad programs and institutions that generously granted us access to their students and staff, without which our work would not have been possible. We would like to acknowledge the work of the anonymous reviewers for each chapter and the two external anonymous reviewers for this book, as well as Anna Roderick and the team at Multilingual Matters for their help in seeing this book through to publication. Finally, we would like to thank our families for their ongoing support of our work. In particular, we are grateful for our parents, Guofu Diao and Xiaolan Jin, and Ann and Henry Trentman, our husbands, Peter Jansen and Rashad Mahmood, and our children, Ezri, Lilianna and Caelan. Both Ezri and Caelan were born during this project, and we are extremely thankful for the family support we received during this time.

vii

Contributors

Uju Anya is assistant professor of second language learning in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and research affiliate with the Center for the Study of Higher Education at The Pennsylvania State University. She specializes in applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and second language education with particular focus on the coconstruction and negotiation of race, gender, sexual and social class identities in the language classroom. Her research interests also include intercultural communication, applied linguistics as a practice of social justice and strategic translanguaging in world language pedagogy. Lucien Brown is senior lecturer of Korean Studies in the School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics at Monash University. His research looks at social and ideological aspects of language and its embodiment, including the negotiation of learner identity in study abroad. He is the author of Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning (John Benjamins, 2011) and associate editor of Journal of Pragmatics. Wenhao Diao is an associate professor in the Department of East Asian Studies and the doctoral program of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT) at the University of Arizona. Her research examines the sociolinguistic and sociocultural processes that Chinese language learners and teachers experience in various contexts, such as study abroad and the secondary–postsecondary transition. She has received several grants for her work, including a Fulbright-Hays project funded by the US Department of Education. Janice McGregor is assistant professor of German studies and an affiliated faculty member in the Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT) graduate interdisciplinary program at the University of Arizona. She earned her PhD in German/applied linguistics from the Pennsylvania State University. McGregor’s research centers around three interrelated strands: learner beliefs and language ideologies in study abroad, authenticity in language learning and intercultural communication and qualitative methods in study abroad research. ix

x  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Lourdes Ortega is a professor in the Department of Linguistics at Georgetown University. She investigates adult language learning in ­classroom settings. She is best known for her award-winning meta-­analysis of second language instruction in 2000, her bestselling textbook Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2009, Routledge, translated into Mandarin in 2016) and for championing a social justice turn in the study of multilingualism. She is coeditor of the  Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism  (Cambridge University Press, 2019) and author of over 80 other scholarly publications. She is past journal editor of Wiley’s  Language Learning  and will be President of the American Association for Applied Linguistics in 2024. Tracy Quan (PhD, University of California, Davis) is an assistant professor of Spanish and applied linguistics at University of Colorado, Boulder. Her research focuses on identity and language development of additional language learners and heritage speakers of Spanish in different contexts (e.g. study abroad, community-engaged learning), as well as critical approaches to language pedagogy. She has published in journals such as Bilingual Research Journal,  L2 Journal  and  Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education and in edited volumes such as The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice (2018). Jamie A. Thomas is assistant professor of linguistics at Santa Monica College. She draws upon sociocultural linguistics and applied linguistics to explore discourses of Blackness, African(a) studies and African languages in relation to language learning, embodiment and popular c­ ulture. She is the author of the ethnography Zombies Speak Swahili: Race, Horror, and Sci-fi from Mexico and Tanzania to Hollywood (Oxford University Press, 2021). She is also co-editor of the multidisciplinary volume, Embodied Difference (Lexington Books, 2019). Emma Trentman is associate professor of Arabic at the University of New Mexico. She is an applied linguist whose research focuses on language and intercultural learning during study abroad, virtual exchange and in the language classroom. She is particularly interested in multilingual approaches to language learning and teaches all levels of Arabic at the University of New Mexico.  Brandon Tullock is assistant professor of applied linguistics in the Department of World Languages at the University of South Florida. His research examines second language acquisition and investigates language learning in multilingual contexts such as the English language classroom in a German immersion school or a US-led study abroad program in Catalonia. His published work has appeared in System, Research in the Teaching of English and The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice 2018.

Introduction: Multilingual Approaches to Language Learning in Study Abroad Emma Trentman and Wenhao Diao

Theorizing Multilingualism

In recent years, there has been increased critique of the ‘monolingual bias’ (Kachru, 1994; Ortega, 2013) in research on language learning. These critiques, leveled at fields such as applied linguistics, bi/multilingual education and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), show that an adherence to monolingual language ideologies rooted in the European nation state can obscure the ways in which multilinguals use language to achieve communicative goals, expand their linguistic repertoires, gain knowledge and establish social identities that transcend those available in monolingual spaces (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; Makalela, 2015; Makoni & Pennycook, 2005, 2012; May, 2014; Mazak & Carroll, 2017; Ortega, 2013). These multilingual approaches expose many dominant concepts previously taken for granted in mainstream research and practice as constructions of European nationalism that have been subsequently spread worldwide through colonialism (Makalela, 2015, 2017; Makoni & Pennycook, 2005; May, 2014). These concepts include those often taken as foundations of language teaching/learning, such as the compartmentalization of linguistic practices into bounded language systems (e.g. English, Arabic and Spanish), considering the linguistic practices of the ‘native speaker’ the goal for language learners, and a monolingual immersion as the ideal setting for language learning. These multidisciplinary critiques of monolingual language ideologies and the way they perpetuate social inequities have led scholars to theorize language ideologies that better represent multilingual realities. These critical multilingual theories include superdiversity (e.g. Blommaert, 2010), multilingual subjects (e.g. Kramsch, 2009), the multilingual turn (e.g. Ortega, 2013), plurilingualism (e.g. Piccardo, 2017) and translanguaging (e.g. García & Li Wei, 2014), to name just a few. Key tenets of these language ideologies include a focus on communication involving multiple codes, modes and modalities, and an emphasis on the socially 1

2  Language Learning in Study Abroad

constructed nature of language boundaries. For this reason, many of these theories take the linguistic repertoires of individuals as a starting point for analysis, rather than socially ‘named’ languages (Otheguy et al., 2015). The linguistic repertoires of individuals shift throughout their lifespans with their lived experiences, and are what individuals draw from to communicate in specific contexts (Beacco & Byram, 2007). The linguistic practices used in these instances of communication may not easily fit into socially prescribed language boundaries, but they can allow their users to transcend the identities and opportunities available in monolingual spaces (García & Li Wei, 2014). Individual chapters in this volume also demonstrate how these terms can be redefined to investigate the study abroad experience in various contexts. While these approaches may seem like a ‘new turn’ in settings steeped in monolingual ideologies of language, this is simply indicative of the dominance these monolingual ideologies have gained through their connections to powerful national and colonial movements. It is important to remember that multilingual language ideologies are not ‘new’ ways of perceiving language, but have long existed in a variety of contexts, particularly those overlooked in research on language learning (Canagarajah & Liyanage, 2012; Makalela, 2015, 2017; Makoni & Pennycook, 2005; May, 2014). Critical multilingualism research contests many of the established perspectives on language learning and use in a variety of contexts. In educational settings, researchers have demonstrated how allowing learners to engage with their full linguistic repertoires assists them in expanding their linguistic and subject knowledge (Mazak, 2017). They have also critiqued monolingual assessments, that is, assessments that do not allow learners to draw from their full linguistic repertoires, as they are unable to give an accurate measure of learners’ knowledge of educational content such as math or social studies (García & Li Wei, 2014). Critical multilingualism research also problematizes the valorization of multilingualism in the service of neoliberal political and economic agendas that commodify the knowledge of multiple languages and the ability to flexibly switch between them as a marketable skill (Flores, 2013; Heller, 2010; Heller & McElhinny, 2017; Park, 2009). This language-as-a-skill view, which often involves English as the primary language and other languages as secondary, reinforces linguistic hierarchies, contributes to linguistic anxieties and fails to adequately acknowledge the multilingual realities across the world. In addition, critical multilingualism research delves into the ideological connections between multilingualism and race and/or class privileges in different contexts, emphasizing how monolingual models of language perpetuate social inequities by placing unequal value on the linguistic and social knowledge of minoritized language users (Flores & Rosa, 2015; García & Li Wei, 2014).

Introduction 3

Multilingual Approaches to Study Abroad

Critiques of monolingual bias in the fields of applied linguistics, second language acquisition and language teaching have demonstrated how this bias erases the multilingualism present in communities throughout the world, centers Western theories and practices, perpetuates social inequities, and leads to misleading conclusions about language learners’ communicative abilities (Anya, 2017; Flores & Rosa, 2015; García & Li Wei, 2014; Makalela, 2015; Makoni & Pennycook, 2005; Rosa & Flores, 2017). Yet, although multilingual language ideologies have led to important insights in numerous subfields of applied linguistics, they have had little impact on research on language learning during study abroad. In contrast, the prevalence of monolingual language ideologies is still apparent in the ways study abroad is often viewed as the ideal opportunity for language learning. Learners crossing national borders expect and are expected to be immersed in a new cultural and linguistic environment, where the imagined monolingual immersion will force them to engage in the target language with native speakers, and thus develop their linguistic and cultural skills. Despite this popular imagining of study abroad as monolingual immersion, decades of research on language learning during study abroad demonstrate the multilingual nature of this experience (Kinginger, 2009; Tullock & Ortega, 2017). Within the multilingual realities of study abroad, different languages often come to index different social meanings and symbolic values; English, for example, is often seen as desirable because of its status as a global lingua franca, and also an impediment to English speakers learning other languages. When these multilingual realities are approached from a monolingual perspective, multilingualism becomes a problem to overcome. In programs focused on language learning, this may take the form of policies to encourage – or even impose – monolingual target language practices upon students. Other study abroad programs erase multilingualism by offering courses in English and marketing themselves as requiring only English language skills, despite their multilingual environments. In both cases, this adherence to monolingualism fails to address the sociolinguistic complexities that students encounter and can actually restrict learners’ access to local translingual practices necessary to gain access to social networks abroad (Anya, 2017; Mori & Sanuth, 2018; Trentman, 2021). The chapters in this volume provide more insights and lend further support to these conclusions by demonstrating how the monolingual bias is still problematic not only in contexts and for speakers marginalized by traditional Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research (such as postcolonial settings or heritage learners) but also for those considered highly mainstream (White US students from English-speaking homes studying abroad to learn Spanish in Spain or German in Germany). As editors of

4  Language Learning in Study Abroad

this volume, we position ourselves as study abroad researchers and practitioners who strive to depart from the monolingual perspective of traditional study abroad research. We hope to create a research agenda that better reflects the multilingual realities that we have encountered in our own research, teaching, and study abroad experiences. In what follows, we outline the organization of the book and provide an overview of the individual chapters. Rethinking Multilingual Realities during Study Abroad

The eight chapters in this volume all provide insights into the multilingual realities and translingual practices that students experience during study abroad, followed by concluding remarks by Lourdes Ortega. While most of them focus on US learners studying in a variety of geographic locations, from traditional European destinations such as Spain and Germany to locations that have increased in popularity among US students in recent years, such as China and Korea (IIE, 2018), Chapter 1 focuses on an inter-African exchange. In the first chapter, Thomas describes an often overlooked context of study abroad, Global South–South exchanges, highlighting the importance of including these contexts in theorizing study abroad. Examining the experiences of Ghanaian learners of Swahili studying abroad in Tanzania, she demonstrates how these learners and their Tanzanian teacher draw from their multilingual repertoires to learn/teach Swahili storytelling traditions and perform pan-African identities. The inter-African context is particularly important as a location where multilingual p ­ ractices and ideologies have long existed, and from which we can learn ways of using multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, to expand our ­linguistic repertoires. Anya, in Chapter 2, examines the experience of Leti, a multilingual Afro-Dominican-American woman studying abroad in Brazil. This chapter shows how Leti drew from her multilingual and multicultural background to translanguage and learn Portuguese in Brazil. It also reveals the ways in which the sociocultural filters of race and ethnicity resulted in new understandings of familiar practices and concepts. In Chapter 3, McGregor focuses on a common context in US study abroad, short-term faculty led programs, but a frequently overlooked phenomenon: L2 peer interaction. Analyzing conversations between German L2 learners, she demonstrates how these learners translanguage to manage their language use, beliefs about language learning, and social interactions. This study shows the ways in which L2 peers are a valuable language learning resource. Chapters 4–6 examine US-based students abroad in locations where they were not expected to speak the local language. Trentman (Chapter 4) analyzes the experiences of two Arabic learners abroad. She shows that

Introduction 5

while monolingual language ideologies informed their expectations for language learning abroad, their translanguaging practices were key to their success. This chapter argues for reframing expectations of study abroad according to a multilingual perspective. In Chapter 5, Diao examines the use of English among two study abroad students in China. Although the program required them to use Mandarin exclusively, they frequently encountered and used English owing to their identification as global elites. In addition, while both students engaged in translingual practices with other global elites, they appeared unable to make sense of similar practices when utilized by their Chinese roommates. Chapter 6 (Brown) reports a case study of Grace, a White US student in South Korea. Despite Grace’s intention to use Korean exclusively with native speakers while abroad, she was frequently positioned as an expert English speaker and an English tutor in Korea, where English is seen as a highly desirable skill. Yet, her American national identity was simultaneously linked to imperialism and the US military presence in Korea. This chapter sheds light on the complex relationship between the languages that students speak and their cultural meanings in the study abroad context. The final two chapters both examine students in Spain. In Chapter 7, Quan investigates the successful study abroad experience of a Latina student, Maria. Maria translanguaged between English and Spanish to construct her hybrid identity as both a heritage Spanish speaker and a student from the USA. She also developed a critical awareness of societal discourses in the USA that link one’s race and citizenship with language. Tullock, in Chapter 8, examines the study abroad experience of Spanish L2 learners in Barcelona during the Catalonia independence movement. His findings show that while some students developed a critical awareness of the sociopolitical complexities of Spanish, Catalan and English, others remained largely unaware of such complexities, or viewed them as a hindrance to their language learning. This chapter points to the need to engage students in critical discussions about language and sociopolitical movements. Collectively and individually, all of the chapters in this volume highlight the paramount importance of taking critical multilingual, rather than monolingual, approaches to research and practice for language learning during study abroad. By accepting the presence of local and global languages as the norm in study abroad environments, these chapters demonstrate the ways in which the imagined environment of monolingual immersion in study abroad is an illusion. They illustrate how successful language learning during study abroad benefits from developing translanguaging practices and contextual awareness that allow learners to draw from their full linguistic repertoires to gain access to local social networks and expand their linguistic and cultural knowledge.

6  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Multilingual Identity Negotiation during Study Abroad

The critical multilingual approaches employed in the chapters in this volume provide new insights on the role of identity in language learning abroad. As (desired) multilingual identities can effectively ‘regulate recruitment, treatment, and mobility’ (Heller & McElhinny, 2017: 244), the learners in this volume chose their destinations (or had it chosen for them in the case presented in Chapter 1) for a variety of reasons, including heritage language affiliation, the perceived value of the local language on the job market, and personal interests. In these destinations, monolingual immersion was not a reality – multiple language varieties were present, with or without the presence of the students themselves. These included the target language(s), global and regional languages, home languages and local languages, as well as translanguaging practices. In all of these situations, learners found themselves negotiating their multilingual identities in complex ways through programmatic, local, and global language ideologies. For example, students often expressed their desire to use only the target language abroad, sometimes going as far as planning to avoid other foreigners to make this a reality. Yet, this desire to use only the target language with native speakers excludes other language learners as legitimate speakers of the local language, causing them to be overlooked as resources for language learning abroad (Chapter 3). It also denies the full linguistic repertoires of locals, and their multilingual and language learning desires (all chapters). In line with the desire to use only the target language abroad is the perception of global English as a threat to learning local languages (Chapters 3, 4, 6–8). It is true that in many situations, English speakers (especially White ones) were positioned as tourists or expats, rather than serious learners and/or legitimate speakers of languages other than English (Chapters 4–6 and 8). In some cases, the learners positioned themselves this way, by frequenting touristic locations (Chapters 5 and 8) or taking a language-as-skill approach to position themselves as cosmopolitan foreigners who use primarily English but can adapt to other cultural contexts by using other languages occasionally (Chapter 5). These positionings could make it difficult for the learners to engage in local languages(s), even when initiating conversations in them. Yet at the same time, parallel to the assumption that English teachers should naturally be ‘White bodies from imperial centers’ (Heller & McElhinny, 2017: 244–245), perceptions of (especially White) English speakers as ‘authentic’ and ‘expert’ speakers of the language could become a key resource for learners to enter local social networks. They were able to use these perceptions of their language expertise to negotiate opportunities to engage with locals, which could in turn give them access to other languages (Chapters 2 and 4–8) a point also raised in other studies of Anglophone learners abroad (Dewey et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2017).

Introduction 7

Learners who were racialized as bi/multilingual speakers in the USA were sometimes able to blend in abroad in ways that made them more likely to be addressed in local language(s), and were also able to draw from their multicultural and multilingual backgrounds to engage in translanguaging practices to develop their linguistic repertoires (Chapters 2, 4–5 and 7–8). However, these learners also experienced discrimination abroad, and struggled to reconcile new understandings of their multilingualism gained abroad with the monolingual ideologies dominant in the USA (Chapters 7–8). Furthermore, local and student expectations for language use may continue to map languages with nationality, race or ethnicity, another hallmark of monolingual ideologies of language (Chapter 1). These chapters demonstrate that the most successful learners were not those who found ways to resist the ‘threat’ posed by languages other than the target language, and particularly English, but those who figured out how to intentionally draw from their multilingual resources to support their language learning goals. For example, some learners drew from their multilingual backgrounds while abroad in ways that extended far beyond the conception of a local target language and a dominant home language, using their linguistic backgrounds as a tool to expand their linguistic repertoires to multiple local languages and dialects (Chapters 1–2 and 7–8), develop translingual relationships (Chapters 3–4 and 6–7) and claim multilingual identities (all chapters). Strategic translanguaging practices were often the key for successful negotiation of the balance between global English as a threat to language learning and global English as a resource for language learning, and could also help break associations between race, nationality, and language (Chapters 4 and 6–8). For this reason, these studies identify the parallel needs to recognize the value of learners’ full linguistic repertoires abroad while also drawing attention to the ways in which study abroad interactions perpetuate raciolinguistic links between nationality, race and linguistic competence. Finally, these chapters reveal considerable variation in the extent to which learners seemed aware of their translingual strategies: while some learners explicitly named them (Chapters 2, 4 and 6–8), others continued to persist in a monolingual framing (Chapters 3, 4 and 8) or did not adequately understand translingual practices in the locale (Chapter 5). Looking Ahead: Future Research Possibilities

All chapters in this volume urge us to acknowledge the multilingual realities that students encounter and the translingual practices that they engage in while overseas. It is no coincidence that all chapters in this volume employed introspective methods, such as interviews and journal entries. Using data collected from these sources, contributors to this volume have demonstrated the importance of study abroad students’

8  Language Learning in Study Abroad

perspectives and experiences regarding multilingualism. Future research should further incorporate these methods and also report the perspectives of local hosts (Kinginger, 2019). For example, while several of the chapters reported that the focal students were positioned as English speakers, who either had no real need or legitimacy to be speakers of other languages (Chapters 4–6), how do locals actually perceive them? Furthermore, English is not only a lingua franca but also a lingua mundi in these study abroad research contexts (Kinginger, 2019), and participation in communication with international students from other linguistic backgrounds may still take place in English (Chapters 1 and 5). This observation also leads to the question of how study abroad students may be seen not only by their local hosts, but also international students from other places. Several studies included in this volume also examined students’ authentic discourse and utilized conversation, discourse and critical analyses to show the unfolding of translingual practices in moment-to-moment interactions, both between the students and locals (Chapters 1–2 and 4–5) and among the students themselves (Chapters 2–3). This bottom-up approach shows how study abroad students and their interlocutors utilize multilingual repertoires to negotiate and construct meaning. Yet, translanguaging is not simply the use of multiple languages; it also refers to the utilization of different modes and modalities of communication (Li Wei, 2018). In order to further our understanding of students’ engagement in translingual practices and/or the development of translingual competence (Chapter 7) in various cultural contexts, researchers still need to creatively and critically examine how they and their local hosts jointly construct meaning not only multilingually, but also multimodally. For example, how are gestures and other modalities of communication used in addition to the multilingual repertoires to negotiate identities and ideologies? What other interactional resources (Young, 2008) and multiliteracy practices (New London Group, 1996) may also be utilized in translingual practices in the study abroad context? As the findings in the volume repeatedly show how students’ use of language is intimately related to how they are positioned because of their physical bodies (e.g. race and gender), they also demonstrate the importance of understanding the materiality and embodiment of language use (Bucholtz & Hall, 2016) in the study abroad context. While the chapters here focused on racialized, gendered and classed experiences, the issues of embodiment and translingualism need to be investigated further, and also in relation to other social identities, such as sexuality or able-bodiedness. What language(s) and linguistic varieties do their bodies signal? How do study abroad students negotiate multimodal translingual practices to represent and reconstruct their body and its linguistic repertoire, and what are the implications for their language learning? These remain questions for future multilingual study abroad research.

Introduction 9

Looking Ahead: Pedagogical Implications

Given the value of multilingual approaches for language learning during study abroad shown in these chapters, it is clear that there is a need for pedagogical approaches that take a critical multilingual approach before, during and following study abroad. These pedagogical approaches have been developed in a number of settings, such as TESOL (Piccardo, 2013), multilingual education (Celic & Seltzer, 2011) and the teaching of African languages to Africans (Makalela, 2017). However, there is little attention to these approaches for language learning before, during and after study abroad, particularly for English speakers in Anglophone settings (but see the LINCDIRE project, https://www.lincdireproject.org/). A key step in developing these pedagogical approaches is forming a critical awareness of the multilingual nature of study abroad settings, the students participating in them and the linguistic encounters in which they participate. Rather than taking the traditional view of monolingual students experiencing monolingual immersion in another setting, a view firmly rooted in monolingual language ideologies, we need to recognize that this monolingual perspective has blinded us to the multilingual realities of study abroad. Understanding the ways in which students are successfully able to translanguage to develop local relationships and expand their linguistic repertoires is the first step in further developing their translanguaging skills. This also provides us with the opportunity to recognize the multilingual competencies and translanguaging skills students bring to language classes and study abroad experiences. Language minoritized students, who have often spoken multiple languages or dialects throughout their lifetime, may come to our classrooms with especially strong skills in this area that are not recognized under monolingual approaches to language learning (Flores & Rosa, 2015). By accepting the multilingual nature of study abroad, we can shift our focus from what socially named language students are using to how they draw from their full linguistic repertoires to achieve their interactional and educational goals. For example, accepting the reality of global English, rather than resisting it with a language pledge, permits us to train students to negotiate roles as English speakers that also let them use other languages (Geoghegan & Pérez-Vidal, 2019; Llanes, 2019). Part of this approach may include shifting language classes away from addressing basic service transactions common in tourist locations (ordering drinks, arranging hotels, etc.) that are almost certainly available in English, toward a focus on establishing and maintaining meaningful relationships in new cultural contexts. Within these meaningful relationships, we can demonstrate how learners can use linguistic elements associated with both the local language(s) and English with speakers of these languages, regardless of

10  Language Learning in Study Abroad

the order in which they acquired them or of the extent of their linguistic repertoires in each. In this way, recognizing and expanding the multilingual repertoires, desires and identities of all speakers involved in the interaction becomes a way to deepen these connections. Understanding and training learners in negotiating their linguistic choices abroad can also help them develop their skills in negotiating the other social identities that impact language learning discussed in this volume, including class, race and gender. Study abroad programs can play a crucial role by not only training students to negotiate these identities, but also making sure that their full array of identities is represented, and not focusing on adhering to a monolingual, monocultural ideal that does not represent the speakers of the language and may not represent the students themselves. After all, each of the major world languages examined in this volume is spoken by a variety of races and ethnicities and connecting them to a monoethnic origin not only erases these speakers but upholds a monolingual, monoethnic myth. Finally, critical multilingualism approaches include a commitment to social justice, and we can take this up in study abroad as well, an area that remains more easily accessible to those in higher socioeconomic classes, including the global elite (Chapter 5; see also Trentman & Diao, 2017). If students are able to contest monolingual language ideologies abroad, they may be better equipped to do this at home as well. This attention to language use and identity negotiation, and connections to larger issues of global inequities may permit learners to go beyond the discourses of intercultural contact alone as conflict resolution that permeate views of study abroad (Trentman & Diao, 2017). In this sense, the goal of this edited volume is multi-fold. Collectively and individually, we provide a critique of the monolingual imaginings of study abroad students, their destinations, and their interlocutors abroad. We demonstrate how taking a critical multilingual approach to study abroad provides insights on the structural inequities of our time, and the cultural forces that operate on these inequalities and effectively regulate who speaks what language when. As we finalize this volume, the COVID19 pandemic is disrupting many aspects of our lives and throwing into sharp relief the ways in which White supremacy shapes our lived experiences. In terms of study abroad, new institutional policies, travel restrictions and border closures have severely restrained study abroad opportunities, including for members of the global elite unused to such limitations. As we await the movement of study abroad students to regain its previous momentum, we can take this time to deepen our understandings of the larger geopolitical and sociocultural forces that shape study abroad and student mobility. We can also turn our attention to the multilingual practices and cultural connections that exist virtually and within local communities, and that are all too often overlooked, or perceived as inferior opportunities compared with study abroad. With these insights,

Introduction 11

rather than simply resuming study abroad, we can reimagine language learning in more critically multilingual and socially just ways. References Anya, U. (2017) Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. New York: Routledge. Beacco, J-C. and Byram, M. (2007) From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe. See https:// rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802fc1c4 (accessed December 19, 2018). Blommaert, J. (2010) The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2016) Embodied sociolinguistics. In N. Coupland (ed.) Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates (pp. 173–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canagarajah, S. and Liyanage, I. (2012) Lessons from pre-colonial multilingualism. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge and A. Creese (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (pp. 49–65). New York: Routledge. Celic, C. and Seltzer, K. (2011) Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. CUNY-NYSIEB. New York. See https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/04/Translanguaging-Guide-March-2013.pdf (accessed November 15, 2020). Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2015) Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, D.P., Belnap, R.K. and Hillstrom, R. (2013) Social network development, language use, and language acquisition during study abroad: Arabic language learners’ perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 22, 84–110. Flores, N. (2013) The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and ­plurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly 47, 500–520. Flores, N. and Rosa, J. (2015) Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review 85, 149–171. García, O. and Li Wei (2014) Translanguaging. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Geoghegan, L. and Pérez-Vidal, C. (2019) English as a lingua franca, motivation, and identity in study abroad. In M. Howard (ed.) Study Abroad, Second Language Acquisition and Interculturality (pp. 103–135). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Heller, M. (2010) The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology 39, 101–114. Heller, M. and McElhinny, B. (2017) Language, Capitalism, Colonialism: Toward a Critical History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Institute of International Education (2018) Open Doors Report on international educational exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors (accessed June 25, 2019). Kachru, Y. (1994) Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly 28, 795–800. Kinginger, C. (2009) Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kinginger, C. (2019) Four questions for the next generation of study abroad researchers. In M. Howard (ed.) Study Abroad, Second Language Acquisition and Interculturality (pp. 263–278). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kramsch, C. (2009) The Multilingual Subject. New York: Oxford University Press. Llanes, A. (2019) Study abroad as a context for learning English as an international language: An exploratory study. In M. Howard (ed.) Study Abroad, Second Language Acquisition and Interculturality (pp. 136–154). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

12  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Li Wei (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39 (1), 9–30. Makalela, L. (2015) Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education 29, 200–217. Makalela, L. (2017) Translanguaging practices in a South African institution of higher learning: A case of Ubuntu multilingual return. In C.M. Mazak and K.S. Carroll (eds) Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies (pp. 11–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (2005) Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 2, 137–156. Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (2012) From monological multilingualism to multilingual francas. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge and A. Creese (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (pp. 439–453). New York: Routledge. May, S. (2014) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education (1st edn). New York: Routledge. Mazak, C.M. (2017) Introduction: Theorizing translanguaging practices in higher education. In C.M. Mazak and K.S. Carroll (eds) Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies (pp. 1–10). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mazak, C.M. and Carroll, K.S. (2017) Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N. and McManus, K. (2017) Anglophone Students Abroad: Identity, Social Relationships, and Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Mori, J. and Sanuth, K.K. (2018) Navigating between a monolingual utopia and translingual realities: Experiences of American learners of Yorùbá as an additional language. Applied Linguistics 39, 78–98. New London Group (1996) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66, 60–93. Ortega, L. (2013) SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning 63, 1–24. Otheguy, R., García, O. and Reid, W. (2015) Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6, 281–307. Park, J.S.Y. (2009) The Local Construction of a Global Language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Piccardo, E. (2013) Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Toward a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly 47, 600–614. doi: 10.2307/43268036. Piccardo, E. (2017) Plurilingualism: vision, conceptualization, and practices. In P.P. Trifonas and T. Aravossitas (eds) Handbook of Research and Practice in Heritage Language Education (pp. 207–225). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Rosa, J. and Flores, N. (2017) Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society 46, 621–647. Trentman, E. and Diao, W. (2017) The American gaze east: Discourses and destinations of US study abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 2, 175–205. Trentman, E. (2021) Reframing monolingual ideologies in the language classroom: Evidence from Arabic study abroad and telecollaboration. In B. Dupuy and K. Mitchelson (eds) Pathways to Paradigm Change: Critical Examinations of Prevailing Discourses and Ideologies in Second Language Education (pp. 108–132). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Tullock, B. and Ortega, L. (2017) Fluency and multilingualism in study abroad: Lessons from a scoping review. System 71, 7–21. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2017.09.019. Young, R. (2008) Language and Interaction: An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge.

1 Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania: Learning Swahili through Akan/Twi and Cultures of Storytelling Jamie A. Thomas

Introduction: A Multilingual Language Classroom at an East African University1

In urban Dar es Salaam, the principle economic center of Tanzania, life is rapidly changing. From a Tanzanian perspective, the widespread impacts of international development, formal education and digital culture in East Africa have turned attention to music videos, movies and computers, and away from the oral storytelling that has entertained for centuries. This urgent issue prompts Magdeline, 2 a professor and instructor of Swahili language, to raise the subject with her students. The University of Dar es Salaam, where she teaches, has for many decades participated in international education as an active site of study abroad and language learning for hundreds of non-Tanzanians each year. Within contexts of Swahili language learning it is customary to refer to instructors as Mwalimu, or Teacher, and Mwalimu Magdeline communicates freely across Swahili and English in class. Even as her students come from a variety of study abroad programs and home countries, including Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana, Italy and the USA, they all understand her mocking of bilingual teenager-speak: Kwa sababu ya maendeleo, watu wanapenda sana kusikiliza muziki, kuangalia labda filamu. Lakini zile hadithi za kusimuliwa kwa mdomo, ‘Ah. You are wasting my time! You know, mimi nimezaliwa kipindi cha kompyuta! Kwa hiyo napotezea muda! Kwa sababu unazungumza, unazungumza.’ […] Kwa hiyo, kidogo utamaduni wa kusimulia hadithi, kwetu kama Tanzania, unapungua. ((kimya zaidi)) Unapungua. ((kunong’onezea)) Unapungua. 13

14  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Because of development, people really like listening to music, watching films perhaps. But those stories narrated orally, ‘Ah. You are wasting my time! You know, I was born in the digital age! So that wastes my time! Because you talk on and on.’ […] Therefore, little by little the culture of oral storytelling, here in Tanzania, is declining. ((quieter)) Declining. ((whispering)) Declining. 3

Mwalimu Magdeline’s voice lowering for dramatic effect, it communicates her interest in rescuing the importance of Swahili storytelling. She also uses the Swahili and English typical of formally educated Tanzanian city-dwellers for whom English, in particular, connotes digital culture and international modernity. Dividing the languages above the phrasal level, her bilingual speech avoids the morphosyntactic comingling characteristic of many Swahili-English speakers (e.g. Blommaert, 1992; Githiora, 2018; Myers-Scotton, 1995).4 As a result, her crosslinguistic behavior communicates ideological investment in Swahili and English as separate named languages. In this way, Mwalimu Magdeline’s opening monologue begins the intermediate-level Swahili language class by intimating tensions in the social status of Swahili and English. Her explicit reference to maendeleo (development) distills her view of how English enters Tanzania from the outside and disrupts Swahili’s cultural ecosystems through its technologized appeal. Her critique suggests Swahili monolingualism as an antidote to increased use of English. This frames the formal teaching of Swahili as an opportunity to push back on the encroachment of English in Tanzania, and foreshadows how the day’s class will emphasize both Swahili monolingualism and cultural practice. Mwalimu Magdeline will go on to speak in Swahili at least 80% of the time. Language in the Tanzanian study abroad context consequently presents as a site of contested identity, cultural continuity, modernity, globalization and economic development. This bears similarity to study abroad in Ibadan, Nigeria, where US learners are encouraged to eschew the reality of Yoruba-English-Igbo multilingualism through a monolingually oriented Yoruba language curriculum (Mori & Sanuth, 2018). That study abroad program’s language ideology parallels Nigerian popular discourse in its concern over English as a threat to indigenous languages. According to Mori and Sanuth (2018: 84), local news articles discuss ‘Why Nigerian Languages Are Dying,’ and ‘urge parents to start speaking to their children in “mother tongue” at home, and call for music, TV programs, and films featuring Nigerian languages.’ This draws apt comparison to the intergenerational disjuncture described by Mwalimu Magdeline in Tanzania (also a former British colony) with regard to youth favoring English in media consumption that weakens their interest in Swahili oral storytelling. Community-engaged scholars and practitioners in Thailand (Tossa, 2008) and Zimbabwe (Nhongo, 2017) also report local language

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  15

endangerment as related to shifts in folktale socialization facilitated by children’s increasing consumption of media presented in hegemonic language varieties. In this chapter, I draw upon extracts of interviews and classroom talkin-interaction to detail the participation and experience of five Ghanaian study abroad learners of Swahili in postcolonial Tanzania. These data come from over 200 hours of recorded audio gathered in Tanzania as part of a broader ethnographic project on transnational Swahili identity and language learning (Thomas, 2021). Contextualized through ethnographic vignettes, key moments of this classroom activity illustrate how Swahili, Akan/Twi and English, as spoken by Ghanaian learners, contribute to cross-cultural reflection on the importance of Swahili storytelling. Developing an interactional microanalysis (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Moore, 2006a) of these vignettes, I show how this multilingual engagement responds to the Mwalimu’s (Teacher’s) efforts to draw students into the cultural and linguistic hallmarks of Swahili storytelling through discussion of their own home languages as fountains of unique storytelling cultures. These Ghanaian learners come to be at the University of Dar es Salaam after having studied Swahili at their home university in Accra, the West African capital city of Ghana, where the teaching of Swahili is part of a decades-long success story in intra-African cooperation. In fact, the widespread historical promotion and modern visibility of Swahili has made it recognizable as a transnational lingua franca across East and Central Africa, and a language of the African Union (e.g. Mazrui & Mazrui, 1998; Topan, 2008). As a result, Pan-African theorists have long considered Swahili in their discussions of the cultural and political unity of the African World, including the African Diaspora (Armah, 1985; Chacha, 2003; Carruthers, 1999; Mutembei, 2011). Memorably, in 2008, a former Tanzanian ambassador to the African Union publicly stated his support for the governing body’s commitment to promoting Swahili, saying: ‘Your struggle for institutionalizing one Pan-African language as a cultural identity for Africans will be continued’ (BBC News, 2009). However, the teaching of Swahili to African nationals remains understudied. For these reasons, the study abroad context in Dar es Salaam, with its multilingual instructor and wide variety of multilingual learners, presents a compelling microcosm of the intricate linguistic realities in a postcolonial African country. This chapter’s focus on African learners also makes visible a gap in research on international education and the learning of African languages. Publications on ‘study abroad in Africa’ overwhelmingly concern the elective sojourns of non-African learners from the Global North. Some accounts describe learners who engage in ‘educational tourism’ (Correia, 2011) to improve ability in ex-colonial languages such as English (e.g. Koreans in South Africa – Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2008). However, the literature also concentrates on US American students in

16  Language Learning in Study Abroad

short- and long-term academic programs (e.g. Cameroon – Amin, 2014; Ghana – Boateng & Thompson, 2013; South Africa – Paola & Lemmer, 2013) and focused study of African languages (e.g. Yoruba in Nigeria – Mori & Sanuth, 2018; Arabic in Egypt – Trentman, 2013; Swahili in Tanzania – Higgins, 2011). These research priorities would seem to suggest African nationals do not ‘study abroad’, and that African languages are most valued as additional languages by non-African nationals. This chapter, however, provides ethnographic evidence to the contrary, through focus on a South–South context of intracontinental study abroad. These data also add nuance to previous observations that African university students in Libya, Botswana, Tanzania and elsewhere are less interested in African languages (Batibo, 2003; Mtesigwa, 2009), even as Swahili remains the world’s most studied African language (e.g. Moshi, 2006, 2011; Thomas, 2009, 2011, 2021). Study Abroad in Africa: Creating ‘Global Citizens’

In 2010, African nationals accounted for nearly 10% of the world’s international students (Marshall, 2013). Of those 380,376 African students, 15% chose South Africa. This compares with the 29.2% who chose France, the UK (9.7%), the USA (9.7%), Germany (4.7%) and Malaysia (3.9%), in addition to Italy, Australia, Morocco and Angola and other countries. These students’ experiences are largely reported through studies that deprioritize the international academic experiences of African nationals, focusing instead on benefits to host countries, programs and universities. These include deficit discussions of ‘African academic mobility’ (e.g. Knight & Woldegiorgis, 2017), the ‘internationalization’ and ‘regionalization’ of African universities (e.g. Itaaga et al., 2013), and ‘adjustment’ to campus life abroad (e.g. UK – Maundeni, 2001; Malaysia – Lian, 2011). Similarly, the term global citizen surfaces in descriptions of Ghana as beneficial to American students. According to the School for International Training (SIT), a US-led institute that has operated undergraduate study abroad programs and graduate-level studies in some 40 countries since the 1960s, seminars and time spent among ‘elders, chiefs, healers, scholars, students, families, and townspeople – in settings ranging from classrooms to remote villages,’ guide Americans in ‘how to live as a responsible citizen in a globalizing world’ (Bellamy & Weinberg, 2006: 20). These statements portray Ghanaian people as a direct resource for American students abroad without mention of any educational or other benefit to Ghanaians. Altogether, these study abroad discourses reflect a Western conceptual priority on the Global North that reproduces inequality (Trentman & Diao, 2017) and ‘extractive capitalism’ (Coffman, 2000: 52), even in and through (Global) Southern contexts. This effectively extends colonial

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  17

relationships that have used formal education as a means of marginalizing and exploiting African identities, knowledges and languages for centuries (Dzahene-Quarshie & Moshi, 2014; Fabian, 1986; Irvine, 2008; Makoni & Meinhof, 2003). However, these predatory inequalities have not gone unnoticed by Africa-focused study abroad scholars and practitioners. In fact, multiple contributions to the 2000 special issue of African Issues (journal of the African Studies Association) have called for more critical study, intra-African collaboration and pedagogical innovation in Africabased international education (e.g. Camara, 2000; Coffman, 2000; GroszNgaté et al., 2000). The present chapter responds to these calls by centering both the international experiences of African university students, and their academic participation in African host countries. Multilingual Africa: From Tanzania to Ghana Between multilingualism and language ideology

Given the everyday, highly multilingual practices of many Africans (e.g. Githiora, 2018; Ntarangwi, 2016), it might be expected that languages are used freely in Africa’s social environments. However, language use across Africa is complicated by cultural mores and ongoing, top-down ideologies brought by centuries of colonial exploitation and Christian missionary practice prioritizing German (Pugach, 2012), English (Mazrui & Mazrui, 1998) or French (Fabian, 1983), among other languages. These language ideologies persist in the public sphere and formal education across the continent (Beck, 2010; Brock-Utne, 2010; Irvine & Gal, 2000). Some official policies contravene the everyday languaging of people who may regularly use as many as six named languages, between SMS/text messaging (Lexander, 2011), contexts of informal and formal learning (Moore, 2006a; Qorro, 2009), advertising (Juffermans, 2012; Mutonya, 2008) and entertainment (Suriano, 2011; Thompson, 2010). In The Gambia, for example, monolingual teaching of English diverges from local multilingualism, which patterns more closely with translingual notions, given that multiple language use is a necessary aspect of local Black identity (Juffermans & Van Camp, 2013). Multilingualism is conceived as a way of speaking unto itself; the interactional manifestation of a broad linguistic repertoire that may include several named languages. Accordingly, Makoni and Meinhof (2003, 2006) remind applied linguists of the importance of examining our own disciplinary assumptions when it comes to African languages. ‘Native speakers are displaced as legitimate experts of their “own” languages’ as a result of enduring focus on formal Western training as a marker of language expertise (Makoni & Meinhof, 2006: 125). Given the longstanding outsider status of Africanist linguistics (and my own background as an African American linguist), it is important to acknowledge how speakers and authors in African countries

18  Language Learning in Study Abroad

may already be forging a ‘postmodern perspective’ on languaging (Juffermans & Van Camp, 2013: 152) that renders the linguist’s traditional obsession with identifying which ‘language’ is which much less pertinent than understanding how and why people are making meaning. For these reasons, in this chapter I intentionally center the voices of African research participants, and cite academic texts published in Swahili, as well as those by Tanzanian and other African scholars and pedagogues. Approaching language(s) in this way can be empowering and rewarding for linguists and speakers alike. With specific attention to the formal teaching of African languages in a South African context of Western education, applied linguist Leketi Makalela (2015: 213) describes how pedagogy that transmits value in Indigenous and home languages, including Zulu, Xhosa, Ndebele and Swati, results in ‘liberating teachers’ multivocal competencies.’ Use of African languages within African classrooms empowers Indigenous epistemologies and leads to increased vocabulary development and cognitive gains for learners. Swahili as Tanzanian national identity

Tanzania has a population of over 53 million people who use some 125 languages. As the national language, Swahili is principle among these, in addition to Sukuma, Haya, Hehe, Makonde, Nyamwezi and Arabic. Limited, but co-official, use of English in formal education and government makes the country an Outer Circle context (cf. Kachru et al., 2009). Swahili is also spoken by over 100 million people across eastern Africa countries including Kenya, as well as regions of Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia and the Comoros Islands, in addition to Oman. Today, Standard Swahili is the world’s most taught African language, a profile that builds upon its ­centuries-long history at the confluence of Bantu-speaking cultures, Indian Ocean economies and medieval Islamic Sultanates along the ­eastern African coast (Mazrui, 2007). Prior to Tanzania’s 1961 independence from Britain, Swahili was used in grassroots organizing by Mwalimu Julius Nyerere and others across Tanganyika and Zanzibar, colonies that would later form the United Republic of Tanzania with Nyerere as president, and shift toward Swahili as the language of formal primary education (Topan, 2008). During and after the 1960s, Swahili monolingualism was encouraged as part of language planning and policies of Swahilization that constructed Swahili as a key component of Tanzanian national identity, alongside socialism and anticolonialism (Blommaert, 2014). At the same time, English persists as the language of instruction in Tanzanian secondary and tertiary education, with prestige deriving from

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  19

its empowerment during British colonial rule. English is preferred to Swahili in some settings, even as ‘the contemporary Tanzanian will still be recognizable by the common use of Swahili’, and new and emerging ways of speaking continue to expand the notion of Swahili (Blommaert, 2014: 148). Language in Ghana

It was during Nyerere’s presidency that Tanzania partnered with Ghana, another former British colony with a prior history of German colonial rule, for the promotion of Swahili more than 3000 miles beyond East Africa. Different from Tanzania, however, independent Ghana continued on with English as its language of education, a policy that has succeeded in pushing local languages further to the periphery, even as these are the languages most Ghanaians use (Anyidoho & Kropp Dakubu, 2008). Still, Ghana’s first president, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, publicly championed Swahili as part of his vision that ‘the independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked up with a total liberation of the African continent’ (Nkrumah, 1968: 62). Consequently, after Ghana’s independence from Britain in 1957, the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation produced a daily and weekly Swahili radio service throughout the 1960s and 1970s, with contributions from an external correspondent in Dar es Salaam (Dzahene-Quarshie, 2013). Those Swahili radio broadcasts added to the existing multilingualism of Ghana’s more than 80 languages, 50 of which are non-mutually intelligible (Anyidoho & Kropp Dakubu, 2008). Twi, a tonal language associated with Akan culture, has multiple dialects/varieties and is spoken by at least half of Ghana’s 27 million people, with more than 8 million first-language users (Dolphyne, 2006; Ethnologue, 2018), owing to the way Ghana’s colonial geography subsumed the 19th century borders of the Akan Empire. Ewe and Ga are also major languages in Ghana, in addition to the Guan languages, Hausa and Ghanaian Pidgin English (mostly in use across urban Accra). As Akosua Anyidoho and M.E. Kropp Dakubu (2008: 152) explain, Akan is used as an ethnographic label and ‘an umbrella term for the mutually intelligible varieties of the language’, including ‘all the varieties commonly known as “Twi” – Asante, Akyem, Akuapem, Akwamu, Wassa, etc. …’ As a result, formal references to Twi vary somewhat, but typically also acknowledge the Akan cultural group and language family, often using parentheticals as in ‘Twi (Akan)’ or ‘Akan (Twi)’, or a slash as in ‘Akan/Twi’. Here, I use Akan/Twi as a way of mutually referring to the culture and language, much as the notion of Swahili encompasses both culture and language (Mazrui, 2007).

20  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Swahili at the University of Ghana

In 1964, Ghana and Tanzania collaborated to found a Swahili language program at the University of Ghana and sponsor a select number of Ghanaian students to study abroad in Tanzania. This has continued for no less than 50 years. A member of the Swahili language teaching faculty at the University of Ghana, Josephine Dzahene-Quarshie (2013: 76) has documented the history of Swahili instruction there: To enhance the Combined Major programme by producing students with high-level language proficiency, deserving third year students are sent to the University of Dar es Salaam for a one-year study abroad programme. The One Year Abroad Programme was instituted in the mid-1960s and has been sustained to-date. Over the years, it has been tenable at different periods in Kenya, Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania.

Today, Swahili continues to be taught at the University of Ghana as the only Indigenous African language among its offerings in modern languages, which include the following: Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish. The Present Study: Ghanaians on Study Abroad in Tanzania

This chapter features data collected through participant observations in an intermediate-level Swahili class of 18 students at the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) in Tanzania, in addition to several hours of recorded interviews with learners. Classroom data correspond with 92 minutes of audio and video from two consecutive class meetings in December 2011, well into the first semester of the academic year. By that point, I had become a regular attendee in Mwalimu Magdeline’s class, participating in each class meeting to learn more about how Swahili was being taught to study abroad students. My class observations were regularly complemented by informal participation with learners and instructors in their separate activities beyond the language classroom, both on and off campus. I came to these contexts of language use as an African American woman researcher, having grown up in English language schooling. I learned Swahili in the USA at Washington University in St Louis, and through study abroad in Kenya and Tanzania (Group Projects Abroad Program in advanced Swahili), and continue as a lifelong learner of the language. The intermediate-level Swahili class met twice on Mondays and once on Thursdays to work around students’ varied class schedules at UDSM. 5 English was the university’s official language of instruction, as well as the default lingua franca of the international student population. In addition to speaking English, participants in the Swahili class all spoke language(s) popularly associated with their home countries. Learners from Ghana were speakers of Akan/Twi, Ewe and Ga; learners from China variously

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  21

spoke Mandarin and Cantonese; those from Germany spoke German; French learners shared French; an Italian learner spoke Italian. However, these learners rarely used their home languages in the classroom space. Many also variously resisted speaking English in favor of Swahili, as they were intent on improving their ability in Swahili and being perceived as Swahili-speakers. Mwalimu Magdeline also spoke at least two Tanzanian home languages in addition to Swahili and English. As the classroom talk developed over these two meetings in December 2011, I observed Swahili spoken by all of the learners. Here, I focus on the linguistic behavior of the five Ghanaian learners in the class, as they were the most robust participants in these consecutive class meetings. Through multilingual interviews with these Ghanaian university students, all aged in their 20s, and described here as Eloise, Felix, Gladys, Happiness and Ivy (see Table 1.1), I gained a closer understanding of how they came to study Swahili in Tanzania. Each had been assigned the Swahili major upon admission to the University of Ghana, even though they knew little about the language at the time. As Gladys put it: I got into Swahili when I received my admission letter. And I started to inquire about the course, and I was told it’s even a language. So I didn’t think of taking it that far. As time went on, I was falling in love with the language itself. (Emphasis mine)

According to Gladys and Happiness, Swahili was one of the least popular and most ‘stigmatized’ majors at their campus in Accra. Peers often doubted the merit of studying Swahili, as opposed to French or Chinese: ‘What can you do with Swahili? What can you use it for?’ However, by their third year of study, in-class presentations by successful Ghanaian Table 1.1  Language profiles of the Ghanaian learners of Swahili

Eloise

Age

First language(s)

From kindergarten

Additional language(s) learned in secondary school

Languages learned formally and informally at university

Undergraduate major(s)

24

Ga

English

French, Akan/Twi

Swahili

Swahili

Felix

–

Akan/Twi

English

–

Swahili

Swahili

Gladys

–

Akan/Twi

English

French

Swahili

Political Science & Swahili

Happiness

–

Ewe, Akan/ Twi

English

French

Swahili

Sociology & Swahili

Ivy

25

Fante, Akan/ English, Akan/ French Twi Twi

Swahili, Ga

Swahili

22  Language Learning in Study Abroad

speakers of Swahili helped to make clear that bilingual careers were possible, potentially as language instructors, or professionals with Kenya Airways and Tanzania-based satellites of ECOWAS Bank. 6 Now in her fourth year, Happiness saw in Swahili some of same career potential she had previously imagined for French, adding: After 300-level [3 years of study] we get to interact with the natives. The government fully sponsors only 5 students so it makes you feel like studying Swahili is important. (Emphasis mine)

In this year abroad, Happiness was excited to see ‘how far language can take you,’ while Gladys was embracing the challenge of Swahili by ‘going out of [her] comfort zone.’ Findings Ethnographic vignette #1: Introducing story as monolingual cultural activity

At the start of class, the instructor (T), Mwalimu Magdeline, welcomes students into the classroom and immediately introduces stories as the focus of the day’s language lesson, eliciting responses from individual students (S), as well as multiple students (Ss). As she speaks from the front of the university classroom, she describes story(ies) as unique. In her view, this uniqueness derives from the language in which the stories are told, a point she underscores by naming story(ies) in relation to additional languages spoken by individual learners in the room. Each language she names is denoted by the Swahili prefix Ki-, as in Kiswahili (the endonym for ‘Swahili language’). Because she continually presents story as a language-specific concept, I translate hadithi ya Kiswahili as ‘Swahililanguage story’. Mwalimu Magdeline’s description of the Swahili-language story eventually brings about her remarks on the tragic decline of Swahili storytelling in Tanzania. Extract 1.1

1

T:

2 3 4 5

S: T:

6

Ss:

Karibu! Welcome! [2.5]7 Sa:sa::, [.] leo:: tunajifunza:: kuhusu:: hadi:thi:. No::w today:: we’re learning:: about:: sto:rie:s. ((whispering in German to another learner)) [Tunajifunza kuhusu nini? We are learning about what? Hadi[thi. Stories.

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  23

 7 T:

 8

 9

10

11 12 13 14 S:

[Hadithi. Nani anajua ‘hadithi’? [.] Nani anajua ‘hadithi ya Stories. Who knows ‘story’? Who knows Kiswahili’? [.] Mmoja. Ya Kiswahili? [.] Una ha—hadithi ya Kiswahili, what a ‘Swahili-language story’ is? [.] One person.8A Swahililanguage one? [.] You have a stor—Swahili-language story, ((to Italian learner)) Wewe unajua hadithi ya Kiingereza? Hadithi ya Do you know an English-language story?9 An Kiingereza? Ya Kiitaliano? Unajua? Au unajua hadithi ya: English-language story? An Italian one? Do you know? Or do you know a story of Kiingereza pia? ((to class)) Lakini, sisi leo tunata:ka: English too. But, we today we wa:nt kujifunza: ((bobs body enthusiastically)) to lear:n hadi:thi: [.] ya: Ki-[swa-hi:-li. Swa:hi:li:-language sto:rie:s. [((smiles, twice pumps both fists in air above head))

In these moments from the start of class, Mwalimu Magdeline’s communication style draws attention to hadithi (story) through repetition, word stretches, and bodily movement. Particularly in line 13, Mwalimu Magdeline stretches out the individual syllables of hadithi ya Kiswahili (Swahili-language story), as she bobs her body for additional effect. This movement gives visual dimension to her segmental wording of hadithi ya Kiswahili into constituent syllables. Though speakers of Swahili regularly stress the penultimate syllable of all words (with few exceptions), the teacher’s performance goes beyond this to deliver dramatic effect. This encourages a kinetic response in one student from Germany, who without saying anything verbally, smiles and raises her arms overhead to pump her fists in the air. Witnessing this in real time, I interpreted this nonverbal expression as the learner’s genuine display of both comprehension and interest in Swahili storytelling. All throughout this segment of talk, Mwalimu Magdeline associates story with Swahili, English and Italian, putting Swahili on equal footing with these languages. Moving around the classroom, she comes to stand before a learner from Italy (lines 7–8). She invites the young woman to respond by addressing her in the second person as wewe (‘you’), and mentioning both English and Italian, languages the learner is known to

24  Language Learning in Study Abroad

comprehend. After receiving no significantly audible response from the shy learner, Mwalimu Magdeline’s pivot back to addressing the whole class makes clear that the Swahili-language story is for everyone. In this way, she meaningfully incorporates critical awareness of learners’ multilingualism into descriptions of Swahili language and cultural practice as uniquely important, while presenting story as a monolingual, ethnolinguistic activity. As the class period continues, the teacher introduces the structure of the Swahili-language story. This begins with the story’s opening call-andresponse routine, which she writes on the chalkboard in all capital letters (which I copied into my field notes). The call is initiated by the msimuliaji (narrator or storyteller), and Mwalimu Magdeline takes on this role as she coaxes us into repeating aloud each line of the call and response, until we reach a confident unison: ‘Hadithi, hadithi! Hadithi njoo! Uongo njoo! Utamu kolea! (Story, story! May the story come! May the lie come! Enhance the sweetness!)’ Mwalimu Magdeline uses the chalkboard to explain the roles of the narrator and audience in Swahili storytelling. She draws a large bracket to the left of the words to indicate they are all part of the same formula (see Figure 1.1). Then, continuing her performance as narrator, she initiates the routine by calling out ‘Hadithi, hadithi!’ (line 63), and encourages the class to respond with increasing volume and enthusiasm. In Extract 1.2, the scripted routine is repeated in lines 69–70.

Figure 1.1  My notes of Mwalimu Magdeline’s explanation on the chalkboard10

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  25

Extract 1.2

63 T: 64 Ss: 65 T: 66 Ss: 67 T: 68 Ss: 69 T:

70 Ss:

Unaweza kujaribu? Haya. Hadithi, hadithi! Can you try? Okay. Story, story! Hadi[thi ((fading voices)) njoo. May the story come. [((louder)) Hadithi njoo. [Uwongo njoo. May the story come. May the lie come. [Uwongo njoo. May the lie come. ((louder still)) [Utamu kolea! Enhance the sweetness! [Utamu kolea. Enhance the sweetness. Ndiyo. Tena kidogo! Hadithi, hadithi! ((outstretches hand to class)) Yes. Again just a little bit! Story, story! Hadithi njoo, uwongo njoo, utamu kolea. May the story come, may the lie come, enhance the sweetness.11

Outside of the language classroom, use of the Swahili-language story opener Hadithi, hadithi, or introduction, as Mwalimu Magdeline later refers to it, is documented in other avenues of East African life. These words are used to begin stories that relay a community’s history and literature, and chronicle the collection of lessons and social values the storyteller (as community representative) deems important (Agan, 2006; Vuorela, 2009). For example, orphaned children, living in street communities in Tanzania’s Kilimanjaro region, could be heard calling out ‘Hadithi, hadithi’ when initiating the telling of a story to one another (Nalkur, 2009: 1025). In Kenya, too, these words are used for the same purpose at the start of ‘Fireside Tales’ (Agan, 2006). In Msoga, a small coastal community in the Bagamoyo District of Tanzania, a girl began her story by calling out, ‘Hadithi, hadithi! Hadithi njoo!’ (Vuorela, 2009: 271). And back in the small island community of Chole Mjini, in the Mafia archipelago off the coast of the Tanzanian mainland, stories often begin with solicitations by children. As folktale ethnographer Lowell Brower (2001: 18) recalls of his stay in Chole: I was soon found by a giggling and screaming band of village children who took me by the hand and lead (sic) me to storytellers yelling ‘Hadithi njoo! Uongo (sic) njoo! Utamu kolea!’ or simply shrieking ‘hadithi, hadithi, hadithi, hadithi’.

26  Language Learning in Study Abroad

The stories these children ask for are known as hadithi za uwongo, or ‘stories of lies,’ as Brower came to understand them. Somewhat paradoxically, these stories of lies are full of cultural truths and descriptions of fabled heroes and tricksters, personified animals, and mentions of distant pasts. While in Chole, Brower (2001: 22) spoke with a local kindergarten teacher who described Swahili-language stories as tools of socialization: Stories teach many things. They teach children why not to eat sugar on the way home from the store. They teach why not to throw garbage in the ocean. They teach why not to sit in the sun for a long period of time. They teach why not to hurt people. They teach why not to cut down big trees like mango trees and baobabs. They teach good manners. They teach about life. They teach everything, stories teach everything.

Following Brower’s detailed, field-based accounts (2001, 2010) and those of others (e.g. Eastman, 1984; Senkoro, 2006; Vuorela, 2009) Swahili-language stories may be understood as both narrative-historical and didactic events of oral literature or fasihi simulizi that perform interactive acts of knowledge transmission. The story can involve methali (proverbs), vitendawili (riddles) and sometimes nyimbo (songs) and other linguistic innovations (e.g. Finnegan, 1970). In order to accomplish story, the storyteller (as narrator) and audience have a necessarily symbiotic relationship, consolidated through the Hadithi, hadithi call-and-response routine or kiitikio (chorus), as Swahili language instructor and Tanzanian research professor Senkoro (2006: 5) describes it: Hadhira, sawa na mtambaji, ni muhimu sana katika uelezwaji na upokelewaji wa fasihi simulizi. Hadhira ni kichocheo kinachoimarisha uelezwaji na utambwaji wa fasihi hii. Huongezea ari ya ubunifu wa mtambaji, na wakati mwingine huweza hata kumsahihisha au kumsaili mtambaji. Mara kwa mara hadhira pia huwa sehemu ya utambaji kwa kushiriki katika sehemu mbalimbali, kwa mfano, penye kiitikio, mkarara na matumizi ya nyimbo, kutegua vitendawili, kumalizia methali, na hata kupiga makofi. The audience, as well as the narrator, is very important in the delivery and receiving of oral literature. The audience is the impetus which strengthens the delivery and narration of this literature. [The audience] often adds to the narrator’s creative enthusiasm, and at other times it can even correct or question the narrator. Sometimes the audience also becomes a part of the narration through participation in various components, for example, in the chorus, refrain and use of songs, decoding of riddles, completion of proverbs, and even by clapping.

As important as Swahili storytelling is in Tanzania, it is nevertheless undergoing an observable shift. Rural Chole elders and teachers lament that children ‘get their stories from school now,’ that ‘there is no storytelling’ (Brower, 2001: 6).12 Many of Chole’s 800 community members cite the recent influx of outside visitors and tourists, and the building of the

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  27

formal primary school as reasons for the decrease in the telling of stories. It is perhaps because of this general decline in the telling of stories that Mwalimu Magdeline wants to push back in her capacity as a Swahili language professor. In this way, it appears that the Mwalimu is attempting to pass on the storytelling skill to these new Swahili-speakers – her international students – just as she would to children in her home community, by coaching them to use specific Swahili cultural-linguistic and stylistic parameters. Under her direction, the telling of Swahili-language stories becomes a measure of Standard Swahili communicative competence within the study abroad classroom. Ethnographic vignette #2: Re-establishing crosslinguistic awareness

In guiding the class to practice the formulaic routine of Hadithi, hadithi by repeating it aloud, Mwalimu Magdeline teaches Swahili narrative storytelling through guided repetition after Moore (2004, 2006a), and narrative socialization after Ochs and Capps (2001). Similar repetition practices are also key to storytelling as taught by the Fulbe of Maroua, Cameroon in West Africa, where expert adult storytellers aim to socialize novice children in culturally appropriate storytelling. These practices have the effect of codifying storytelling through the rehearsal and performance of associated cultural scripts, including call-and-response routines. As apart from Dar es Salaam, where Mwalimu Magdeline was teaching storytelling in her language class, in Maroua, linguistic anthropologist Leslie Moore (2006b: 176) took notice of a shift in the apprenticeship of new, young storytellers away from ‘informal nighttime gathering[s] of women and children’ and into a practice that patterned after the imitation routines and rote learning preferred in local Qur’anic and public schooling. Similar to the situation in Tanzania, these changes in Cameroonian storytelling socialization responded to cultural shifts towards practices viewed as ‘modern’, and consistent with the non-local languages of Arabic and French, as opposed to local Fulbe or Fulani. Given these newly formalized practices in storytelling socialization, Moore concluded that folktales were being increasingly taught explicitly to children. Miles away from Maroua, in Dar es Salaam, it is a similar sense of formalized storytelling socialization that is taking hold in the university language classroom. As the structure of the Swahili-language story becomes more familiar to learners, Mwalimu Magdeline pauses to use guided repetition and English translation as tools for focusing classroom talk on the meaning of individual words comprising the call-and-response storytelling script. These moments of talk elicit responses from multiple learners (Ss), and Gladys (G), in particular. This further socializes learners into an understanding of the Swahili-language story as genre and

28  Language Learning in Study Abroad

performance. On the part of the learners, the English translations are quick and forthcoming until they arrive at kolea (enhance) in line 80. Instead of offering an immediate English translation, Mwalimu Magdeline (T) launches into an extended example to guide learners toward their own definition for the keyword. Extract 1.3

71 T:

72 Ss: 73 T: 74 Ss: 75 T: 76 Ss: 77 T: 78 Ss: 79 T: 80 S: 81 T: 82 S: 83 T:

84 85 86 87 88 89 90

((points to chalkboard)) Utamu? [.] What is the meaning of ‘utamu’? Sweetness? [.] What is the meaning of ‘sweetness’? Sweetness. Auh! ‘Uwongo’? Auh! ‘Lie’? Lie(s). ‘Hadithi’? ‘Story’? Story. ‘Njoo njoo’? ‘Come come’? Co:m[e? [Come come! ‘Kolea’? ‘Enhance’? ((raises voice)) ‘Kolea’? U::h kama, h::::m ‘Enhance’? U::h like, h::::m ((faint)) ‘Uwongo’. ‘Lie’. Let me say, kwa hiyo, I’m going to use an example for us to get therefore, the correct translation. For example, when you take uh, sugar, and then ((mimes stirring motion with right hand)) you take, or maybe you put it in your tea, or porridge, and then you take that, porridge or tea, then there’s sweetness. What do you say in English? I learn English from ((outstretches hand to class)) you. ((brings hand back into body)) You learn Kiswahili from Swahili me. [3.0 ((mimes a stirring motion))] Ya:h?

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  29

91 G: 92 T: 93 G:

Koru// //Koroga:? Sti:r? Ndiyo. Yes.

As these moments of talk illustrate, the classroom community was accustomed to responding to comprehension checks on specific vocabulary. Beginning with utamu (sweetness) in lines 71–73, these initiationresponse-evaluation (IRE) sequences include the teacher’s evaluative approval, signaled in her exclamation (line 73) and uninterrupted quizzing on the remaining vocabulary (cf. Gutierrez, 1994; Peters & Boggs, 1986). These IRE sequences further result in the translation of uwongo to ‘lie’ (lines 73–74), hadithi to ‘story’ (lines 75–76) and njoo njoo to ‘come come’ (lines 77–79), until a different type of sequence is initiated by a learner in line 80 concerning kolea (enhance). Mwalimu Magdeline interprets this learner’s question as a request that she explain the word’s meaning. In explaining kolea, Mwalimu Magdeline describes adding sugar to ‘your tea, or porridge’ (line 86), and mimes the motion of stirring sugar into a cup or bowl. The result of this added sugar is that ‘there’s sweetness’ (line 87). Then, she prompts learners for explicit evidence of their crosslinguistic awareness by positioning herself as a non-expert speaker of English (even though her English is excellent), asking learners, ‘What do you say in English?’ (lines 87–88). She further asserts the classroom as a crosslinguistic space, saying: ‘I learn English from you. You learn Kiswahili from me’ (lines 89–90), in a sequence of talk concerning ‘the correct translation’ (line 84). She therefore licenses the meaningful coordination of Swahili and English as separate named languages, by creating space for learners to feel like the English-language knowledge they bring with them to the classroom can be a resource in their learning of Swahili. The language professor is positioned as the clear expert in Swahili, as punctuated by her use of the Swahili word ‘Kiswahili’ (line 89) to refer to the language even while she largely speaks English (notice that she does not refer to English as Kiingereza, its Swahili referent). In the final moments of this segment of talk, Gladys (G) brings the conversation back into Swahili with the verb stem koroga (stir) in line 91. Gladys’ attempt is clarified by the Mwalimu in line 92 and its clarification affirmed by Gladys in line 93. This provides an example of how crosslinguistic talk in the study abroad language classroom, while consistent with monolingual ideologies, may support learners’ continued output in the language of focus. The morning Swahili class concludes with further guided repetition of the Swahili-language story. To the story’s opening routine, the Mwalimu adds three other key components, formulating a Swahili storytelling

30  Language Learning in Study Abroad

script: (1) a formulaic routine of opening call and response (Hadithi, hadithi); (2) a past time reference to anchor the storyline (Hapo zamani, or ‘once upon a time’); and (3) story content with a clear moral message, or methali (proverb) to be gleaned. By the end of the morning class, the word hadithi (story) has taken on a new meaning for everyone present, including myself. Under Mwalimu Magdeline’s guidance, we have entered a socialization paradigm facilitating our encounter with the sociocultural meaning of Swahili-language story. The class ends with an assignment to author short stories to be presented in the next class. Ethnographic vignette #3: Akan/Twi enters the crosslinguistic space

After participating mainly as imitators and story-listeners during the morning Swahili class, we grow to take on greater responsibility as storytellers and discussants in the afternoon class. When the class returns that afternoon, Mwalimu Magdeline invites learners to perform their own Swahili-language stories. One by one, learners come to the front of the room to initiate the call-and-response routine, and read aloud stories they have themselves authored, each of which present a moral, or lesson, learned. After these performances, Mwalimu Magdeline responds with positive feedback, thrilled that each of the student storytellers has taken up the culturally didactic purpose of the Swahili-language story. She then initiates a class discussion on the subject, inviting learners to consider language as a signifier of cultural difference. Mwalimu Magdeline asks learners if there is any difference to be discovered between Swahili-language stories and stories of other languages with which they are familiar. By way of example, she (T) mentions English, Korean, and German, as she moves through the room making eye contact with specific students (lines 400–401). Then, coming to stand in front of the day’s most successful storyteller, Gladys (G), one of the Ghanaian learners, she pushes for an answer to her question, with ‘Unajua? (Do you know?)’ (line 402). Extract 1.4

396 T: 397 S: 398 T:

399

Kuna tofauti, yo yote. ‘Tofauti’? Is there a difference, any. ‘Difference’? Difference. Any difference. Kati ya ((points down in reference to location)) Between hadithi za Kiswahili, na hadithi za lugha nyingine, ((makes outward Swahili-language stories, and stories of other languages,

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  31

400

401

402

403 G: 404 T:

swirls with index fingers)) kama Kiingereza, labda, Kikorea, labda, like English, perhaps, Korean, perhaps Ki—Kijeruman, labda, kuna tofauti? Labda? ((moves to stand in Ger—German, perhaps, is there a difference? Perhaps? front of Gladys)) Labda kama ((to Gladys)) wewe. Unajua? Perhaps like you. Do you know? A::h ku:: nu:: to[fauti dogo. A::h [the::re i::s a] small difference. [There is kidogo? a small one?

In raising the question of whether there is any difference between language stories, Mwalimu Magdeline vocalizes a language ideology in which the notion of language is fixed through ethnolinguistic and primordial links to ethnicity and culture (Lewellen, 2002). A story told in such a language will be told in this way, with language determinant of both a story’s cultural style and the storyteller’s identity (as practised and manifested through story itself). Storytelling cultures are therefore regarded as different, language-dependent constructs. This language ideology has the effect of making classroom community members representatives of their home storytelling cultures, particularly as the Mwalimu gestures around the room, calling out their representative languages (lines 399–401). The discussion continues without learner responses until Mwalimu Magdeline moves around the room to put the question to Gladys. In this moment, the Mwalimu displays her specific interest in hearing more from one of her Ghanaian students, with whom she shares Black (racial) and African (ethnic or national) identities. Asking Gladys if she knows of a difference between language stories (line 402), Mwalimu Magdeline illustrates expressed curiosity in her African counterparts. After Gladys replies in the affirmative with a hesitant approximation of existential kuna (there is/ there are) (line 403), Mwalimu Magdeline responds by recasting Gladys’ Swahili into the English ‘There is’ (line 404). As the discussion expands (into Extract 1.5), the teacher (T) asks for more details about the Akan/Twi-language story, specifically whether it is begun with an ‘introduction’ or call-and-response routine similar to that of the Swahili-language story. Her question is met with a response from Gladys, who exchanges knowing looks with Ghanaian peers Eloise, Happiness and Felix. Conferring in this nonverbal way, during Gladys’ pause in speaking, creates an opening for Felix (F) to enter the conversation with the Akan/Twi word for ‘story,’ Anansesεm (line 453).13 Further,

32  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Felix’s use of Akan/Twi encourages Gladys (G) and Ivy (I) to also speak in Akan/Twi in subsequent turns, as they describe the call-and-response routine unique to the Akan/Twi-language story. Across their use of Swahili, Akan/Twi and English, we learn that the call and response of the Akan/Twi-language story begins with ‘Anansesεm sisio (Story happens),’ followed by ‘Sensewaara (Tell me a story).’ Mwalimu Magdeline’s enthusiastic and positive responses all throughout the exchange, including nodding, exclamations, explicit statements, and shared laughter (lines 457, 459, 461), display approval of this crosslinguistic talk. Extract 1.5

448 T: 449 G: 450 T: 451 G:

452 453 F: 454 G: 455 I:

459 G: 457 T: 458 G: 459 T: 460 Ss: 461 T:

Utangulizi? Introduction? Utangulizi. [Na: [.] tu:: tutasema: Introduction. And we:: we will say [Mm. Mm. [2.0] Um ((turns to look at Eloise & Happiness)) aka: eh Um and the:n s/he eh ((turns to look at Felix)) Anansesεm.// Story. //((raises voice)) Anansesεm. εsisio: eh, [wata: Story. Happened eh, they will [Anansesεm sisio: Story happens [I have a story for you] iti:ka ((outstretches both hands)) ‘sensewaara’. respond ‘Tell me a story’. ((outburst)) O:[:h! [Hivyo. ((laughs)) like that. ((nods)) Napenda. ((smiles)) I like [it]. ((la[ughs)) ((laughs)) ((laughs)) [((laughs)) Ninapenda. I’m liking [it].

Akan/Twi now firmly established within the space of the Swahili classroom, the next stages of the discussion continue, with expanded use of Akan/Twi among the Ghanaian learners, even as the main discussion

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  33

concerning storytelling continues in Swahili. These next segments of talk proceed as two overlapping discursive spaces in which Ivy, Gladys, Felix and Happiness circulate and respond to the call and response of the Akan/ Twi-language story, while their Teacher continues to largely use Swahili in display of her sustained interest in the Akan/Twi-language story. The call of the Akan/Twi-language story is initiated by Ivy (line 462, Extract 1.6), who directs her talk toward Gladys. Then, Gladys takes this up (with Felix) and asks after the story (line 466) via an extended moment of story-focused instruction to her counterpart (line 467). Afterwards, Felix’s response reprises the story’s call (line 468), followed by input from Gladys, Happiness, the Teacher, and an unknown student, before Gladys exits this discursive space for another space. In this additional discursive space, Gladys resumes use of Swahili (line 473) to address the larger class, and respond to Mwalimu Magdeline’s initial question about the narratoraudience protocol of the Akan/Twi-language story. These overlapping discursive moments also prompt the Teacher’s imitation of the flagship phrase in Akan/Twi (line 475), and the Ghanaian learners’ English explanation of this phrase (lines 476–477). Extract 1.6

462 I: 463 T: 464 G: 465 F: 466 G: 467

468 F: 469 470 471 472

G: H: T: S:

473 G:

[((to Gladys)) Wutiε yε? εyε anansesεm sisio:: [.] Did you hear that? It is ‘story happe::ns’ [((toward Ghanaian students)) Mimi napenda! ((laughs)) I like [it]! ((to Ivy)) Ananasesεm sisio [.] Story happens A[nansesεm Story [((looking at Felix)) Anansesem bεn? ((outstretches right What story? hand, tilts head up)) Ka na mente. Say it and let me hear it. [Tell it to me so I can hear it.] Anansesεm sisio:: Story happe::ns A::h.

((loudly)) Oh! Ndiyo Yes Wata—watase:ma:: ‘Anansesεm sisio::’. They will—they will sa:y ‘Story happe::ns’.

34  Language Learning in Study Abroad

474 475 T: 476 F: 477 G:

[‘Anansesεm sisio::’. ‘Story happe::ns’. [((leans in)) ‘Anansesεm sisio:’ ‘Story happe:ns’ It’s to say, like, ‘Things happen’. Stories happen. Ye:s.

What these multiple discursive spaces allow for in this Swahili study abroad context, is for learners to proudly explore the meaning and relevance of their home storytelling culture while engaging the language of focus. These moments illustrate the dynamic multivoicedness, or range of active linguistic repertoires, of the study abroad context as a whole (cf. Blackledge & Creese, 2009), in addition to the multiple subjectivities at play in Dar es Salaam – identities at the confluence of multilingual, postcolonial Africa. Alongside techniques in guided repetition and narrative socialization that pattern with local Tanzanian storytelling practice, the instructor’s facilitation of crosslinguistic space helps to present Modern Swahili as both intrinsically linked to Tanzanian culture and accommodating of learners as multilinguals and speakers of African (and other) languages. Ethnographic vignette #4: Anansesεm is also a story of lies

As discussion concludes in the Swahili language classroom, Felix (F) again jumps into the conversation, to follow up on his and Gladys’ previous description of the call-and-response routine of the Akan/Twi-language story. Here, Felix further describes the anansesεm of Ghana as similar to the hadithi of Tanzania, in that it, too, is a story of lies. Felix begins by using English, a language which, over his years of schooling in Accra, Ghana, has become his default for academic explanations. Felix also shares with the class a meaningful phrase in Akan/Twi, ‘Wei yε anansesεm,’ meaning ‘This is a story’ or ‘This is not true’ (line 495). All throughout, Felix’s crosslinguistic participation in classroom talk is supported by Mwalimu Magdeline, who displays approval through nodding and other verbal cues (lines 490, 494, 497). Extract 1.7

488 F: 489 490 T:

It’s like ‘story’. ‘Hadithi’. But, i::in Ghana we call it, ‘Story’. ‘Anansesεm’. ‘Anansesεm’, it can be a lie, it can be anything. ‘Story’. ‘Story’. M[m. ((nods)) Mm:.

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  35

491 F: 492 493 494 T: 495 F: 496 497 T:

[Sometimes it’s—you can call it ‘Anansesεm’ if you ask ‘Story’. someone a question, and he gives you an answer, and you don’t believe him, // //Mm. you can say ‘Wei yε anansesεm’. ‘This is a story’. [This is not true] ‘This is a, [like a: story’. [O::::::h!

Felix’s description of the Akan/Twi-language story as something that ‘can be a lie, it can be anything’ (line 489) patterns with other popular understandings of storytelling among the Akan, Ghana’s predominant cultural group. For example, in my later written communication with Gladys (28 June 2012) some months after her participation in this classroom discussion, and towards the conclusion of her year abroad in Tanzania, she shared a description of the meaning of Anansesem sisioo (‘story happens’). As Gladys explained in her email response, written in Swahili, the Ananse of Anansesem refers to the protagonist of many Akan/Twi folktales. Ananse is the spider-personified-as-trickster at the center of many of these stories, as noted by scholars and others (e.g. Scheub, 2012). Extract 1.8

‘‘Anansesem sisioo’ ina maana kwamba ‘mambo mengi yanatokea kwenye hadithi’ au kwa Kiingereza ‘much happens in folktales.’ Kuhusu utangulizi wa kusimulia hadithi msimulizi husema ‘Anansesem sisioo’ na wasikilishaji huitikia ‘sensewaara.’ Lakini kwa bahati mbaya sielewi maana ya ‘sensewaara.’ Mara nyingi katika hadithi za Akan, buibui anatumika sana na buibui aitwaye ‘Ananse.’ Katika hadithi za Akan buibui anaonekana kama mnyonyaji, mhuni, mkatili na mjanja sana, yaani anatumika kuashiria mjanja.’ ‘Anansesem sisioo’ means that ‘many things happen in stories’ or in English ‘much happens in folktales.’ Regarding the introduction [call and response] of storytelling the narrator typically says ‘Anansesem sisioo’ and the listeners typically respond ‘sensewaara.’ But unfortunately I don’t understand the meaning of ‘sensewaara.’ Often in Akan stories, the spider is used a lot and the spider is called ‘Ananse.’ In Akan stories the spider appears as a manipulative hunter, fierce and clever, such that it is used to symbolize a trickster.

As this extract from my email exchange with Gladys shows, the opportunity she was afforded through study abroad to integrate her

36  Language Learning in Study Abroad

knowledge of Akan/Twi-language story into her study of Swahili provided a powerful conduit for expanding her Swahili ability. Conclusion: Ethnolinguistic Ideologies and Storytelling in Swahili Study Abroad

Though it may not be unusual to find learners sharing stories of some kind with one another in language classrooms, a closer examination of storytelling practice in the Dar es Salaam setting provides evidence of the oral story as Swahili cultural artifact, given new life by contemporary speakers of Swahili as an additional language. Swahili storytelling has become a vehicle for teaching transnational Swahili speakers about key cultural practices among core Swahili speakers in Tanzania. Whereas this is not typical practice in urban Dar es Salaam, it may therefore be unexpected to find the Swahili-language story being explicitly taught in the university setting. But this is exactly what is happening, and it is incredibly valuable. And just how valuable can the teaching of language through cultural story be in the university context? This has been explored by Thailandbased professor Wajuppa Tossa, who began teaching storytelling techniques to university students in the 1990s, with the specific goal of enabling them to become advocates for their endangered languages by reviving interest in local folktales. These stories, and the local language varieties in which they are told, are greatly marginalized by television programming in hegemonic Thai. However, after leading children and adults through storytelling events and workshops in endangered languages including Isan, Tossa and her team saw a more than 10% reduction in the number of community respondents feeling as though Thailand should be a monolingual, Thai-speaking country (Tossa, 2008). In her view, the activity of storytelling is transformative precisely because it brings people together: ‘While technology provides intriguing new ways to share stories in a multimedia, digital format, the oral, face-to-face performance of stories and the resulting building of community is lost – or at least irrevocably altered – in the online format’ (Tossa, 2008: 55). Further, the notion of ‘stories happening’, as with the Akan/Twilanguage story, or Anansesεm, is an apt metaphor for the meeting of multiple languages in the Swahili language classroom in Dar es Salaam. Even as the Tanzanian language instructor’s focus on learners’ home languages as ethnolinguistic constructs may reify language(s) as bounded and distinct, her intentional effort to make space for these languages in the teaching of Swahili creates meaningful opportunities for crosslinguistic engagement. This facilitates a learning environment that purposefully values learners’ home languages, and demonstrates these as relevant to the mastery of an additional language. This crosslinguistic engagement proves especially important to the experiences of Ghanaian learners on study abroad in Tanzania, who did

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  37

not initially choose to study Swahili but have continued in the language with encouragement of their university program and its partnership with the Ghanaian and Tanzanian governments. Through their study abroad experiences, these African nationals and learners of an additional African language are finding that Swahili contributes to their identities and career opportunities in ways that were previously unexpected or unseen. Where these Ghanaian speakers of Swahili bring their cultures and creativity into the study abroad context, their linguistic repertoires illustrate the everyday African multilingualism they have grown up practicing. Their successful participation in Swahili redresses their previous ignorance about the language, while providing sites for intercultural learning that may contribute to Pan-African goals. In my view, these data help expand our ideas of who speaks Swahili, lending further support to use of the term Swahiliphone, rather than the ethnic and ethnolinguistic label Swahili, for the description of the speaker of Swahili and the oral literature s/he/they engage(s) as author-creator (Topan, 2006, for example, limits himself to the term Swahili). By using the descriptor Swahiliphone, we can go beyond secondary explanations of hybridity (Mazrui, 2007; Mazrui & Shariff, 1994) to respond to the reality of there being speakers of Swahili who are not nationals of Tanzania, East Africa or Central Africa. In this sense, a view toward multilingualism in the Swahili study abroad context expands our understanding of contemporary complexities in language use in Africa. Ghanaian Swahiliphones draw upon lived experiences (in multiple languages) to creatively and spontaneously describe what matters to them. Much as Makalela (2015) has observed in South Africa, these transnational Swahiliphones contribute to the multivoicedness of the classroom community in Tanzania. A Tanzanian Swahiliphone herself, the language instructor in this context brings personal observations of local cultural changes into the classroom. As a result, the language classroom is enriched through her aim to teach Swahili storytelling, which exposes learners to key cultural practices and language ideologies that regulate Tanzanian social contexts. This altogether illustrates how multilingual realities, cultural shift, Pan-African cooperation and language ideologies come to bear within study abroad in Africa. Acknowledgments

Asante sana (thank you very much) to the students, educators and residents in Dar es Salaam who allowed me to join their international learning community – this research is for you. My thanks to two anonymous reviewers and the editors for their helpful comments, and to audiences at the 2018 conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, and the 2019 Applied Linguistics Winter Colloquium at UC Santa Barbara, where I presented some of these data.

38  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Notes   (1) Field research completed for this study was funded by a 2011–2012 US Fulbright Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) grant to Tanzania.   (2) All names are pseudonyms or Swahili names adopted by participants. Anglicized pseudonyms mirror participants’ given names, which, in turn, reflect circulation of British colonial and Christianized practices.   (3) All English translations (and any errors) of the Swahili are my own. In the case of Akan/Twi translations, I am grateful for insights from research assistant Barbara Ofosu-Somuah.   (4) For example, Tanzanians at the University of Dar es Salaam are documented in Blommaert (1992: 61) as bringing Swahili and English words together to form phrases grammatical within Swahili: ‘intake ya University five hundred! (University’s intake [is] five hundred!)’. Myers-Scotton (1995: 103) notes a Kenyan speaker who describes having rescued a cat: ‘halafu nikairub na kitambaa (and then I rubbed it [the cat] with a cloth)’, where the English ‘rub’ is incorporated within Swahili morphosyntax.   (5) Along with select others in their class, the Ghanaian learners regularly attended another professor’s advanced-level Swahili class for the challenge of more contact hours and varied input.   (6) The Economic Community of West African State (ECOWAS) operates ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development.   (7) Transcription conventions: [1.0] pause in measurable seconds [.] momentary pause unintelligible speech ((laughs)) nonverbal actions, descriptive delivery of speech [word [word overlapping speech word// //word latched speech word speaker’s own emphasis wo::rd word stretch in vowels ‘word’ quoted speech, not speaker’s direct meaning   (8) The teacher recognizes here that someone (a learner) has indicated their familiarity with hadithi (story), but this person is not captured within the vantage point of the video recording.   (9) In the recorded video, the teacher comes to stand directly in front of where the Italian learner is seated, and looks at her as she poses the question. This learner may have been specifically asked because she is the same person who earlier indicated familiarity with hadithi ya Kiswahili (line 8), or simply because she is conveniently within the teacher’s line of eyesight. (10) The spelling uongo is an accepted variant of uwongo, both meaning ‘lie’. (11) I have also explored alternative translations of hadithi njoo, uwongo njoo, wherein njoo is interpreted as a command to the listener: ‘you come’. However, this is more awkward compared with Brower’s (2001). (12) These quotes are taken from Brower’s 2001 account of storytelling in Chole Mjini, wherein community members are quoted in his translation; the original Swahili data were not provided in his accounts. (13) A note on Akan/Twi orthography: anansesεm is consistent with the popular orthography of online dictionaries such as Abibitumikasa, which relates anansesεm to ‘fable, fiction, folktale, legend, myth’ and ‘storytelling’, as well as the comprehensive text by Dolphyne (2006).

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  39

References Agan, A. (2006) Le conte: Un moyen de disséminer la connaissance dans les musées – l’exemple de Sigana Moto Moto [Storytelling: A way to disseminate knowledge in museums – the example of Sigana Moto Moto]. Museum International No. 229/230, Afrique: Les succes d’un continent, 71–76. Amin, J.A. (2014) African Immersion: American College Students in Cameroon. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Anyidoho, A. and Kropp Dakubu, M. (2008) Ghana: Indigenous languages, English, and an emerging national identity. In A. Simpson (ed.) Language and National Identity in Africa (pp. 141–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Armah, A.K. (1985) Our language problem. West Africa April 29, 831–832. Batibo, H.M. (2003) The teaching of Kiswahili as a foreign language in Africa: A case study from eastern and southern Africa. Journal of the African Language Teachers Association 3, 19–34. BBC News (2009) Profile: African Union. See https://www.bbc.com/news/worldafrica-16910745 (accessed 12 November 2009). Beck, R. (2010) Urban languages in Africa. Africa Spectrum 45, 11–41. Bellamy, C. and Weinberg, A. (2006) Creating global citizens through study abroad. Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education 21, 20–21. Blackledge, A. and Creese, A. (2009) Meaning-making as a dialogic process: Official and carnival lives in the language classroom. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 8, 236–253. Blommaert, J. (1992) Codeswitching and the exclusivity of social identities: Some data from campus Kiswahili. In C. Eastman (ed.) Codeswitching (pp. 57–70). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Blommaert, J. (2014) State Ideology and Language in Tanzania (2nd edn). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Boateng, A. and Thompson, A.M. (2013) Study abroad Ghana: An international experiential learning. Journal of Social Work Education 49, 701–715. Brock-Utne, B. (2010) Policy on the language of instruction issue in Africa – a spotlight on South Africa and Tanzania. In Z. Desai, M. Qorro and B. Brock-Utne (eds) Educational Challenges in Multilingual Societies: LOITASA Phase Two Research (pp. 74–101). Cape Town: African Minds Publishers. Brower, L. (2001) The folklore of the land: A sense of place through stories in Chole, Tanzania. Unpublished manuscript. See http://african.lss.wisc.edu (accessed 3 October, 2012). Brower, L. (2010) Babuzimwi. Transition 102, 40–67. Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005) Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7 (4–5), 585–614. Camara, M.S. (2000) Africa-to-Africa: A responsible alternative to study abroad for 21stcentury African scholarship. Issue: A Journal of Opinion (African Issues) 28, 61–64. Carruthers, J. (1999) Intellectual Warfare. Chicago: Third World Press. Chacha, D. (2003) Julius Nyerere: The intellectual Pan-Africanist and the question of African unity. Paper presented at 30th Conference of the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA), Dakar, December 8–11, 2003. Coetzee-Van Rooy, A.S. (2008) From the expanding to the outer circle: South Koreans learning English in South Africa. English Today 96, 3–10. Coffman, J.E. (2000) Study abroad in Africa considered within the new world economy. Issue: A Journal of Opinion (African Issues) 28, 49–53. Correia, M. (2011) Youth tourism in South Africa: The English language travel sector. Tourism Review International 15, 123–133.

40  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Dolphyne, F. (2006) A Comprehensive Course in Twi (Asante) for the Non-Twi Learner. Accra: Ghana Universities Press. Dzahene-Quarshie, J. (2013) Ghana’s contribution to the promotion of Kiswahili: Challenges and prospects for African unity. Journal of Pan African Studies 6, 69–85. Dzahene-Quarshie, J. and Moshi, L. (2014) The dilemma of language in education policies in Ghana and Tanzania. Cross-Cultural Studies 34, 149–174. Eastman, C. (1984) An ethnography of Swahili expressive culture. Research in African Literatures 15, 313–340. Ethnologue (2018) Ghana: Languages. See https://www.ethnologue.com/country/GH (accessed 10 June 2018). Fabian, J. (1983) Missions and the colonization of African languages: Developments in the former Belgian Congo. Canadian Journal of African Studies/Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines 17, 165–187. Fabian, J. (1986) Language and Colonial Power: The Appropriation of Swahili in the Former Belgian Congo 1880–1938. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Finnegan, R. (1970) Oral Literature in Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Githiora, C. (2018) Sheng: The expanding domains of an urban youth vernacular. Journal of African Cultural Studies 30, 105–120. Grosz-Ngaté, M., Pallais, S. and Walz, J. (2000) Study abroad in Tanzania. Issue: A Journal of Opinion (African Issues) 28, 119–123. Gutierrez, K. (1994) How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: A crosscase comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education 5, 335–365. Higgins, C. (2011) ‘You’re a real Swahili!’: Western women’s resistance to identity slippage in Tanzania. In C. Higgins (ed.) Identity Formation in Globalizing Contexts: Language Learning in the New Millennium (pp. 167–191). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Irvine, J. (2008) Subjected words: African linguistics and the colonial encounter. Language & Communication 28, 323–343. Irvine, J. and Gal, S. (2000) Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities (pp. 35–83). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Itaaga, N., Musoke, K.M. and Anthony, M.M. (2013) Internationalization and regionalization of higher education in Uganda: A descriptive analysis. Global Journal of Human Social Science, Linguistics & Education 13, 1–8. Juffermans, K. (2012) Multimodality and audiences: Local languaging in the Gambian linguistic landscape. Sociolinguistic Studies 6, 259–284. Juffermans, K. and Van Camp, K. (2013) Engaging with voices: Ethnographic encounters with the Gambian language-in-education policy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 44, 142–160. Kachru, B., Kachru, Y. and Nelson, C.L. (eds) (2009) The Handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Wiley & Blackwell. Knight, J. and Woldegiorgis, E.T. (2017) Academic mobility in Africa: Students, scholars, programmes, and providers. In J. Knight and E.T. Woldegiorgis (eds) Regionalization of African Higher Education: Progress and Prospects (pp. 113–133). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Lewellen, T.C. (2002) The Anthropology of Globalization: Cultural Anthropology Enters the 21st Century. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Lexander, K. (2011) Texting and African language literacy. New Media & Society 13, 427–443. Lian, I.T.A. (2011) An exploration of African students in Malaysia. US-China Education Review 6, 856–861. Makalela, L. (2015) Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education 29, 200–217. Makoni, S. and Meinhof, U. (2003) Introducing applied linguistics in Africa. AILA Review 16, 1–12.

Ghanaian Multilinguals on Study Abroad in Tanzania  41

Makoni, S. and Meinhof, U. (2006) An argument for ethno-language studies in Africa. In P. Zeleza (ed.) The Study of Africa, Volume I: Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Encounters (pp. 117–134). Dakar: Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA). Marshall, J. (2013) International mobility of African students – report. University World News, 6 July, 2013. See https://www.universityworldnews.com /post. php?story=20130705203103913 (accessed 7 March 2019). Maundeni, T. (2001) The role of social networks in the adjustment of African students to British society: Students’ perceptions. Race, Ethnicity and Education 4, 253–276. Mazrui, A. (2007) Swahili Beyond the Boundaries: Literature, Language, and Identity. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Mazrui, A. and Mazrui, A. (eds) (1998) The Power of Babel: Language and Governance in the African Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mazrui, A. and Shariff, I.N. (1994) The Swahili: Idiom and Identity of an African People. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Moore, L. (2004) Learning languages by heart: Language socialization in a Fulbe community (Maroua, Cameroon). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Moore, L. (2006a) Learning by heart in Qur’anic and public schools in northern Cameroon. Social Analysis 50, 109–126. Moore, L. (2006b) Changes in folktale socialization in an urban Fulbe community. Studies in African Linguistics 35, 176–187. Mori, J. and Sanuth, K.K. (2018) Navigating between a monolingual utopia and translingual realities: Experiences of American learners of Yorùbá as an additional language. Applied Linguistics 39, 78–98. Moshi, L. (2006) The globalized world languages: The case of Kiswahili. In O.F. Arasanyin and M.A. Pemberton (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 166–175). Somerville: MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Moshi, L. (2011) A transformation in African language teaching in the United States: The emergence of a field superstructure. In E. Bokamba, R. Shosted and B. Ayalew (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 26–35). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Mtesigwa, P. (2009) Perspectives, challenges and prospects of African languages in education: A case study of Kiswahili in Tanzania. In J.A. Kleifgen and G.C. Bond (eds) The Languages of Africa and the Diaspora: Educating for Language Awareness (pp. 64–79). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mutembei, A. (2011) Kiswahili silaha ya Afrika: Wanasiasa na watawala [Swahili as Africa’s weapon: Politicians and rulers]. Kiswahili [Swahili] 62–77. Mutonya, M. (2008) Swahili advertising in Nairobi: Innovation and language shift. Journal of African Cultural Studies 20, 3–14. Myers-Scotton, C. (1995) Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nalkur, P.G. (2009) Achievement orientations and strategies: A cultural comparison of Tanzanian street children, former street children, and school-going children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 40, 1012–1027. Nhongo, R. (2017) Linguistic and cultural cognitive relevance of televised narratives to the Ndebele child in Bulawayo. Per Linguam: A Journal of Language Learning 33, 51–62. Nkrumah, K. (1968) Dark Days in Ghana. New York: International Publishers. Ntarangwi, M. (2016) The Street is my Pulpit: Hip Hop and Christianity in Kenya. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Ochs, E. and Capps, L. (2001) Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

42  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Paola, R. J. and Lemmer, E.M. (2013) Not merely a matter of academics’: Student experiences of a South African university as study-abroad destination. Africa Education Review 10, 80–96. Peters, A.M. and Boggs, S.T. (1986) Interactional routines as cultural influences upon language acquisition. In B.B. Schiefflin and E. Ochs (eds) Language Socialization across Cultures (pp. 80–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pugach, S. (2012) Africa in Translation: A History of Colonial Linguistics in Germany and Beyond, 1814–1945. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Qorro, M. (2009) English only vs. bilingual education in Africa: With a focus on Tanzania. In K. Prah and B. Brock-Utne (eds) Multilingualism: An African Advantage, a Paradigm Shift in African Language of Instruction Policies (pp. 219–236). Cape Town: Center for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Senkoro, F.E.M.K. (2006) Fasihi ya Kiswahili ya majaribio: Makutano ya fasihi simulizi na fasihi andishi [Experimental Swahili literature: Meetings of oral literature and written literature]. Kioo cha Lugha [Language’s Mirror] 1–17. Scheub, H. (2012) Trickster and Hero: Two Characters in the Oral and Written Traditions of the World. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Suriano, M. (2011) Hip hop and bongo flavour music in contemporary Tanzania: Youths’ experiences, agency, aspirations and contradictions. Africa Development 36, 113–126. Thomas, J.A. (2009) Intercontinental collaboration in African languages course design. In H.M. Batibo, R.S. Dikole, S.T.M. Lukusa and R.O.B. Nhlekisana (eds) Language, Literature, and Society: Proceedings of the 1st African Languages and Literature International Conference (pp. 143–156). Gaborone: University of Botswana. Thomas, J.A. (2011) The relative marker and long distance dependencies in the L2 acquisition of Swahili relative clauses. In E. Bokamba, R. Shosted and B. Ayalew (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 36–52). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Thomas, J.A. (2021) Zombies Speak Swahili: Race, Horror, and Sci-fi from Mexico to Tanzania and Hollywood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, K. (2010) ‘I am Maasai’: Interpreting ethnic parody in Bongo Flava. Language in Society 39, 493–520. Topan, F. (2006) Why does a Swahili writer write? Euphoria, pain, and popular aspirations in Swahili literature. Research in African Literatures 37, 103–118. Topan, F. (2008) Tanzania: The development of Swahili as a national and official language. In A. Simpson (ed.) Language and National Identity in Africa (pp. 252–266). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tossa, W. (2008) Storytelling: A means to revitalize a disappearing language and culture in northeast Thailand (Isan). Knowledge Quest 36 (5), 50–56. Trentman, E. (2013) Imagined communities and language learning during study abroad: Arabic learners in Egypt. Foreign Language Annals 46, 545–564. Trentman, E. and Diao, W. (2017) The American gaze east: Discourses and destinations of US study abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 2, 175–205. Vuorela, U. (2009) ‘In the olden days we kept slaves’: Layers of memory and present practices. In K. Larsen (ed.) Knowledge, Renewal and Religion: Repositioning and Changing Ideological and Material Circumstances among the Swahili on the East African Coast (pp. 261–279). Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.

2 When the Foreign is Familiar: An AfroDominican-American Woman’s Experience Translanguaging Race, Ethnicity and Cultural Heritage Learning Portuguese in Brazil Uju Anya

Introduction1

Multilinguals with Spanish in their repertoire enjoy a considerable advantage when learning Portuguese owing to overlapping structures, lexis and broad cultural similarities among communities that speak both languages (Wiedeman & Scaramucci, 2008). Linguistic comparisons show that 85% of the continental Portuguese lexicon has Iberian Spanish cognates (Green, 1989; Simões & Kelm, 1991), with up to 60% of mutual intelligibility between Brazilian Portuguese and Latin American Spanish (Jensen, 1989, 2004). Henriques (2000) even found that expert Spanish speakers can read and understand up to 94% of texts in Portuguese and vice versa. The upper hand that Spanish speakers have when learning Portuguese is such that some programs consider them heritage speakers and create special courses to capitalize on their linguistic and cultural background (Carvalho et al., 2010). The study presented in this chapter asks how exactly Spanish speakers who rely on such resources marshal them to develop new expertise in Portuguese. It investigates the experiences of Leti, 2 an Afro-Dominican-American woman on a college study abroad program in an Afro-Brazilian city, and how she drew from her 43

44  Language Learning in Study Abroad

cultural understandings and linguistic resources from the Dominican Republic and the USA while translanguaging and learning Portuguese in Brazil. The study reveals that Leti’s race and ethnicity were sociocultural filters, part of an invisible culture (Colín Rodea, 2008) that mitigated how she negotiated new, foreign understandings and practices in Portuguese juxtaposed with prior notions of familiar concepts in Spanish. Based on these findings, I argue for a multilingual approach to language pedagogy and study abroad programming and I call for examining the intersectional identities of participants with multiple inherited languages3 to shed light on how they learn new ones. Theoretical Background

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) faces a formidable challenge to overcome its ‘monolingual bias’ (Kachru, 1994; Sridhar, 1994). This is seen in the field’s notions of language knowledge as unitary, learning as sequential (‘first’ then ‘second language’), and multilingualism as parallel monolingualism (Heller, 1999) or shuttling between autonomous linguistic systems that can be used independently, as if coming from separate brain compartments or multiple monolinguals in one person. However, the way we language is much more complex. More than just sign-signifier and code systems (Saussure, 1966), or standardized language forms, languaging is an interactive meaning-making and constantly evolving social action. All this is inseparable from our identity, which is itself part of a larger scheme beyond the mere psychosocial self or kinship group (Bakhtin, 1986; Bourdieu, 1991). We are identified in relation to others, and we think and act based on personal, social and historical contexts (Hall, 1990, 2006; Weedon, 1987). Thus, identity is where our person meets society – how we understand doing, being and becoming in our world – and we give voice to our experiences and subjectivities through languaging. We take actions and positions in thought and in discourse, which I define as oral, written, symbolic and embodied speech. We think and do discourse in the ways of people like us with interlocutors languaging in the ways of people like them. Together, we enact social identities such as race. Although popularly considered a fixed and innate biological trait, race functions more powerfully as social practices of racialization and racism that hierarchize arbitrary aspects of ancestry and physical appearance to justify dominance, exploitation and violence (Moya & Markus, 2010; Omi & Winant, 1994). Like race, ethnicity categorizes groups with common ancestry, nationality and culture into social hierarchies that are touted as the natural order. Performance and disparities in gender roles are similarly attributed to natural implications of biological sex instead of socially mandated differentiation practices (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Rigid enforcement of gender roles also means that one’s innate sexual orientation and resulting attraction, when considered socially undesirable, may conflict

When the Foreign is Familiar  45

with overt practices of sexuality (Balthazart, 2012; Sell, 1997), just as rigid notions of socioeconomic strata obscure class differentiation in consumption practices and other expressions of status, capital and social positioning (Bottero, 2004). All these identities encompass self-concept, individual attributes and group membership, but more importantly, they are enacted through how we think, do, are positioned and are treated in discourse and other social action. Hence, identity is the product, not the source of languaging. More stable elements such as blood kinship aside, it is primarily a relational, sociocultural phenomenon that emerges, and is shaped and negotiated in interaction. Languaging entails discourse in oral, written, symbolic, embodied speech, plus speakers’ dynamic multilingual practices, which García (2009) describes as an all-terrain vehicle moving and adapting to rugged communicative paths in the flexible, reciprocal action of ‘translanguaging’. This is not like the notion of codeswitching, which imagines speakers shifting back and forth between separate, autonomous monolingual systems that can be used without referencing each other. Instead, translanguaging is how speakers deploy their idiolect (Otheguy et al., 2015), their one unique repertoire of all the languages they know and all they know about languaging itself, to create practices that work for interaction while collaborating with interlocutors to fulfill communicative needs and mutually construct meaning. Observing translanguaging from the outside, we perceive discourse that can be identified as structures within boundaries separating different named languages, but from the speaker’s perspective, those boundaries do not exist, and each speaker’s practices are informed by a wholly individual repertoire. As such, translanguaging shifts us away from monolingual bias. Monolingual bias promotes the false dichotomy of the ‘learner’ who knows little about a fixed and bound language system vs ‘native speaker’ who knows everything. It positions all as speakers, who may be emerging or more adroit on a continuum of multilingual expertise, but with one repertoire unique and available only to them, with resources from different aspects of their history, background, communities, linguistic knowledge and abilities, ideas and beliefs. Emerging and experienced multilinguals all draw from their resources to make a coordinated, interactive and contextually relevant performance, thus creating and working within what Li Wei (2011) calls ‘translanguaging space’. This notion of translanguaging space can be viewed in the semiotic sense of discourse and meaning-making processes in communication as well as the contexts where translanguaging occurs. Imagining how multilinguals work within translanguaging space also helps conceptualize how we shape and juxtapose social identities in discourse and interaction, especially during language learning. Language learning discourse and multilingual interactions – plus the actual places where they happen – are quintessential translanguaging spaces. Interlocutors deploy their repertoire to do new languaging practices in creative,

46  Language Learning in Study Abroad

contextually relevant ways. In the translanguaging space of language learning interactions, participants also collaborate with interlocutors to shape and negotiate different intersectional identities as they work through and give voice to their experiences, drawing from prior and new understandings and practices of new groups and communities (Anya, 2017). For example, when English speakers from the USA interact with Latin American Spanish and Portuguese speakers who use hair and skin color as terms of address and endearment, the English speakers learning Spanish and Portuguese must work through understanding what could be interpreted as equivalent to ‘blondie’, ‘darkie’ or ‘blackie’. The negotiation and eventual decision English speakers make to accept or resist such monikers when shaping new Spanish and Portuguese speaking selves are jointly achieved in translanguaging space. The process is mediated by their identities, from where they draw prior understandings of the sexist and racist tenor of these words, along with new information that their own observations or the interlocutors explicitly communicate to them about the use of these words in the Latin American context. Learning transforms our identities by changing how we think, what we can do and our future possibilities in becoming (Illeris, 2014; Wenger, 1998), and the translanguaging space of language learning discourse and contexts has this ‘transformative power’ (Li Wei, 2011) to create new identities, values and practices. Thus, language learning can be seen as learning to speak, do and create our multiple selves in a new language drawing from the forms, notions and understandings of both present and new worlds. African American lives are powerfully mediated by race and fundamentally, uniquely shaped by racialized identities, especially as they relate to consciousness of racism, structural differences and systemic oppression. Experiences in learning a new language are no exception to this reality, as they are also shaped by the individuality of the Black experience. The study described in this chapter examines the powerfully racialized ways an Afro-Dominican-American woman with Spanish as an inherited language learns Portuguese owing to the singular importance of Blackness in African American lives and her study abroad program’s location in Salvador, Bahia, an Afro-Brazilian city. Her development in the new language is inextricably joined with her understanding of already being Black while also becoming Black in a new context. Both speaking the Portuguese language and speaking Blackness in Brazil are informed by added layers of complexity from her experiences with the Spanish language and Dominican culture. The chapter explores how Leti engages in translanguaging, which entails the enactment of her multiple social identities. It describes how she deploys her repertoire, drawing resources from her inherited Spanish language and Afro-Dominican culture that inform her development of expertise in new languaging practices. Portuguese language and Brazilian cultural understandings are foreign, yet also very familiar, to Leti. Based upon prior and new knowledge, she tries to make

When the Foreign is Familiar  47

sense of and give voice to new experiences of being Black in a majority Black city. Study Participant and Location

Leti, age 22, was a comparative literature master’s degree student at a small US private liberal arts college that sponsored her Portuguese language study abroad program in Salvador-Bahia, Brazil. She was born and raised in a single-income working-class family in a large metropolis on the northern US Atlantic coast. Her parents were immigrants from the Dominican Republic, who spoke Spanish at home and encouraged their children to study it at school. Along with Spanish, Leti also studied German, Latin and Italian, and before going to Brazil, she previously completed two undergraduate study abroad programs in Italy. During her 10 weeks in Salvador, Leti lived with a local White middle-class family and took college-accredited Portuguese language, Brazilian literature and Afro-Brazilian culture and history courses at a private school I call the Brazilian-American Cultural Institute (BACI). She also took Capoeira (Afro-Brazilian martial arts) classes and volunteered teaching English to youngsters at Ilê Ayê, an Afro-Brazilian neighborhood cultural organization. Salvador is the capital of the state of Bahia with Brazil’s greatest concentration of descendants of formerly enslaved Africans. In this city of 3 million inhabitants, Blacks comprise 84% of the population;4 however, they are almost entirely absent from the city’s leadership, and the uppermiddle and elite classes. The dearth of Blacks among leaders and the socioeconomic elite in a practically all-Black city is indicative of the fraught history and present circumstances of racism and social exclusion in Brazil as a whole. The leadership, the middle and upper/elite classes, and popular media are overwhelmingly White and do not reflect the 56%5 of the country’s population that identifies as Afro-Brazilian. In the face of profound anti-Blackness and racial inequality, Brazilians argue that their large mixed-race population and history of no legal codification of segregation and anti-miscegenation statutes as in the USA and South Africa distinguish their country as a place of unique racial harmony (Vargas, 2004). However, this idea of Brazil as a ‘racial democracy’ or society free of race-based inequity is a myth (Pereira Santos & Sales, 2018; Sales, 2006). Brazil held 40% of all enslaved Africans in the Americas and was the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish human enslavement in 1888. Moreover, it has long maintained a de facto social, political and economic marginalization of its Black population (Zamora, 2012). In direct contrast to the myth of a harmonious color blind society, Brazilians are highly sensitive to race, live racially stratified lives and have clear notions of which groups are most and least desirable in an elaborate hierarchical, anti-Black pigmentocracy based primarily on skin color, hair

48  Language Learning in Study Abroad

texture and other aspects of physical appearance, with up to 135 terms describing racial phenotypes between White at the top and Black on the bottom (Guimarães, 2012; Schwarcz, 1996; Telles, 2004). Yet, despite the ideological, political, economic and geographic marginalization of Blacks in Salvador, the location of Leti’s study abroad program, the city is thoroughly impregnated with Blackness. Not only are the great majority of the city’s residents Black, Salvador is defined by a cultural hegemony wherein the local cuisine, traditions, major religions, popular movements, music and even the regional dialect of Brazilian Portuguese are all identifiably African. So much so that domestic and international tourism in Salvador city and Bahia state actively promote both as the place to have the most authentically Black experience in all of Brazil. Data and Analysis

The study upon which this chapter is based was part of a larger research project on the experiences of African American college students learning Portuguese that I presented in my book, Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil (Anya, 2017). I chose one of the students, Leti, as the primary participant for the particular inquiry described in this chapter owing to the dimensions and analytical possibilities introduced by her inherited Spanish language and Latin American cultural background. The inquiry asks: (1) How does Leti learn to be Black, that is, understand and enact her racialized identities in Brazil? (2) How does she express those racialized identities, or in other words, speak Blackness, in the Portuguese language in Brazil? (3) Which resources from her repertoire of linguistic and cultural understandings does Leti draw upon to do so? To collect data on the experience of the Black students in Leti’s study abroad cohort, I videorecorded their Portuguese language and AfroBrazilian culture and history classes, activities and excursions during the 10-week sojourn. I also audio-recorded four periodic (approximately biweekly) interviews with Leti alone and one in a group with other program participants. I made field notes, collected written assignments, weekly journals and language learning autobiographies – all of which yielded 100+ hours of recorded classroom interactions, study abroad programming and interviews, as well as 100+ pages of participant writings, fieldnotes and other documents. The relation of language to identity is mediated by interlocutors’ understandings of what our languaging practices say about who we are. According to the principle of indexicality (Ochs, 1993), we build social identities by doing socially recognizable discourse, defined here as oral, written, symbolic and embodied speech. People then comprehend this discourse and link it to specific social identities based on how the discourse

When the Foreign is Familiar  49

and identities index the range of micro- and macro-level social meanings recognizable from understandings available to use for interpretation. Some types of discourse are assumed so often by certain people that, over time, they become very closely linked to specific social identities, and they can also include direct mentions, naming and self-references to certain identities. These are all available for analysis of how we language identity. In my analysis for this project, I was particularly interested in the sorts of new identities that Leti shaped as she developed new understandings of languaging practices in new contexts. In this study, I conceptualized both discourse and its material, social, historical and cultural contexts as translanguaging spaces, where interlocutors employ multilingual and multimodal resources to create new languaging practices and transform into new selves. I used frameworks in critical race theory (Ladson-Billings, 1998), raciolinguistics (Alim et al., 2016; Flores & Rosa, 2015), critical language and race theory (Crump, 2014), and methods in descriptive discourse analysis (Goodwin, 2000; Sacks, 1995) and critical discourse analysis (Bloor & Bloor, 2007; Fairclough, 1995; Pennycook, 2001; van Dijk, 1993; Wodak & Meyer, 2009) to explore interactions in these spaces. To examine social identities in interaction, I utilized a combination of thematic, descriptive and critical discourse analysis methodologies (see Table 2.1). Based on findings of the study, this chapter will describe Leti’s background and show excerpts of her discourse to illustrate significant content and meaning relevant to an experienced multilingual’s sense of place within material, ideological and symbolic groups.

Table 2.1  Thematic, descriptive and critical discourse analyses in this study Thematic discourse analysis Used to examine all data sources – audio and video recordings of interviews/classes/activities, participant personal and course-related writings: • Thematic content and meaning in discourse relevant to personal sense of place within material, ideological, symbolic groups. Descriptive discourse analysis Used to examine video recordings of classes and program activities: • Overt references to identity categories, labels; • Discussion or pragmatic implication, supposition of identities; • Stereotypical stances and interactional roles; and • Use of lexis or structures associated with specific groups or identities. Critical discourse analysis Used to examine all data sources – audio and video recordings of interviews/classes/activities, participant personal and course-related writings: • Interactional access and discourse domain; • Communicative acts and their social meanings; • Interlocutor role performance; • Macrosemantics – ideology, sociopolitical and sociocultural implications of discourse; and • Frames, local meanings and coherence.

50  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Transcription

Interactions examined in this chapter were transcribed from video recordings of class sessions and program activities and audio recordings of interviews. Being a speaker of Portuguese and Spanish, I translated utterances into English as necessary. Original Portuguese/Spanish and translated English utterances appear side-by-side. I present transcribed audio recordings in block-quoted paragraph form, and video-recorded excerpts in dialogue segments according to conversation analysis conventions using discourse notation symbols (Table 2.2) adapted from Jefferson in Wetherell et al., (2001: 62). I include parenthetical descriptions and images to illustrate communicative action and embodied discourse. Who I am in this study

I am in many ways also a participant of this study, since my myriad identities were integral to the conception and elaboration of the research project, and the issues I explored were equally relevant to my journey learning Portuguese in Brazil. I ask how members of the African Diaspora experience and learn to speak blackness in the Americas, because I am a Nigerian, Trinidadian and American still working it all out. My life is very similar to Leti’s. Like her, I am a multilingual and multicultural woman with a Caribbean heritage. A decade before Leti, I also studied Portuguese and participated in two Brazil study abroad programs, having previously learned fluent Spanish. Both Leti and I were literature majors, and after my bachelor’s degree in Romance languages and master’s in Brazilian studies, I lived in Brazil for a few years. Back in the USA, before

Table 2.2  Discourse notation symbols used in transcription Notation

Purpose

?

Rising inflection (may or may not indicate a question)

[

Overlap

:

Vowel or sound lengthening (the more colons the greater the stretching)

word

Underlining indicates stress

WORD

Upper case indicates especially loud talk (with exception of proper nouns)

↑↓

Onset of rising or falling intonation shift

(0.2)

Long pause or silence in tenths of seconds

(.)

Noticeable but short pause or silence

((laughing))

Description of non-verbal activity

wor-

Sharp cut off the prior word or sound

word

Translingual utterance (identified forms in a named language other than target)

When the Foreign is Familiar  51

I began my doctorate in applied linguistics, I taught Portuguese as a university lecturer. All this contributed to my lifelong relationship with Brazil and Brazilians, maintained with professional collaborations and annual visits for consulting assignments, field research and reconnecting with friends. For more than 20 years, I have engaged in inquiry on Blackness and how the African Diaspora experiences the Americas. This inquiry is linked as intimately with the construction and enactment of my own multiple identities as with those of Leti and my other research participants. I was not an instructor, nor did I hold any formal position with the study abroad program that I observed for this study. The program’s faculty director – a Brazilian man of Italian and Portuguese descent – had been my professor, advisor, former colleague and remained a friend. My close relationship with the director granted me access to the program to seek written consent from the students, instructors and other staff/affiliates to participate in my research. This relationship with the director gave me access to the participants, whom the director allowed me to accompany and observe as an independent researcher, but who also individually consented to be observed, recorded, interviewed and who submitted their program-related and personal writings to me for the research project. Encouraged by the director, the 14 students who traveled to Salvador in Leti’s cohort trusted me and often came to me for guidance as someone who ‘had been through all this before’. My closeness to Leti and the other students and my similarity to them in life, background and academic experience both benefited the study and made it more complex, as my questions on their experiences and multiple identities in Portuguese language learning also directly relate to questions I continue to ask about myself. Findings Marshaling valuable resources

Leti was exceptionally skilled at learning new languages. She was an experienced multilingual, who was raised speaking Spanish and English, went on to study Latin, German and eventually mastered Italian. She had even used self-study materials to learn some basic Portuguese to reach the level of her classmates and qualify to participate in the Brazil study abroad program, which mandated one prerequisite beginner level course on campus that Leti was unable to complete, because she was in Rome working as a teaching assistant (TA) for the Italian department’s study abroad program. From the beginning, she engaged in active, strategic translanguaging to learn Portuguese, and Leti, who was very adept at metalinguistic analysis, knew resources in her repertoire that facilitated learning and consciously deployed them:

52  Language Learning in Study Abroad

LETI (from Week 1 journal)6 In conversation I am relentless! I talk with my homestay family as frequently as possible, I write down words that are unfamiliar I ask for clarifications and I always find some great words that are humorous false cognates or have a similar sounding words in Spanish or Italian but a completely different (usually negative) meaning, for example the word for papaya ‘mamão’ in Spanish that word (not spelled that exact way) is a pejorative term for a man that stays close to his mother compromising his independence and manhood. I have found myself compartmentalizing the Italian though and tapping into Spanish which has more of a close relation to Portuguese. Mentally, as my family corrects my mistakes and I do more and more exercises from the textbook I realize that Italian has a different rhythm so I have put it away, for lack of a better way of putting it. So I am looking forward to learning idiomatic expressions in Portuguese that are impossible to translate but completely understood only in Portuguese. The word saudade is one example of an only Portuguese word, even expressing ‘muito antigo’ with several finger snaps accompanying that phrase is something that is unique to Brazilian Portuguese or Portuguese in general. I think those details are the essential part of the language that I am hoping to learn or rather innately express by the time my three months are over.

Leti adroitly integrated gains from her informal interactions with Portuguese speakers into formal classroom activities and other exchanges through which she sought to promote her language learning. She was aware of how her knowledge in other Romance languages contributed to learning Portuguese, and she purposefully marshaled those resources to her benefit. When she interacted with Portuguese speakers in talk and writing, Leti drew from what she knew in Spanish, aware of the possible limitations of those understandings. She examined and experimented with using Italian too until she decided that her knowledge there was not as helpful as Spanish. Leti’s journal entry described translanguaging par excellence. She articulated ways she went about deploying the unique repertoire of languages she knew and what she knew about how languaging worked to create new, contextually relevant practices that served her needs while taking notes and cues from interlocutors with whom she interacted and mutually constructed meaning. Leti’s efforts to understand the workings of her unique and constantly changing linguistic repertoire, plus her determination and effective maneuvering toward success, made the achievement of her goal to become fluent in Portuguese a real possibility. It was clear from the very beginning that she was consciously drawing from linguistic forms and other notions and understandings of what she brought to Brazil, and what she was learning in this new world to speak and do her multiple selves in a new language.

When the Foreign is Familiar  53

Speaking a familiar and foreign Blackness

From my observations of her interactions and contributions in different classrooms, program and social activities, outings, from examining her language learning journals, class assignment submissions, her interview responses, and also, through personal discussions with Leti, it became clear that she learned to live and speak Portuguese through living and speaking her multiple race, gender, ethnicity, social class, sexual and cultural identities. These identities were racialized in significant ways owing to the centrality of Blackness in African American lives and the location of her study abroad program in a majority Afro-Brazilian city. Leti described in journals and interviews how seemingly simple lexical and grammatical choices in Portuguese proved more complex than they appeared as she learned about linguistic, historical and ideological filters through which, for example, something basic like racial self-­categorization must pass, along with the racialized gender and social class implications of her options. Furthermore, opportunities for Leti – a Black woman – to practice Portuguese were presented and mediated by race. This process of shaping racialized selves through which Leti understood and communicated her identities according to existing and newly gained understandings is what I call learning to speak Blackness. Ultimately, her development in the new language was mutually constitutive of her growth into new consciousness of how to do and how to be Black in a new context. Through experiences and participation in different classroom and communities, Leti, who already knew how to speak Blackness in the USA and Dominican Republic, was transformed into new ways of understanding, doing and speaking Blackness specifically in Brazil. In an interview Leti shared that, before arriving in Salvador, she assumed people there would be ethno-racially similar to the mostly White or (light-skinned) ‘mixed’ people she knew or saw in exported Brazilian media. She thought it would be like the Dominican Republic, which she viewed as primarily ‘mixed-race’ but not Black-identified. After arriving in Brazil, however, any ignorance or ambivalence of the country’s Blackness vanished, and Salvador’s uniquely Black identity and Leti’s race-based experiences there prominently featured in her Portuguese language learning. She was thrilled to look like people all around the city, and she described this as an advantage as strong as her ability to speak Spanish, because it allowed her the comfort and facility to move around and interact more easily with Brazilians, in the same way knowing Spanish allowed her to more easily communicate in Portuguese. Being Black and blending in with everybody around Salvador gave Leti a sense of greater safety and insider status. She did not stand out like a White foreigner, therefore, she called less negative attention to herself as a target for crime or harassment. Leti’s Blackness and phenotypic similarity to locals also

54  Language Learning in Study Abroad

created invaluable language learning and interaction opportunities for her since Brazilians were more disposed to, for example, asking her for directions or engaging in ordinary conversation with her in Portuguese. Leti’s racialized identity and physical identification with the Black population of the Salvador were a joy and relief. In journals, interviews and conversations she expressed that her Blackness contributed to a heightened sense of safety, greater relaxation and self-assuredness to speak Portuguese, and gave her feelings of belonging as a member of the racial majority. These feelings were especially positive as they related to Leti’s confidence in being someplace where she perceived her hair texture and her body type as completely ‘normal’. In Salvador, it was not uncommon to see and care for hair like hers, clothes (and public admiration) for women with curvaceous figures like hers were readily available, and her skin color was downright ordinary. Leti described all of these similarities – along with the linguistic advantages of speaking Spanish – as part of the ‘bonus of being Dominican’ in Brazil. Leti’s race-based sense of comfort and belonging in Brazil was a huge relief from her previous anxiety and feelings of oddness and physical unattractiveness as one of few Black students at the K-12 schools she attended in the USA. It was wholly unlike the alienation she reported feeling in the majority White town where her college was located, and also, the isolation she experienced during her prior study abroad program stays in Italy. The experience of being surrounded by such vibrant and abundant Blackness in Brazil was very new and foreign to Leti, while at the same time, Blackness itself was quite familiar. Leti’s familiarity with Blackness prior to arriving in Brazil, however, was not problem-free. She felt thrilled to be surrounded by Black people who looked like her and enjoyed the comfort and security that accompanied the familiarity. Yet, Leti did not enthusiastically welcome the overwhelming presence of Blackness in her academic study at the Portuguese language program and dreaded the prospect of discussing ‘Black issues’ every single day during the course dedicated exclusively to learning about Afro-Brazilian culture and history. Her family background from the Dominican Republic provided a major cultural and ideological frame of reference among Leti’s identities, and Dominicans’ relationship with their own and next-door neighbor Haiti’s Blackness is profoundly hostile (see Mayes, 2014 for a full discussion). Leti’s family background, which was fraught with conflicting ideologies between her Black mother and White father from the Dominican Republic, made it difficult for her to unreservedly assume and value Blackness. In an interview, she discussed the sources of these problems: LETI (from Week 10 interview) Ahm, I felt that, I’ve always had like a very difficult time with my identity, because I went to private schools, and I spent a great deal of time, even when I was in public schools, it was all either Asians or Whites. And I had

When the Foreign is Familiar  55

very few Hispanic friends and even fewer actual African-American friends. And so it was very, it’s complicated, because if you meet my mom, she’s like militant, militant like black power. But it’s so out of place, because as a Dominican, you’re not supposed to say you’re Black, because people are messed up like that. But like, you don’t say you’re Black. You just say you’re Dominican or color of trigo7 UJU:  Trigueño8 [LAUGH] or taíno9 [LAUGH] LETI: I know, which there was like six of those Indians on the island by the time the Spaniards got out […] But you know I learned so much about culture, the Afro-Brazilian class, I was like so turned off when I first got here. I was like, ugh, it’s going to be like my mom again, always talking about black people, black relations, god! Like my dad, my dad just sits down, tuning out all that, because he comes from a super racist family. So it’s like, don’t talk about it. But here, it’s just, I learned that talking about the black issues, doesn’t always have to be like, polemic, it doesn’t always have to be like I’m fighting for something. It could just be like I’m having a conversation about black people, damn it.

Leti’s initial aversion to talking about ‘Black issues’ was due to her family experience with Blackness. Her father was from a White and very light-skinned Dominican family, whom she called ‘super racist’, because this family denied and deplored the little bit of African ancestry they had. Owing to their undeniably Black appearance, her mother’s side could not do the same; however, they openly favored lighter-skinned relatives and neglected, abused or outright rejected the darker ones like Leti’s mother. Leti’s mother eagerly dove into Black pride and self-love political movements when she moved to the USA, advocating pro-Black sentiments in great contrast with Dominican-American friends and relatives, who were uneasy with Blackness and preferred to distance themselves from it by identifying as ‘mixed’, ‘Latino’ or just ‘Dominican’. When she attempted to discuss Black issues, the family ignored or ridiculed Leti’s mother as excessively militant, groaning ‘here she goes again’. Thus, Leti initially approached Blackness-related subject matter with trepidation, because she had never been in Black schools or peer groups, and at home, Blackness was a divisive polemic. Eventually, through the Afro-Brazilian culture and history course, a learning community where Blackness was celebrated and the AfroBrazilian instructor addressed issues related to race, racism and the Black identity movement in Brazil, Leti learned that being Black or talking about it did not necessarily always have to be a problem. The BACI classrooms were important translanguaging spaces where Blackness, along with the shaping and positioning of multiple other identities, featured prominently. Leti’s Portuguese language study abroad program, which was located in an Afro-Brazilian city and purposefully highlighted ethno-­ racial topics in its core curriculum, was unusual. Subjects and materials in

56  Language Learning in Study Abroad

most commonly taught classroom languages (e.g. Spanish, English) seldom overtly address race. Nevertheless, many still present a racist discourse in the curriculum through stereotypical imagery (limiting blacks to ethnicized folkloric music, or to ‘traditions’ sections) and scant representation of Black populations as principal cultural agents in the language of study (Pinar, 1993; Taylor-Mendes, 2009). Topics and instructional materials in the Afro-Brazilian culture and history class promoted Blacks as primary and powerful actors fundamental to the creation, beauty and resilience of the nation. The course positively engaged Leti’s Blackness, gave her pride in it, and compelled her to want to learn more Portuguese and draw closer to Brazilians by learning about aspects of their culture and history with which she intimately identified. As was previously discussed, the translanguaging spaces of language learning contexts, discourses and interactions have transformative power to create new identities, values and practices. Such was occurring with Leti as she learned to understand, speak and do her Blackness in a new language and in new ways drawing from the forms, notions, and understandings of both present and new worlds. Over time, as her Blackness was more affirmed, Leti’s participation within the local Afro-Brazilian communities and opportunities to interact and speak Portuguese increased as well. What is more, Leti reported that her positive experiences with Blackness and the knowledge she gained from the Afro-Brazilian culture and history course material became apparent to her mother, who joyously noticed during their telephone conversations that Leti seemed more eager to discuss Black issues, which previously had just been her mother’s ‘thing’. Leti’s account highlighted the singular influence of race in the lives of Afro-descendants throughout the Americas, which contributes to the full spectrum of our humanity that we bring to translanguaging spaces such as multilingual and multicultural classrooms, and from which we draw insights, resources and references, when we shape new communicative selves within. Leti was not just speaking and learning Portuguese through her interactions in the Afro-Brazilian culture and history classroom, she was also working through racialized aspects of her history and experience as she deliberated how to participate in the practices of this translanguaging space. Her Blackness contributed to her initial approach and evaluation of what she would gain from the Afro-Brazilian culture and history course, the work she did inside the classroom, and also, what she did while engaging and interacting in communities outside. Leti showed how she drew resources from her repertoire of old and new understandings as she learned to speak Blackness in Brazil navigating within the unique study abroad context and multiple translanguaging spaces. In the Afro-Brazilian culture and history classroom episode that will be subsequently described, the instructor lectures on samba music traditions in Salvador and pauses to show the image in Figure 2.1. He

When the Foreign is Familiar  57

Figure 2.1  Slide image all were viewing during classroom episode (Title: 1974 – The Carnival Performance Group Ilê Ayê is founded in the Liberdade neighborhood)

describes the ideas and contributions of the cultural, social and political organization Ilê Ayê, where Leti volunteered teaching English to children. As the episode begins, the teacher (T) explains that Ilê Ayê promotes positive affirmation of Blackness and the valorization of Black aesthetics. The organization was born of the movimento negro (Black movement) in Brazil with one of its primary goals to counter the racism and anti-Blackness so virulently endemic even in the majority Black city of Salvador. Ilê’s founders and members center artistic creations and projects around AfroBrazilian religious traditions, ancestral mythology and cultural resistance. They even sponsor a Black carnival queen contest and herald dark-skinned Black women as lead figures in parade processions in clear contrast and vocal opposition to Salvador’s most popular and elite carnival groups that reserve such honors for White women and light-skinned women. Leti then interjects her personal knowledge of other Ilê Ayê Afro-centric activities: 01 Leti: eles ensinam as uhm os niños10 they teach the uhm the children11 02 de comunidade iorubá of the Yoruba community 03 a língua de iorubá the Yoruba language 04 T: também também also also 05 eles têm uma they have a

58  Language Learning in Study Abroad

06 um programa forte de educação they have a strong education program 07 Leti: sim yes (3.0) 08 Uju: você trabalha no Ilê Ayê não trabalha? you work at Ilê Ayê don’t you? 09 Leti: ((smiles, pointing to image on screen)) sim isso eles são yes that they are10 T: ((smiling)) ah cê trabalha lá é? ah you work there eh? 11 Leti: ((smiling)) sim ensinamos inglês lá yes we teach English there 12 eles sempre estão refe they are always refer13 uhm eles sempre dizem uhm they always say 14 isto es12 professores ah pretas this is teachers ah Black 15 vocês são you all are 16 é sempre querem dizer que você it is always they say that you 17 ((LOUD NOISE heard from computer display speaker in front of room)) 18 Leti: ((jerks torso back in surprise, laughs)) 19 T: perdão sorry 20 Ss: ((laughing)) 21 Leti: ((giggling)) 22 Leti: eles querem enfatizar que they want to emphasize that 23 Leti: todos os niños uh os meninos all the children uh the children 24 ainda quando (.) ah sejam even when (.) ah they be 25 ((rubbing right index finger back and forth on back of left hand)) uh muitos claros?  uh many light? 26 que são negros that they are Black 27 e que são eh and that they are eh 28 eu acho isso é muito diferente I think this is very different 29 porque nos Estados Unidos

When the Foreign is Familiar  59

because in the United States 30 você sempre disse you always said 31 eu tenho sixteenth white I have sixteenth White 32 e sempre você quer dizer and always you want to say 33 que você tem de branco what you have of White 34 T: mmm hmm 35 Leti: ou de estrangeiro or of foreigner 36 mas não você não quer dizer but no you do not want to say 37 I have one sixteenth Black 38 T: mmm hmm 39 Leti: então aqui é diferente dizer com orgulho so here it is different to say with pride 40 que você tem negro (.) africano that you have black (.) African 41 eu acho muito bonito I think very beautiful 42 T: isso porque os umm this is because the umm 43 os diretores do Ilê Ayê (.) os coordenadores the directors of Ilê Ayê (.) the coordinators 44 todos fazem parte do movimento negro all are part of the Black movement 45 então eles tentam so they try 46 passar também essa questão política to communicate also that political issue 47 Leti: sim yes 48 T: em que eles se orgulham in that they take pride 49 Leti: sim yes 50 T: certo? right? 51 da cor que têm in the color that they have 52 e da origem deles and in their origin 53 Leti: SIM YES

60  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Leti interrupts the instructor’s description of Ilê Ayê to add what she also knows about how they promote Blackness, specifically that they teach Yoruba language (from present day Nigeria, home of a large portion of enslaved Africans brought to Brazil) to children whom they serve in the Black working-class Liberdade neighborhood where the organization’s headquarters are located. The teacher assents this fact, adding that the group’s educational program is quite strong (lines 1–7). After a long pause, I enter the conversation by asking Leti to confirm my knowledge that, indeed, she worked at Ilê (line 8). She does, and the instructor, who was not aware of her personal contact with the group, smiles and asks her if that was really the case (line 10). Leti smiles in response to the teacher’s positive receipt of the news of her connection with Ilê and accepts this invitation for her to explain in greater detail what she does and what more she knows. She goes on to describe her duties teaching English at Ilê and she specifically calls attention to the fact that the organization’s leadership always emphasizes to the children that their teachers are pretas, a Portuguese word meaning ‘Black females/women’, and always insists that the children in their program see themselves as Black, no matter how light skinned they are (lines 11–26). Leti observes how this view differs from the USA where one would typically go out of the way to emphasize the smallest drop of White or ‘foreign’ (White) blood while uneager to do the same about an equally negligible Black lineage. She notes that she finds it very beautiful that within the Ilê community, one acknowledges Black and African heritage with pride (lines 28–41). From what I observed and discussed with Leti about her family background and attitudes on race, and from what I know through research, history, and my own personal and cultural experience, her observation that in the USA most Blacks would bend over backwards to acknowledge their White heritage, while at the same time denying Black blood, seems more typical of a specifically Dominican-influenced experience. Such a view contradicts the ‘one-drop of Black blood means you’re Black’ rule commonly adhered to by African Americans – a rule of hypodescent that also comes from a racist legacy promoting White supremacy through the societal, legal and institutional exclusion of as many people as possible who may use blood kinship to make claims to sovereign personhood and natural rights. Thus, with regard to experiences and attitudes on Blackness, Leti contrasts a negative assessment of her Dominican family/ ethnic background against a more favorable view of the ethno-racial languaging and cultural practices at Ilê Ayê. The instructor affiliates with Leti’s stance on these differences through his verbal assents of ‘mmm hmm’ (lines 34, 38) and reiterates to Leti and the rest of the class that Ilê’s practices are born of a political commitment to the Black movement and pride in their cultural and ethno-racial heritage. To this, she responds with a loud and hearty ‘YES.’

When the Foreign is Familiar  61

This episode demonstrates Leti’s translanguaging practices deploying her unique repertoire and experiences in different cultures, from which she gained different understandings of Blackness, when learning to speak Portuguese in Brazil, especially with regard to the acceptability of words like preta or negro. Leti was already familiar with the terms used to describe Blackness in the English language and the US cultural context; however, her ethnic background availed her to additional linguistic and sociocultural filters through which these Brazilian race categorization practices had to pass. When she learned that Black in Portuguese was negro, she already knew the same word from Spanish – charged with all its (arguably racist) Dominican sociocultural significance and associations. Therefore, her task of learning to speak Blackness in Brazil also involved negotiating how local practices compared with her prior notions of very similar or identical words. Take, for example, the word preta (Black female), which Leti described in the previous episode as a term proudly used by Afro-Brazilian cultural advocates and political activists in Ilê Ayê whom she greatly admired. Based on how her experiences within local communities in Salvador contributed to new understandings and Black pride, Leti heartily embraced and even took pleasure in being called pretinha, an endearingly diminutive form of preta, meaning ‘little black girl’. However, she did not particularly favor negrita,13 its Spanish language equivalent. The topic came up in the final group interview I conducted with Leti and other African American classmates in her program cohort: from Week 10 group interview



LETI: I can, I think, I think the highest compliment I received was last week in Lençóis14 when an attractive black man called me pretinha. And I was super excited because like the, it was like, top ROSE: Pretinha? LETI: Like little black girl. DIDIER: Isn’t it, in Spanish isn’t it like negrita? LETI: Yeah, negrita. But it just didn’t have, for some reason here it didn’t have the same, you know DIDIER: Yeah. ROSE: Ah, New York. Did you see I love New York15? She went off on that man, he said, he called her DIDIER: Because he said my little black girl. ROSE: He said my little negrita and she said OH HELL NO, YOU THIS THIS THIS AND THIS LETI: I feel like even in Spanish, like I know Dominicans don’t NINA: But she doesn’t count because she’s DIDIER: Ridiculous NINA: Fu::::cking ridiculous.

62  Language Learning in Study Abroad



LETI, DIDIER, ROSE:  [LAUGH] NINA: She brings down the Black race all the way ROSE: Well yeah, but it, but she took a lot of emotions, she just took emotions that like, most Black women have and amplified it, that’s all. Because most women would, negrita? What the? What? And she just, you know, because she’s New York, decided to take it there.

Like the previous classroom episode, the group interview excerpt above shows the influence of different linguistic and sociocultural filters through which Leti’s discursive practices of racial self-reference and representation pass and the different resources from which she draws while translanguaging to speak Portuguese and to speak Blackness in Brazil. She recounts to her friends how delighted she was to have been called pretinha, especially as the word was a flirtatious term of endearment from an attractive AfroBrazilian man. Didier, who also speaks Spanish, hones in on one of these filters by reminding her of the synonym negrita, which Leti acknowledges, but believes is somehow different from pretinha. Rose introduces other sociocultural and linguistic filters by presenting the idea of how negatively a Black American woman would react to being called negrita, which in English is both ugly in its phonetic proximity to ‘nigger’ and connotes insulting and especially sexist dismissiveness when said to an adult. The fact that Leti does not embrace being called ‘little black girl’ in Spanish and English in the same way that she has done in Portuguese, because in this new language and new Afro-Brazilian context, pretinha ‘for some reason here it didn’t have the same, you know’. Leti’s account of pretinha being somehow different for her ‘here’ in Salvador signals serious work being done in translanguaging space and how learning new practices in an additional language is inextricably linked with one’s history, background, experiences, all the identities and social and linguistic resources available to our individual repertoires. As I discussed earlier, despite her mother’s efforts to promote Black pride and self-love, Leti had been previously socialized through her experiences with Dominican and US racism to view Blackness negatively or with ambivalence. Eventually, through her racially affirming participation in the Afro-Brazilian culture and history classroom, as well as her positive and fulfilling experiences with AfroBrazilians in the Capoeira academy and Ilê Ayê cultural organization, Leti was learning a new Blackness through learning Portuguese and, in this endeavor, began to view Blackness much more favorably, and also, to take pride in being Black. We construct our sense of self through languaging while defining and positioning these subjectivities in relation to other people. Thus, Leti was paying very close attention to and really enjoying how her Blackness – or more accurately, her Black womanhood – was named in

When the Foreign is Familiar  63

Portuguese by Black people with whom she positively identified. She was engaged in personal transformation within the contexts and discourses of translanguaging spaces reimagining herself, her gendered Blackness and shaping a new communicative identity in Portuguese. In this process, she incorporated new languaging practices from people and experiences she favored into new understandings and expressions of self-acceptance. Leti’s enjoyment in learning Portuguese and assuming terms like pretinha had a lot to do with how well she was received and how positively she was made to feel in Afro-Brazilian communities. It also had more than a little to do with the people who called her pretinha, especially desirable men who used the term in flirtatious endearment, admiring and showering her with unabashed sexual attention: From Week 10 interview

UJU: So your two big conduits to Blackness in Salvador was Capoeira and [Afro-Brazilian culture and history course instructor]’s class, is that right? LETI: Yeah, and I would also say Ilê Ayê, because they are militant about liking Black people. They even call me preta, which is so great. I know like, it’s really offensive, I know like if you look at it from like an academic perspective to call people by their color, hey whitey, blackie, little blackie, little black girlie, you know like, it’s offensive, sort of UJU:  But not here [in Brazil], I mean LETI: And then doing your volunteering, and somebody says like, pretinha, you’re sort of flattered like, I know, I’m like, your little preta. [GIGGLE] It’s sort of like flattering. And even like, within the Capoeira circle, it’s kind of nice to see like the blackest guys are the ones who are like, the ones you should be like, sort of after, and then like, it sort of peters out as you get sort of lighter colored. UJU:  [LAUGH] LETI:  You know, it’s like, finally! Even though she found a similar reference in English and Spanish to be problematic, Leti’s embrace of the word pretinha within the context of endearment and sexual flirtation that it was used is no coincidence, given the history of such terms in Brazilian society. A fundamental part of the country’s legacy of human enslavement was the specific type of gender plus race-based violence, or misogynoir (Bailey, 2013), in the form of sexual abuse and concubinage to which White male enslavers subjected their Black female captives. The terms, minha (my) negra/nega/neguinha/ preta/pretinha in Brazil originated (see dos Santos & Ribeiro, 2010 for etymology) from the history of Black women being owned as property and subjected to sexual servitude, casually assumed as freely available in

64  Language Learning in Study Abroad

plantation households and fields for White enslavers, patrons, staff and all these men’s sons to rape. Today, such connotations of abuse and violation are no longer associated with words such as pretinha or neguinha, but they are still often invoked in racist derision (Caldwell, 2004). Additionally, they are very commonly used as terms of endearment and tenderness toward a friend, a cherished girl or woman, and, within the context of sexual flirtations and relations, a pet name one would call a girlfriend, lover or wife.16 Leti’s expressed flattery in being called pretinha by good looking Black men was related to her feelings of belonging and positive identification in AfroBrazilian communities. She accepted it owing to her excitement in being seen as attractive and valued for racialized aspects of her identities that had previously been a source of anxiety and insecurity. She also delighted in witnessing others, whose Blackness would not be viewed as favorably in different contexts, get the same attention. This joyous adoption of preta/pretinha into Leti’s practices of self-reference and identification in Portuguese showed how her development in the new language also inseparably accompanied her understanding of speaking Blackness in this new context. Concluding Thoughts and Implications for Practice

Leti learned to live and speak Portuguese through living and translanguaging her multiple identities. Ultimately, her development in the new language was mutually constitutive of her growth into a new consciousness of Blackness in a new context. Leti was transformed into new ways of understanding, doing and speaking Blackness in the Portuguese language and in Brazil through experiences and participation in different communities within and outside classrooms, while translanguaging and drawing from all the resources available from her identities, linguistic and cultural repertoire. Her participation and investments in Afro-Brazilian classrooms and communities yielded a newfound embrace of her Blackness, which was previously troubled by feelings of discomfort, tension and anxiety. The important changes Leti experienced while learning to speak Blackness in Brazil demonstrate how influential race was in this particular study abroad experience and within the overall transformation Black students undergo as they shape new language and culture speaking selves. Leti was personally impacted by racism in her background and in Salvador. Her experience – and also, her transcendence – of these abuses profoundly contributed to her new Portuguese speaking identity. The location of Leti’s study abroad program in an Afro-Brazilian city and the centrality of ethno-racial topics in its core curriculum were a boon to her experience learning the Portuguese language and how to speak Blackness in Brazil. However, as was noted earlier in this chapter, such conditions and pedagogical affordances are unusual among commonly

When the Foreign is Familiar  65

taught languages, where we typically see no explicit mention of race in the curriculum and complete erasure or stereotyped imagery of Blacks in the learning materials with little representation of them as principals in the target language culture. All study abroad participants would benefit from selecting geographic locations, materials, activities and curricula that more accurately and meaningfully represent our student and target language populations. African American students of Romance languages, in particular, consistently report a lack of explicit links between their ethno-racial backgrounds and classroom materials, topics and curricula, and they express a desire to see more relevant and personally significant connections made between their experiences and those of the cultures and people that speak the languages they study (Anya, 2011). Given the size and tremendous influence of Afro-descendant populations in Francophone, Lusophone and Hispanophone countries worldwide, there are many sources from which to draw (see Dahl, 2000; Farfan-Cobb & Lassiter, 2008; Kennedy, 1987; Watson, 2013 for ideas). African American students also report seeking study abroad programs in countries and cities which offer experiences that are more relevant to their ethno-racial identities and background (Day-Vines et al., 1998; Morgan et al., 2002; Murray Brux & Fry, 2009; Penn & Tanner, 2009), and this includes a desire to live with Black families to experience global Blackness up close, gain a more intimate understanding of daily life, economic and sociopolitical conditions for Blacks abroad, and, very importantly, to feel safer and more secure. Some may argue that race should not be a consideration in picking the best study abroad family. However, if a Black family was never considered or included on the list of potential hosts for all students – Black or otherwise – a race-based choice has already been made, and the message that Black families are not considered the best to host international guests has been conveyed. Often, the absence of Black families from the homestay pool is due to the placement coordinator’s limited contacts. In more troubling cases, there may even be worry that non-Black students (or their parents) may not want a Black family. However, if equity and inclusiveness are among the study abroad program priorities, it should not acquiesce to racism, and an articulated policy on selecting a racially diverse host family pool should be clearly communicated. Findings from this study also show us how important it is to take a multilingual approach in our research on language learning during study abroad. Leti’s case of a Spanish speaker learning Portuguese teaches us important lessons on how she managed and drew from her repertoire of cultural understandings and linguistic resources when translanguaging in Spanish and Portuguese, and also, how she was informed by and negotiated her multiple identities, cultural understandings and Spanish languaging practices in the Dominican Republic and languaging Portuguese in Brazil. A key example is how she so positively embraced and shaped a

66  Language Learning in Study Abroad

communicative identity as pretinha in Brazil, when she would not have spoken her Blackness in the Dominican Republic using the equivalent Spanish term negrita. Our field’s typical monolingual approach to examining language learning in study abroad would focus on Leti’s immersion in Brazil, exclusively chronicling the knowledge and skills she gained in Portuguese, for instance, the mere fact that she learned and successfully used the word pretinha, without exploring how specific aspects of her linguistic and cultural repertoire contributed to that outcome. A multilingual approach, on the other hand, prioritizes inquiry on Leti’s unique repertoire, her translanguaging or deployment of her individualized toolkit, the specificities within this Spanish-speaking multilingual’s experience learning Portuguese and what we can learn from her journey. A multilingual approach to research on study abroad can also inform a multilingual orientation toward learning and pedagogical practice in study abroad. We can gain some insights into how go about it from the ideals and policies of plurilingualism articulated in the Council of Europe’s (2001, 2016, 2018) language education guides. According to the Council, plurilingualism focuses on expanding the expertise of a multilingual speaker – not reproducing or approximating the monolingual native – as the model of instruction for new language learning, and it focuses on the speaker’s linguistic repertoire and competence, which are dynamic, always changing and non-homogenous across all their known languages. Most importantly, plurilingualism is ‘transversal’ (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013) in that it relies on linguistic interdependence for learning and teaching, thus making the languages students and teachers already know a valued support actively utilized for instruction. This support, however, does not negate the critical need for immersive interaction in the target language, because we speak to learn, not learn to speak, and the ultimate goal in study abroad is still to engage with and communicate in the target as much as possible. However, study abroad classrooms and even the local communities outside are not monolingual. They are multilingual, transformative, translanguaging spaces where students enter with their own unique histories, identities and repertoires. This study revealed some aspects of that unique background Leti brought with her to Brazil and showed that her race and ethnicity availed her to additional and very important linguistic and sociocultural resources, which served as filters through which the practices she was developing in Brazil had to pass. Her task of learning how to give voice to herself in Portuguese inextricably involved negotiating how new understandings and practices compared with her prior notions of very similar or even identical terms and concepts in Spanish. Leti’s case encourages us to prioritize a multilingual approach in the creation and promotion of programs and curricula and to consider the multicultural backgrounds of study abroad participants with more than one inherited language. In Portuguese classes, where most students (and also a good number of their instructors) have some inherited and/or schooled Spanish

When the Foreign is Familiar  67

language background, emerging and experienced multilinguals can be encouraged to articulate and share their strategies in using one language to understand and distinguish from the other. Portuguese instructors could utilize their knowledge of Spanish, English and other languages spoken in their classrooms to implement instructional practices that explicitly teach the students how best to leverage their linguistic background when learning Portuguese, by exploring, for example, how a particular theme, idea, narrative structure or communicative task can work in different languages. Finally, Leti’s case also urges us to follow Quan (2018), Willis (2015) and my example in Anya (2017) to prioritize participants’ intersectional race, gender, sexual and social class identities as primary foci among factors that influence study abroad. If not, we miss the full story of their experience and its full implications for our research and practice. With specific regard to black participants in language learning and study abroad, Leti’s case urges us to keep in mind that not all our Black students are exclusively African American, and many come from a wide array of nationalities and ethnic backgrounds which directly inform their social positionings and experience. In short, we would do very well to consider all of the above when trying to understand and plan for our students’ success in new language learning. Notes   (1) The study presented in this chapter is part of a larger research project detailed in my book, Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil (Anya, 2017).  (2) All participants and institutions in the study were unidentified or assigned pseudonyms.   (3) ‘Language inheritance’ was proposed by Leung et al. (1997) to displace concepts such as ‘native language’ and ‘mother tongue’ that often assume expertise and affiliation a speaker may not have or identify with. I use the term ‘inherited language’ to encompass all languages gained as a result of birth and close contact with speakers, initially without choice and explicit instruction, but can also be schooled later. Inherited languages can include a ‘heritage language’ associated with familial ties and ethnic identity as well as languages imposed by colonization, migration, enslavement and other conditions of sociolinguistic dominance. In Leti’s case, she has two inherited languages – Spanish from birth to a Spanish speaking Dominican family living in the USA and English from birth in a context where the language predominates.   (4) 2018 figures from the Brazilian national census organization IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/ populacao/17270-pnad-continua.html?edicao=24437&t=resultados.   (5) The IBGE 2018 PNAD report calculates Afro-Brazilians at 55.8% joining categories preto and pardo. See https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/ liv101654_informativo.pdf.   (6) All cited excerpts from Leti’s texts were reproduced exactly as she originally wrote them and edited only for length, comprehensibility or to eliminate identifying information. Text editing is signaled by square brackets ‘[ ]’, ellipsis ‘…’ or blanks ‘B___’.

68  Language Learning in Study Abroad

 (7) Wheat.   (8) Spanish term used to describe a person of ‘wheatish’ skin color.   (9) Member of the Taíno indigenous group of the Antilles. (10) Spanish. (11) Leti’s utterances in Portuguese were translated as they were heard in the recordings with the inclusion of what I believe would be the English equivalent of morphological, syntactical and lexical errors. Some changes were made only to accommodate differences between Portuguese and English in, for example, article use and nounmodifier placement. (12) Spanish. (13) The exact equivalent, prietita, exists; however, it is less commonly used. (14) City in the state of Bahia to where the program made an organized excursion. (15) This was a reality show on VH1 cable network featuring an African American woman named ‘New York.’ This Black female lead is courted by a racially diverse group of men, among whom she chooses the last one remaining for a love match after weekly dating competitions and eliminations. (16) Note: minha nega/neguinha has not entirely lost its history of reference to an illicit Black concubine outside a White man’s societally sanctioned marriage to a White woman, since it is still a common term for one’s mistress, lover or casual sexual companion outside a formal relationship.

References Alim, S., Rickford, J. and Ball, A. (2016) Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes our Ideas about Race. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anya, U. (2011) Connecting with communities of learners and speakers: Integrative ideals, experiences, and motivations of successful Black second language learners. Foreign Language Annals 44, 441–466. Anya, U. (2017) Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. New York: Routledge. Bailey, M. (2013) New terms of resistance: A response to Zenzele Isoke. Souls 15, 341–343. Balthazart, J. (2012) The Biology of Homosexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. Bakhtin, M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. V. McGee (trans). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bloor, M. and Bloor, T. (2007) The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London: Hodder Arnold. Bottero, W. (2004) Class identities and the identity of class. Sociology 38, 985–1003. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caldwell, K. (2004) ‘Look at her hair:’ The body politics of black womanhood in Brazil. Transforming Anthropology 11, 18–29. Carvalho, A., Freire, J. and da Silva, A. (2010) Teaching Portuguese to Spanish speakers: A case for trilingualism. Hispania 93, 70–75. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2013) Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: Softening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly 47, 591–599. Colín Rodea, M. (2008) A cultura invisível: elementos de variação em contextos de ensino de português para falantes de espanhol no Brasil. In L. Wiedeman and M. Scaramucci (eds) Português para Falantes de Espanhol: Ensino e Aaquisição [Portuguese for Spanish Speakers: Teaching and Acquisition] (pp. 107–118). Campinas, Brazil: Pontes Editores.

When the Foreign is Familiar  69

Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97 (accessed 6 May 2019). Council of Europe (2016) Guide for the Development and Implementation of Curricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural Eeducation. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. See https://www.coe.int/en/web/platform-plurilingual-intercultural-language-education/three-fundamental-and-complementary-tools-for-the-implementation-of-plurilingual-education (accessed 6 May 2019). Council of Europe (2018) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. (Companion Volume with Descriptors). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-­ companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989 (accessed 6 May 2019). Crump, A. (2014) Introducing LangCrit: Critical language and race theory. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 11, 207–224. Dahl, A. (2000) Piquing the interest of African American students in foreign languages: The case of Spelman College. ADFL Bulletin 31, 30–35. dos Santos, G. and Ribeiro, M. (2010) Análise semântica e pragmática dos significantes ‘neguinho(a)’ e ‘nego(a)’ no século XIX e no mundo contemporâneo. Cadernos do CNLF 14, 2347–2355. Day-Vines, N., Barker, J. and Exum, H. (1998) Impact of diasporic travel on ethnic identity development of African American college students. College Student Journal 32, 463–471. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman. Farfan-Cobb, I. and Lassiter, L. (2008) How National Foreign Language Week promotes cultural awareness at a historically black university. Foreign Language Annals 36, 397–402 Flores, N. and Rosa, J. (2015) Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review 85, 149–71. García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell. Goodwin, C. (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489–1522. Green, J. (1989) Spanish. In M. Harris and N. Vincent (eds) The Romance Languages (pp. 79–130). London: Croom Helm. Guimarães, A. (2012) The Brazilian system of racial classification. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35, 1157–1162. Hall, S. (1990) Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (ed.) Identity, Community, Culture, Difference (pp. 222–237). London: Lawrence and Wishart. Hall, S. (2006) Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. In A. King (ed.) Culture, Globalization and the World- System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity (pp. 41–68). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Heller, M. (1999) Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London and New York: Longman. Henriques, E. (2000) Intercompreensão de texto escrito por falantes nativos de português e de espanhol. Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 16, 263–295. Illeris, K. (2014) Transformative Learning and Identity. New York: Routledge. Jensen, J. (1989) On the mutual intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese. Hispania 72, 848–852. Jensen, J. (2004) The relative influence of Spanish and English in the Portuguese writing of bilingual students. In A. Simões, A. Carvalho and L. Wiedeman (eds) Português para Falantes de Espanhol. [Portuguese for Spanish Speakers] (pp. 67–82). Campinas, Brazil: Pontes Editores.

70  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Kachru, Y. (1994) Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly 28, 795–800. Kennedy, J. (1987) Strategies for including Afro-Latin American culture in the intermediate Spanish class. Hispania 70, 679–683. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998) Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 11, 7–24. Leung, C., Harris, R. and Rampton, B. (1997) The idealised native speaker, reified ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly 31, 543–560. Li Wei (2011) Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1222–1235. Mayes, A. (2014) The Mulatto Republic: Class, Race, and Dominican National Identity. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Morgan, R., Mwegelo, D. and Turner, L. (2002) Black women in the African Diaspora seeking their cultural heritage through studying abroad. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 39, 297–317. Moya, P. and Markus, H. (2010) Doing race: An introduction. In P. Moya and H. Markus (eds) Doing Race: 21 Essays for the 21st Century (pp. 1–102). New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Murray Brux, J. and Fry, B. (2009) Multicultural students in study abroad: Their interests, their issues, and their concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education 14, 508–527. Ochs, E. (1993) Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26, 287–306. Omi, M. and Winant, H. (1994) Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1970s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge. Otheguy, R., García, O. and Reid, W. (2015) Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6, 281–308. Penn, E. and Tanner, J. (2009) Black students and international education: An assessment. Journal of Black Studies 40, 266–282. Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pereira Santos, G. and Sales, S. (2018) A mulher negra brasileira, miscegenação e o estupro colonial: O mito da democracia racial e o reforço de estereótipos racistas e sexistas. Caderno Espaço Feminino 31, 40–62. Pinar, W. (1993) Notes on understanding curriculum as racial text. In C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow (eds) Race, Identity, and Representation in Education (pp. 60–71). New York: Routledge. Quan, T. (2018) Language learning while negotiating race and ethnicity abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 30, 32–46. Sacks, H. (1995) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sales, R. (2006) Democracia racial: O não-dito racista. Tempo Social 18, 229–258. Saussure, F. (1966) Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw Hill. Schwarcz, L. (1996) Negras Imagens: Ensaios sobre Cultura e Escravidão no Brasil. São Paulo: Estação Ciência, Universidade de São Paulo. Sell, R. (1997) Defining and measuring sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior 26, 643–658. Simões, A. and Kelm, O. (1991) O processo de aquisição das vogais semi-abertas ‘é, ó’ /ε, Ɔ/ do português (brasileiro)como língua estrangeira. Hispania 74, 654–665. Sridhar, S.N. (1994) A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly 28, 800–805. Telles, E. (2004) Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

When the Foreign is Familiar  71

Taylor-Mendes, C. (2009) Construction of racial stereotypes in English as a foreign language textbooks: Images as discourse. In R. Kubota and A. Lin (eds) Race, Culture, and Identities in Second Language Education: Exploring Critically Engaged Practice (pp. 64–80). New York: Routledge. van Dijk, T. (1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 4, 249–283. Vargas, J.H. (2004) Hyperconsciousness of race and its negation: The dialectic of white supremacy in Brazil. Identities 11, 443–470. Watson, S. (2013) Teaching Afro-Latin culture through film: ‘Raíces de mi corazón’ and Cuba’s ‘Guerrita de los negros.’ Hispania 96, 71–80. Weedon, C. (1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. West, C. and Zimmerman, D. (1987) Doing gender. Gender and Society 1, 125–151. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. (2001) Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London: The Open University. Wiedeman, L. and Scaramucci, M. (eds) (2008) Português para Falantes de Espanhol: Ensino e Aquisição. [Portuguese for Spanish Speakers: Teaching and Acquisition.] Campinas, Brazil: Pontes Editores. Willis, T. (2015) ‘And still we rise…’: Microagressions and intersectionality in the study abroad experiences of black women. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 26, 209–230. Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds) (2009) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE. Zamora, M. (2012) Desigualdade racial, racismo e seus efeitos. Fractal: Revista de Psicologia 24, 563–578.

3 An Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions in Short-Term Study Abroad Janice McGregor

Introduction

US college students wishing to study abroad (SA) today face a wide range of programmatic options, from traditional semester or year-long direct exchange programs to short-term faculty-led programs during summer semesters or intersessions. Programs of 10 weeks or less have been the most popular choice for US students for at least the past 10 years, and participation in these programs continues to be on the rise (see Goodwin & Nacht, 1988; Institute for International Education, 2016; Woolf, 2007). Changes in SA programming and participation reflect the demands of an ever-increasing diverse student body as well as broader institutional ­concerns that international academic experiences play a key role in ­developing a more global citizenry (Twombly et al., 2012). Applied linguists have become interested  in language learners’ experiences in short-term programs abroad (e.g. Wolcott, 2013), perhaps because of their length (i.e. practical for the researcher), and the fact that they are typically more insular than the traditional junior year abroad model (i.e. created specifically for non-local student populations). In fact, short-term programs are often designed with the express purpose of meeting US academic cultural expectations and thereby tend to leave out the academic cultural expectations of the local context (Wolcott, 2013). As an example, in many cases, short-term programs that foreground intensive second language (L2) learning take place at institutes whose course offerings correspond to US semester timelines and expectations. Some institutes even offer additional coursework in English for these non-local student populations, even when English is not a language spoken locally. It is not the purview of the current chapter to investigate or even analyze these changes in the SA landscape; however, students’ 72

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  73

opportunities for meaningful L2 use abroad might look quite different from even 10 years ago. In other words, there is likely interplay between the insular nature and shorter length of these SA programs and opportunities that students have for using the L2 with locals. Consequently, in this chapter, I report on an investigation of how L2 learning peers in a short-term SA program use language in interaction with one another abroad. Some studies report on how L2 learners use language with (local, native-speaking) age peers in a variety of SA contexts (e.g. Diao, 2014; Masuda, 2011; McGregor, 2016; Shively, 2013). Yet few scholars have examined how L2 learning peers interact with other L2 learning peers in SA contexts, despite the fact that those who participate in insular programs of 10 weeks or less are often in regular contact with one another, whether as a part of programmatic events, in hostel or dorm-style living arrangements, or during other social and/or travel experiences. They may share similar goals, and may even come from the same home institutions and/or countries. Of central interest in this chapter, then, are the opportunities that L2 learning peers afford one another for meaningful language use in a six-week SA program in Leipzig, Germany. Enacting a multilingual approach to the examination of interactions between L2 learning peers, a typically overlooked and undervalued population in the SA literature, I ask: (1) Are L2 learning peers valuable resources for one another in short-term SA? (2) If so, how do L2 learning peers use language in informal, naturalistic interactions with one another during short-term SA, and why? L2 Learning Peers: Overlooked and Undervalued

L2 learning peers tend to spend a good deal of time together during SA. Especially in the context of short-term SA, there is an assumption, often held by students themselves, that L2 learning peers spend a lot of time together abroad and that they resort primarily to L1 use (see Trentman, Chapter 4, this volume). Yet few studies have examined how they use language and co-construct their experiences together in informal, naturalistic interactions. In the fields of linguistic anthropology and interactional sociolinguistics, scholars have long shown that multilingual child peers routinely use their multiple language resources to socialize one another into heteroglossic or hybrid linguistic practices (see Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2012 for a review of studies on bilingual peer interactions). Recently, scholars in applied linguistics and L2 acquisition (SLA) have also examined L2 learning peer interactions, focusing primarily on interactions in classroom contexts.1 Philp et al. (2005) found that in classroom exchanges, L2 learning peers use language to facilitate each other’s collaborative participation in

74  Language Learning in Study Abroad

clarifying, reflecting on, and ultimately solving language issues – language knowledge building that is often referred to as ‘languaging’ (Swain, 2010). In other words, when L2 learning peers participate in social interaction in classroom contexts as non-experts and ‘puzzle through things together’, they also ‘use language to learn language’ (Swain & Suzuki, 2008: 9). Scholars have also shown that L2 learners use language to collaboratively navigate one another’s face wants (Goffman, 1967), or how they desire to be seen by others. For example, Tsai and Kinginger (2015) use conversation analysis (CA) to investigate how L2 learning peers give advice on one another’s L2 writing in online peer review sessions. The results show that participants struggle to do this work in interaction – and not because of linguistic challenges (i.e. not knowing how to construct advice). The authors show that participants insert compliments whenever possible because they recognize the need to deliver advice in a way that acknowledges their interlocutor’s face wants. In other words, maintaining solidarity with fellow L2 learning peers while giving advice is paramount. Whereas in the context of traditional SLA, linguistic difficulties are often considered a product of L2 learners’ limited L2 proficiency, Tsai and Kinginger’s findings show that sociopragmatic issues play a major role in L2 learning peer interactions. Just as in any context of use, pragmatic and interpersonal aspects shape how language learners collaboratively navigate difficult, pragmatically sensitive moments. These issues become more salient for L2 learners who have to manage everyday needs using their L2. We know that multilingual peers actively socialize one another into valued linguistic practices (e.g. Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2012), that sociopragmatic issues shape how L2 learners interact (e.g. Diao, 2014; Shively, 2013; Tsai & Kinginger, 2015) and that L2 learning peers ‘language’ with one another in class (e.g. Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005; Philp et al., 2005); however, besides the recent work of Surtees (2018) investigating how L2 learning peers interact with one another during SA in Canada, we know little about how L2 learning peers utilize their multiple language resources with one another in informal interactions and everyday spontaneous discourse in SA, especially outside of a formal classroom setting. This may be in part related to the traditional view of SA as the quintessential context for L2 learning (Kinginger, 2008), in that it has often been presumed that time spent abroad will yield, in a supposedly very natural manner, significant opportunities for meaningful interactions with native speakers (NSs). Those who champion this perspective rely on ideologically informed beliefs about whom the best (or most ‘authentic’) resources for these interactions might be (i.e. not L2 learning peers). In addition, proponents of this view seem to be making a bold assumption about SA in the 21st century: namely, that going abroad (for any length of time) means securing direct access to meaningful

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  75

interactions with ‘authentic’ (i.e. native) speakers. A consequence of this belief is that L2 learning peers are assumed to be interlocutors with whom one will exclusively use the L1 or another shared language (see Trentman, Chapter 4, this volume). In this way, L2 learning peers are not framed as valuable or important interlocutors in the L2 learning process abroad, even though they, too, are multilinguals who may have similar knowledge, goals, needs and interests. In SA contexts, other L2 learning peers are at best overlooked as possible resources and at worst scorned for their lack of ‘authenticity’, despite the fact that research shows that L2 learning peers abroad frequently rely on one another for social relationships, local participation and other basic needs (Mitchell et al., 2017). This is not to say that SA students do not desire to make connections with NSs and use the L2 with them – meaningful opportunities for L2 use with locals may simply not materialize in the ways imagined. These concerns lead to assumptions that short-term programs yield a less than ‘authentic’ SA experience than semester- or year-long programs. As my analysis shows, however, this perspective oversimplifies the multilingual experiences of L2 learning peers in short-term SA and how they use their multiple language resources with one another in interaction. Pragmatic and interpersonal aspects are at all times crucial to understanding how peers orient to one another (e.g. Diao, 2014; Shively, 2013; Tsai & Kinginger, 2015), and this is no different in the context of short-term SA. Rethinking Multilingualism and Authenticity L2 learning and multilingualism abroad

Since the publication of the report of the MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages in 2007, scholars in foreign language education have argued for translingual competence as a pedagogical imperative of foreign language curricula (which often include SA). In the field of bilingual education, García (2009) proposed the concept of ‘translanguaging’ with the goal of theorizing differently the ways in which multilinguals utilize their entire linguistic repertoires to reach their communicative potential. This concept, which describes an ‘ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system’ (Canagarajah, 2011: 401), has served as a helpful way to understand how L2 learning peers deploy their linguistic resources in interaction. Just as it unfetters language from its structuralist-only and mentalist-only bearings (García & Li Wei, 2014: 42), translanguaging theory also moves away from focusing on discrete, ‘named’ language systems. Instead, translanguaging theory highlights the practices of multilinguals that one can observe (García & Li Wei, 2014: 22), calling attention to their dynamic, collaborative and hybrid language

76  Language Learning in Study Abroad

practices. The act of translanguaging would allow for the multilingual speaker abroad to develop a ‘social space’ and coordinate and ultimately perform different facets of their own histories, experiences, contexts, beliefs and identities through language (Li Wei, 2011: 1223). In this space, creativity (or, obeying or defying particular conventions of language use) and criticality (or, utilizing evidence to contest or articulate particular views) are welcome as speakers actively (re)construct who they were, are and what they know or believe. Translanguaging theory has many implications for how educators and students view SA programs with a focus on L2 learning. Immersion programs that reconstruct monolingualism as the norm, for example, are commonly characterized as the best spaces for L2 learners to develop their L2 proficiency, despite the fact that they simultaneously delegitimize their multilingualism and multilingual practices. Educators and L2 learners alike may desire SA programs that require participants to take an ‘L2 only’ pledge, even though they are multilinguals who utilize their multiple language resources in order to communicate with others (see also Brown (Chapter 6), Diao (Chapter 5) and Trentman (Chapter 4), this volume). In other words, proponents of monolingual immersion approaches rely on an understanding of L2 learning as the learning and use of an autonomous linguistic system that is completely separate from the first language (L1) (García & Li Wei, 2014). In addition, this outlook promotes the ideological view that one bounded linguistic system (i.e. the German language) is naturally connected to one bounded nation state. In this way, language learning in SA is often characterized as an opportunity to leave behind one’s nation (i.e. the USA), and, thus, one’s L1 (i.e. English), in order to collect another linguistic system (i.e. German), resulting in the supposed assembly of ‘multiple monolingualisms’ (Heller, 1999; Kramsch, 2012; Pennycook, 2010). For example, Heller reports on the fact that in learning how to become bilingual, students also learn ‘separateness’ or the fact that ‘each variety must conform to certain prescriptive norms’ (Heller, 1999: 271). Yet scholars investigating the role of the L1 in L2 learning have shown that students do not naturally perform ‘separateness’; rather, they utilize their complete linguistic resources when interacting with other L2 learning peers in classroom scenarios for participant and discourse-related reasons (e.g. Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005; Philp et al., 2005). As educators, we must ask ourselves: who benefits from the reproduction of these discourses about monolingualism that simultaneously delegitimize multilingualism in SA and higher education? Put differently, it is worth questioning the consequences of encouraging students to conceive of SA as a time to remove themselves entirely from their particular set of linguistic and cultural practices in favor of others, especially in light of the fact that SA advising practices are often shaped by ‘standard’ assumptions about who SA students are likely to be (e.g. monolingual, middle-class, White).

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  77

Who is an ‘authentic speaker’?

Applied linguists have tended to conceive of ‘authentic’ speakers in two very different ways: (1) as people whose language use is authentic because it corresponds to a commonly perceived norm or convention (an authenticity of correspondence); or (2) as people whose language use is authentic in terms of whence it originated (an authenticity of genesis) (MacDonald et al., 2006; van Compernolle & McGregor, 2016). As an example of one of these conceptions, it has been commonly assumed that NSs are the default and most desirable interlocutors for L2 learners, and that speaking with them is the primary way to learn how to use the language in ways that correspond to local norms or conventions. As a result, L2 learners are encouraged to seek out NS interactions in the context of an SA experience, and at times are either explicitly told or believe that they should avoid developing relationships with other L2 learners. This recommendation reveals two assumptions: (1) that NS interlocutors are ready, willing and able to interact with L2 learners abroad; and (2) that if and when those interactions occur, they result in L2 learners and NSs using the language in a native-like (i.e. ‘authentic’) way with one another. According to an authenticity of genesis, however, L2 learner language use is also authentic, since their language productions are authentically and uniquely their own (see van Compernolle & McGregor, 2016 for a collection of empirical studies on this topic). Under a dualistic approach to authenticity, L2 learner language has been viewed as problematic or undesirable, and constitutes a possible reason for why so few scholars have examined how L2 learning peers use language when interacting with one another in SA contexts. Here, I thus engage with an integrated view of authenticity as the situated, collaborative, dynamic and ongoing process of authentication (Bucholtz, 2003). In other words, L2 learning peers continually and iteratively authenticate one another as they collaboratively negotiate meaning in conversation while abroad by producing constructions that are authentically their own while also attempting to ensure that their language use corresponds to commonly accepted local linguistic practices. Updated views of multilingualism and authenticity reimagined as authentication (Bucholtz, 2003; van Compernolle & McGregor, 2016) offer different perspectives on L2 learners’ language practices in shortterm SA in that they leave bounded and additive views of multilingualism and dualistic views of authenticity behind. These perspectives shape not just the current investigation but the broader multilingual turn for SA as well. By integrating translanguaging theory and authenticity as processes of authentication (Bucholtz, 2003), in the current study, I understand L2 learning peers’ language practices as collaborative, embodied, performative, symbolic, and situated in interaction. Through this lens, L2 learning peers in SA can also be viewed as multilinguals who are situated ‘speaking subjects’ (Kramsch, 2012), and accordingly, language and

78  Language Learning in Study Abroad

culture learning are seen as emergent and connected to L2 learning peers’ practical activity in the material world (Thorne, 2003). Multilinguals (in this case, L2 learning peers in SA) are thus able to manipulate the symbolic dimensions of language to identify with and authenticate one another in interaction. Because the empirical findings of this study emerge from an investigation of informal, naturalistic conversations between L2 learning peers, this study also responds to the call made by Fernández and Gates Tapia (2016) to closely examine the quality of discourse of L2 learners in interaction abroad. Indeed, this interactional work both complements and goes beyond the language contact profile approach (Freed, 1990; Freed et al., 2004), which asks SA students to quantify and report their own L2 use across a variety of contexts while abroad. The current study thus attends to the discourse quality of L2 learning peers as they interact with one another in short-term SA. Methods The current study

This study was conducted during a six-week summer SA program in Leipzig, Germany. The program was faculty led and designed explicitly for German language learners, all undergraduate students from my home institution at the time (hereafter called HI). This particular investigation emerged from a broader project that followed the experiences of many SA program participants (many of whom were my students from the HI), the faculty leader (a colleague at the HI) and local German teaching professionals. As a part of the broader project, I conducted interviews and asked my focal participants to collect informal, naturalistic interactions of themselves in casual conversation with anyone with whom they used some German. I also observed them in many contexts and took field notes. All focal participants chose to record their naturalistic interactions with L2 learning peers, the focus of this chapter. The analysis reports on three interactions collected by two different groups of students (see Table 3.1). First, I present findings from two interactions between Bisa (focal participant) and Flora (Bisa’s L2 learning peer) that took place in the city of Leipzig. Bisa and Flora were both US students who spoke L1 English and were German majors on short-term SA programs offered by their home universities; Bisa was from the HI, and Flora was from a different US-based institution. They met in Leipzig because the same local language center hereafter called LC hosted their SA programs. Second, I report on an analysis of a café interaction between Sophie (focal participant), Tucker (focal participant) and Mo (Sophie and Tucker’s L2 learning peer). All three participants were US students who spoke L1 English and were majoring in German. Sophie was pursuing a double major in Spanish and Tucker was pursuing a double major in history. Sophie and Tucker studied at the HI

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  79

Table 3.1  Participant information Name

L1

Country of University origin

Placement (CEFR)

Bisa (focal)

English

USA

HI

A1 (novice mid)

Sophie (focal)

English

USA

HI

B1 (intermediate high)

Tucker (focal)

English

USA

HI

A2 (novice high)

Flora (L2 peer)

English

USA

Other US-based institution

B2 (intermediate low)

Mo (L2 peer)

English

USA

Other US-based institution

B1 (intermediate high)

CEFR, Common European Framework of Reference; HI, home institution.

and Mo was from a different US-based institution. Sophie and Tucker met Mo in Leipzig because the same LC hosted their SA programs. At the time of these interactions, all participants were taking an intensive language course at the LC. To supplement the interactional data, I observed the focal participants in and outside of their LC courses. The participants were placed into courses that corresponded to their language proficiency, ranging from the novice to the intermediate level. Table 3.1 shows the participants’ demographic and language placement information. As reported in Trentman (2013a, 2013b) and Wilkinson (1998), I observed that my three focal participants relied on L2 learning peers for social relationships and local participation. None of the participants had studied abroad previously and all were staying in local dormitories meant for university students; this accommodation was organized by the LC for students participating in this particular SA program. Data collection

The focal participants were asked to collect and record informal, naturalistic interactions with people with whom they regularly spoke some German (not necessarily NSs) over the course of the six-week SA program. I explicitly communicated to them that the use of English, codeswitching and multilingual language use were welcome, as long as they were recording with people with whom they regularly spoke some German. I specified this to counter assumptions that I wanted only recordings with German NSs and/or obligatorily entirely in German. In other words, my goal was to avoid restricting the possible populations with whom they could record (i.e. not just NSs) and the language practices that they might potentially and naturally use in these informal interactions (i.e. not German only). In all cases, my focal participants elected to record with fellow L2 learning peers. The focal participants’ selection of L2 learning peers as their desired interlocutors reveals that these were

80  Language Learning in Study Abroad

important individuals with whom they communicated and socialized regularly while abroad, something that my field note observations confirmed. Importantly, they likely viewed their fellow L2 learning peers as ‘safe’ interlocutors when participating in activities that were already face-threatening (e.g. asking someone for permission to record informal interactions and using the L2 while being recorded). The reflexive researcher

Although I was not present when the interactions were recorded, it is important for me to note that my roles as researcher and as a HI professor who had previously led this SA program shaped the study and how the focal participants procured data. First, I had taught Sophie and Tucker in previous semesters and thus knew them personally. Second, I had spent time observing the focal participants in their classes and in other informal scenarios during SA. Third, I had led the program and had spent time with colleagues at the LI previously – something that the participants all knew. It is thus likely that the participants had already developed their own ideas about me, what I was doing and what they were supposed to do as a part of my project, just as I had already developed my own ideas about who my focal participants were as people and as a larger SA cohort. For example, in the early stages of the project, I wondered how my identity as the focal participants’ German professor would inform their decision to record interactions with particular individuals. As mentioned, they all chose to record with fellow L2 learning peers. However, in the majority of the recordings, they recorded interactions with L2 learning peers with whom I had no connection, usually overlooking members of their own cohort. It may be that these L2 learning peers from other US-based institutions were the only people with whom the focal participants regularly spoke some German and/or that they did not really see their own peers from home as valuable resources for L2 use. It is also possible that the participants did ask others from HI to record (with six or seven others in the cohort) but they were uninterested in participating because they knew that their German professor would be privy to their casual conversations. Another way in which my experiences and identities may have influenced data collection is related to language use. Notably, the focal participants and their L2 learning peers used primarily German in all of their interactions. This reveals two possible issues: (1) the L2 learning peers in this SA program may use more German with one another than critics of short-term SA presume; and/or (2) despite my explicit openness about welcoming English and multilingual language use in these informal interactions, the participants’ choices reflect their desire to be ‘good language learners’ and use as much German as possible, especially when fulfilling a request from a researcher who happened to be their German professor.

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  81

Data analysis

I took a two-pronged approach to the analysis of the data, first transcribing the submitted interactions using the conventions in the Appendix. I carefully reviewed the transcriptions multiple times, combing data for commonly emerging themes as a part of the initial macro-level thematic analysis. In conducting this thematic analysis, I discovered that two topics emerged as relevant, namely the fact that all participants took part in both monitoring one another’s language use and co-constructing and contesting one another’s beliefs. I next located the sections where these themes emerged in the interactions and enacted a discourse analytic approach to the micro-level examination of these focal sections. The goal in doing this joint analysis was to better understand how L2 learning peers use their linguistic repertoires to communicate and cooperate (or not) with one another in the interaction. Taking a reconceptualized view of authenticity (e.g. as negotiated authentication) and multiple language use (e.g. as translanguaging) allowed for an investigation of how L2 learning peers use particular forms (e.g. verbal acknowledgment tokens, laughter) to facilitate structural cooperation (i.e. alignment) and/or affective cooperation (i.e. affiliation) in the interaction (Prior, 2017; Steensig, 2013). In other words, authentication practices are co-constructed in interaction and involve using one’s linguistic resources to structurally align with and emotionally endorse other interlocutors’ utterances. Examining L2 learning peers’ use of these practices abroad allows us to better understand how they accomplish particular acts, such as managing each other’s language use, contesting each other’s knowledge/beliefs and/or maintaining intersubjective alignment. Results

The findings of my analysis reveal that in out-of-classroom interactions during short-term SA, L2 learning peers, all German language learners and L1 English speakers from the USA, use their ­multilingual repertoires (i.e. they translanguage) and collaboratively play with language and use humor with one another in interaction. The results also indicate that they participate in these practices in order to ­accomplish a number of goals. First, they translanguage and play with language to collaboratively ­monitor each other’s language use in interaction and d ­ isplay an awareness of the fact that their language use is being ­monitored or managed by their peers. Second, L2 learning peers translanguage and use humor to ­construct and contest beliefs and knowledge about l­anguage and culture together. In some cases, novice L2 learning peers respond in unexpected ways to claims made by their more advanced L2 learning peers regarding language and culture. Third, L2 learning peers ­translanguage and use humor in an effort to do face work (Goffman, 1967) as their and/or

82  Language Learning in Study Abroad

others’ language use is being monitored or knowledge/beliefs are being contested. Importantly, the findings of this project point to two contradictory issues. First, the fact that in their interactions, L2 learning peers do ­translanguaging work and in so doing use their entire linguistic repertoires to keep the interactions in German only or to navigate various claims about language and culture. However, the L2 learning peers’ use of translanguaging is clearly in conflict with their apparent desire to monitor, and in some cases police, each other’s language use for linguistic errors, actions that reproduce their ideological beliefs about what ‘good German’ is. Indeed, their continued attempts to do this work together reveals that they are accustomed to doing language monitoring or having their own language monitored, which supports the claim that SA students often extend or over-rely on elements of classroom discourse (Wilkinson, 2002). In addition, the findings show that L2 learning peers are accustomed to talking about language and culture in ways that are informed by prevailing discourses about monolingualism; yet, paradoxically, even when they police one another’s language use, they often utilize translanguaging practices to do so. The findings also reveal that this point remains unexamined by the L2 learning peers in the study. The participants in this study do a delicate dance, negotiating their identities as learners and multilinguals while also co-authenticating, via acts of structural and affective cooperation, how they participate in doing ‘being L2 users’ and ‘expert’ knowers. Just as L2 learning peers construct an environment of solidarity in their classroom interactions (e.g. Philp et al., 2005; Tsai & Kinginger, 2015), the participants in this study eliminate the face-threatening nature of particular acts by translanguaging, teasing (e.g. Lee et al., 2017), sharing laughter (Shively, 2018) and ‘revoicing’ or reproducing ‘the voices of other L2 users’ for the purposes of humor (Shively, 2013: 939). In particular, humor and language play help participants to save face with and for their peers when expectations for language use are not followed or disagreements emerge with regards to claims about language and/or culture. This complex work is indicative of L2 learning peers’ overarching desire to maintain intersubjective alignment with each other, which is further evidence of the important role that these individuals play in each other’s day to day lives during short term SA. In what follows, I present the results of this study across the two groups of L2 learning peers. L2 learning peers: Bisa and Flora

The analysis of Bisa and Flora’s informal interactions in the city of Leipzig reveals their participation in translanguaging practices and/or language play as they monitor each other’s language use and contest one another’s beliefs.

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  83

Monitoring language use and contesting beliefs

In some situations, Bisa and Flora deploy their multilingual resources to monitor one another’s language use and ensure that only German will be used. In other situations, they use their multilingual resources to provide one another with both solicited and unsolicited L2 feedback. As an example of this, in Excerpt 1, Bisa asserts that some people view English as hard and other languages as easy, introducing her initial evaluation of this claim using English, ‘it’s funny’, in line 479. Please note that in the English gloss across all excerpts, English language usage is bolded. Excerpt 1

Although Bisa starts by using English in the initial turn, she continues her utterance in German until she utters the word ‘hard’ in English. Notably, in line 484, Flora does not orient to the content of Bisa’s utterance. Instead, she recasts a possible German word for Bisa’s use of the English word ‘hard’. Bisa takes this up immediately, modifying her output in line 485. Flora’s contributions here point to her evaluation of Bisa’s use of English, revealing that she desires or expects Bisa to use German language use only. By recasting the word ‘hard’ in German, Flora also positions herself as the more advanced German speaker of the two, and a language resource for Bisa. Bisa recognizes and subsequently cooperates structurally, or aligns with Flora’s recast and the subject position that Flora has taken up (e.g. tutor, more proficient speaker) by modifying her output to the German word ‘schwer’. Bisa continues, and in line 490, notes that some people think that English is easy. However, this time she uses the German word, ‘einfach’, instead of the English word, ‘easy’. In her response, Flora overlaps with this part of Bisa’s utterance, using the same German word

84  Language Learning in Study Abroad

as Bisa, ‘einfach’. At first glance, one might argue that Flora is attempting to affectively cooperate, or affiliate with (i.e. match and support) the content of Bisa’s claim about English (i.e. that it is an easy language to learn). However, a closer analysis of the broader sequence reveals that given the preceding linguistic context, Flora likely expected Bisa to use an English word here. In other words, Flora may have assumed that Bisa did not know the German word for easy, just as she did not seem to know the German word for hard. In this way, Flora’s overlap can be understood as an attempt to keep Bisa from using English. It is also possible that Bisa did know the word for easy in German and Flora’s overlap is a way for her to affiliate with Bisa’s decision to continue to use German only. Regardless, both interpretations show that Flora is actively monitoring Bisa’s language use. Bisa recognizes this, something that becomes evident when she tells a related story in German shortly thereafter. In line 496, Bisa struggles to tell the story using German only and after a number of pauses and restarts, decides to switch to English. One could easily analyze Bisa’s pauses and restarts as simple products of her limited L2 proficiency; however, this interpretation does not take into consideration the fact that Bisa clearly communicates her decision to use English, saying: ‘ok, ok like I have to explain this in English’. One could argue that this is further e­ vidence of Bisa’s awareness of Flora’s language expectations here. Bisa i­mmediately continues narrating her story in English and Flora is left no room respond. In her next utterance, Flora utters a simple acknowledgement token, or mhm. Flora’s acknowledgement here can be understood as a display of minimal structural ­cooperation with Bisa’s decision to switch to English; it does not show any affective cooperation or endorsement. Again, a superficial analysis might lead one to believe that Bisa’s choice to use English in this narration sequence is merely a function of her limited L2 proficiency. However, the micro-analysis shows otherwise; namely, that Bisa signposts her language switch, something that one can interpret as her way of responding to Flora’s earlier monitoring of her English language use. In this way, although translanguaging practices are heavily managed and do not seem welcome in Bisa and Flora’s interaction, Bisa does actually use multiple language resources to participate in this interaction with Flora. The overlap and positive feedback provision in lines 485 and 490 are clearly a function of the subject position Flora is taking up: more experienced L2 user, teacher/tutor/feedback provider, and ultimately, language monitor. Their talk about language in the interaction reveals a primary reliance on ideologically constructed discourses about monolingualism (i.e. German only), but as multilinguals themselves, their language practices in this interaction do reveal some translanguaging work. Flora heavily monitors Bisa’s use of English in Excerpt 1; however, it soon becomes apparent that Flora, too, uses English at particular moments in the interaction. At times, she does this to continue her language

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  85

monitoring work and at others, she does this to communicate her knowledge about language (thereby positioning herself as the more expert speaker). In Excerpt 2, after continued discussion about whether certain languages are easy or hard, Bisa asks Flora for her opinion (577). In this way, she actively positions Flora as someone who can answer her question, and thus as the more experienced language learner. Flora takes this up, cooperating first just structurally (578) and later matching and supporting the way in which Bisa has positioned her (581–583). Evidence for the fact that Flora takes up this subject position in this sequence is found in line 583 when she translates part of her response for Bisa. Excerpt 2

First, Flora responds to Bisa’s claim that English is a ‘little bit hard’, both agreeing and upgrading Bisa’s claim to ‘hard’, saying that this is because English has so many rules. She then switches to English, translating the German word for rules (‘Regeln’), saying, ‘which is rules’. Bisa utters the verbal acknowledgment token, ‘yeah’ in line 584, displaying minimal structural cooperation with Flora’s translation. This appears to be evidence of the fact that Bisa minimally aligns with the subject position that Flora has just taken up (i.e. more expert speaker, vocabulary teacher). As they continue talking about the English language, Bisa claims that English has no rules. Notably, Bisa uses the English word ‘rule’ in line 589 in Excerpt 3 which she then modifies to ‘Regeln’, the German word. It is possible that Bisa has chosen to display her newfound knowledge of this word, possibly because she is aware that Flora continues to monitor her English language use. Flora displays disalignment with Bisa’s claim that English has no rules in line 591, partially reformulating Bisa’s utterance with rising intonation: ‘in English?’ In asking this question, Flora disaligns and disaffiliates with Bisa’s original evaluation. In lines 593– 594, Flora continues by reformulating Bisa’s claim to state that English does have rules, but only in writing. Flora elongates the vowel in ‘nur’ (or ‘only’) in a jocular manner in what appears to be an attempt to do positive face work for Bisa, whose claim (i.e. that English has no rules) Flora is currently contesting. Contesting claims constitutes face-threatening work, but Flora successfully maintains intersubjective alignment with Bisa, who responds by affiliating with (i.e. matching and supporting)

86  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Flora’s reformulation of her claim in line 595 with two yeses and laughter. Excerpt 3

After continued discussion about English, Bisa and Flora make comparisons between English and the German language, and in particular, discuss grammatical gender and how both languages mark case. In Excerpt 4, Flora translanguages (line 680) as a way to allow her to continue communicating her knowledge about case in German. Excerpt 4

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  87

In line 675, Bisa articulates that she does not like that in German, one has to select pronoun forms based on the appropriate case. Flora aligns with Bisa and translanguages in a way that helps her to connect her structural cooperation (i.e. ‘ja’ in line 680) to an ensuing knowledge display about why it is difficult for English native speakers to select the appropriate pronouns in German in lines 681–687. This is another example of Flora doing translanguaging work herself, in spite of the fact that throughout most of the interaction, she heavily monitors Bisa’s language use. As the interaction continues, Bisa, who has until now positioned herself as a novice vis-à-vis knowledge about language, translanguages to contest Flora’s claim about case in English. Bisa utilizes jocular intonation and translanguages with the goal of questioning Flora’s display of knowledge about case. Flora’s authority on German as the more experienced speaker is challenged by Bisa after she says this about marking for case: ‘for Americans, we have no difference’. First, Flora’s utterance reveals an ideologically informed understanding of who ‘Americans’ are (i.e. people who speak L1 English), which goes unaddressed. Second, Flora’s claim reveals a belief that English does not mark for case. To ­contest this claim, Bisa translanguages, uttering the word ‘apparently’ in a playful fashion, heavily emphasizing the second syllable. In other words, in line 692, she presents herself in a stylized manner akin to what people might do when introducing gossip or rumors. This playful utterance not only allows her to present conflicting information, it also allows her, the more novice learner, to avoid positioning herself as the source of this knowledge. In this way, she can call Flora’s knowledge display into ­question but can also avoid claiming that she herself generated this ­information. Flora is somewhat uncomfortable with Bisa’s contestation, as seen in the doubt Flora casts in line 694. However, Bisa responds quickly, supplying evidence for her contestation in line 695. Flora can no longer deny Bisa’s evidence and overtly aligns with Bisa’s utterance, ­ultimately positioning herself as having known and simply forgotten this information. By uttering a stylized, playful ‘apparently’, Bisa is able to contest Flora’s knowledge display, introduce counterevidence and still maintain intersubjective alignment. Similar findings have emerged from investigations of L2 learning and language play (e.g. Belz, 2002; Belz & Reinhardt, 2004; Shively, 2013). Indeed, it is clear that as L2 learning

88  Language Learning in Study Abroad

peers, Bisa and Flora play with language (in addition to utilizing other resources, e.g. translanguaging) to make meaning and navigate contestations about one another’s beliefs and knowledge about the English language. Overall, Bisa and Flora’s discussions reveal a reliance on ideologically informed notions about language (e.g. some languages are hard or easy; ‘rules’ only exist in written, not spoken English), but as they participate in doing ‘being language users’ and ‘knowers’, they also authenticate one another as multilinguals. This takes place when, for example, Bisa, the more novice speaker, contests Flora’s knowledge about language and Flora affiliates with Bisa’s contestation. L2 learning peers: Sophie, Tucker and Mo

In their informal café interactions, L2 learning peers Sophie, Tucker and Mo utilize translanguaging practices as well as humor and language play to one another’s monitor language use and contest beliefs about language. Monitoring language use and contesting beliefs

In Excerpt 5, as the Sophie arranges her payment with the server, Tucker and Mo engage in a side conversation about bill calculation and tipping. Excerpt 5

Mo notices that Tucker is using his phone to calculate something and asks him about it in German. Tucker either does not understand the question or is not listening, as evidenced by the non-verbal token and clarification request ‘hm?’ (line 63). Mo positions Tucker as not having understood the question and poses it both differently and in English. A brief interaction follows, as Tucker begins to explain what it is that he is calculating. As he begins to provide reasoning, however, Sophie joins the conversation, ­overlapping with Tucker’s English explanation. She uses German and ­imitates Tucker’s examination of the bill, joking that she is rich. The timing of Sophie’s overlap suggests that she overheard Mo and Tucker’s

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  89

English language use and jumped in to ensure that the conversation would stay in German. Instead of stating this explicitly, however, she uses German herself in a comical way to model the behavior she desires (i.e. that they speak only in German). Sophie’s attempt to manage the group’s language use is understood by Tucker and Mo; Tucker immediately continues by using German in line 73 and Mo overlaps in line 74, explicitly, stating ‘speak German’, even though Tucker had already switched back into German. In this way, it is clear that Tucker and Mo understand Sophie’s use of German and humor here as a way to keep the conversation in German and align with it together. Later, in the same interaction, in Excerpt 6, Sophie, Mo and Tucker discuss a game that some friends are playing later that evening. Tucker notes that he cannot join because he has homework to complete. In lines 126–127, Tucker articulates that he is unavailable and as evidenced by a pause and a repeated word, utters a verb conjugation that he is clearly unsure about. Excerpt 6

The fact that Tucker is unsure about the conjugation of this verb is further evidenced by his playful elongation of the first vowel in the repeated utterance. Sophie and Mo both take note that something is amiss, as demonstrated in their ensuing responses, in which they recognize either the incorrect form, Tucker’s playful struggles in producing it or both. Sophie displays her belief that Tucker needs help by quickly recasting the correct verb conjugation, posed as a question (‘muss?’). Tucker, however,

90  Language Learning in Study Abroad

does not take this up and continues to provide more information about his homework assignment. He never modifies the linguistic error that Sophie has indicated, so, Mo more explicitly recasts the correct phrase (‘ich muss’), also showing the group that he knows the form. Sophie overlaps with Mo’s recast, recasting just the verb again, still posed as a question. Although Sophie’s knowledge display of the correct form is more implicit than Mo’s, between her repetitive utterance and Mo’s explicit feedback, both individuals work together to indicate to Tucker that his verb conjugation error should be dealt with immediately, reflecting practices that they have likely been socialized into via classroom discourse (Wilkinson, 2002). Tucker finally shows that he understands that he should address their feedback and modifies his output at the end of line 132, but only after he had completed his utterance about the homework assignment. Later in the interaction, Tucker attempts to make light of the earlier verb conjugation error by playfully reproducing the incorrect form in Excerpt 7. Excerpt 7

Tucker announces that he has to go to the bathroom by re-producing the incorrect verb conjugation once again – this time, on purpose. He immediately follows it with the correct verb conjugation. In this way, Tucker ‘revoices’ his previous error (Shively, 2013: 933; 2018: 212). In other words, he strategically reuses the previous face-threatening sequence, but this time with humorous intentions. Although revoicing has primarily been investigated in interactions between L2 learners and NSs, the findings of this study show that L2 learning peers also collaboratively participate in such practices. It is clear that at least Sophie recognizes Tucker’s revoicing of ‘musse,’ something that her recast of the correct form and laughter in line 191 demonstrate. Tucker successfully uses ludic behavior and revoicing not just to maintain intersubjective alignment with his fellow L2 learning peers, but also to communicate to Sophie and Mo that he knows that ‘muss’, not ‘musse’, is the appropriate form. Sophie, for her part, affectively cooperates with Tucker’s attempt at humor here by repeating his utterance ‘muss’ and laughing.

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  91

Discussion and Conclusion

The L2 learning peers in this study appear to orient to one another as important resources for language learning work in their short-term SA program. For this reason, we should bring closer attention to L2 learning peers’ influence on one another in SA and recognize the ways in which shorter-term programs can furnish opportunities for L2 learning. To answer the research questions regarding how and why these L2 learning peers use language in informal, naturalistic interactions with one another, the findings reveal that humor/language play and translanguaging practices are quite common in the interactions investigated here. The L2 learning peers make use of these practices to collaboratively accomplish a number of goals. First, they utilize translanguaging practices and humor to monitor and manage one another’s language use, reflecting not just their experience with classroom discourse (Wilkinson, 2002) but also their ideological approach to what language learning/use in SA should look like. Second, they utilize these practices to construct and contest beliefs and knowledge about language and culture together. Third, they utilize these practices to negotiate face work for themselves and others in potentially face-threatening situations. In other words, just as has been found in other studies in which interactions between age peers are of focal interest (Diao, 2014; Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005; Philp et al., 2005; Shively, 2013; Tsai & Kinginger, 2015), my participants use language to maintain intersubjective alignment with one another and construct an environment of solidarity with and for their peers. The current findings also support studies on multilingual child peers in interaction, in that they also use language to accomplish their local social organization (Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2012). L2 learning peers in SA also do this work together, collaboratively drawing on monolingual ideologies while at the same time operating multilingually in-sojourn. Overall, the findings of the current study support the fact that L2 learning peers view their relationships with one another as centrally important to their short-term SA experiences. This is important, since it is often believed (even by L2 learners themselves) that having close relationships with fellow L2 learners means that they will have ‘failed’ to integrate. The findings of this study involve a number of interesting c­ ontradictions. First, although L2 learning peers are multilinguals themselves, in this study, the participants talk about language and language learning in ways that reveal that they are hesitant to allow one another to utilize English together, even though this is an obvious shared resource and from an etic (i.e. outsider) perspective, they appear to be interacting in more informal spaces. However, the fact that they are recording informal interactions for their German professor has clearly shaped their approach to data collection. In other words, they do not seem to be approaching these interactions as they might otherwise approach non-recorded informal

92  Language Learning in Study Abroad

situations. Yet, despite this issue, all L2 learning peers, even those who do most of the language monitoring work, participate in language play and translanguaging practices throughout the entirety of the interaction to monitor language use, contest beliefs and knowledge and maintain intersubjective alignment with their L2 learning peers. Another contradiction is that L2 learning peers often appear to resort to dualistic talk about authenticity, especially when participating in language monitoring work. For example, they authenticate their interlocutors’ German language use when it corresponds to ideologically constructed views of native-like norms (e.g. Flora’s monitoring of Bisa’s use of the German words for ‘hard’ and ‘easy’), but are more resistant to authenticating language practices that their peers uniquely produce as their own (e.g. Tucker’s verb conjugation error and his subsequent humorous repair sequence). The L2 learning peers in my study may struggle to navigate dynamic, collaborative authentication processes that would allow them to produce and manage utterances that result from their own contexts and experiences in interaction together. L2 learning peer interactions in SA clearly have value, and at the same time pose challenges. For example, the analysis has revealed that L2 learning peers utilize humor and translanguaging practices to negotiate face work for themselves and others in potentially face-threatening moments. One challenge is that these face-threatening moments (e.g. language contestations and contradictions) did not always lead to new understandings. The participants did, however, learn to negotiate these situations in new ways with their peers, perhaps to avoid dealing with major incongruities. In this way, L2 learning peers clearly benefit from interacting with one another in SA, especially as they are afforded out-of-classroom opportunities to learn how to deploy particular pragmalinguistic forms (e.g. the use of L2 hedging devices) for managing new face-threatening situations that they had not yet faced in previous or ongoing classroom experiences (Tsai & Kinginger, 2005). Like in Wilkinson (2002), for the participants in this study, before SA, they had experienced German only as a school subject, as the language of the classroom. We see traces of the ‘omnipresent classroom’ (Wilkinson, 2002: 157) here as well, as the participants in this study monitor each other’s language use. Yet they go beyond a simple overreliance on classroom discourse as a strategy for L2 use in informal interactions – in other words, they approach meaning making by playfully using their multiple language resources (i.e. translanguaging), which may shape how they approach any number of other interactions with different interlocutors that are immediately relevant or necessary while abroad. In this way, L2 learning peers are not just using language to learn language (Swain & Suzuki, 2008), they are also using language to situate and identify themselves as particular kinds of people in these new spaces. Although L2 learning peers have typically been undervalued as potential interlocutors, the results show that these groups have no trouble using

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  93

humor and multiple language resources to position themselves vis-à-vis sociopragmatic and ideological questions in their interactions. As language educators, we should facilitate these kinds of interactions while also helping students to analyze and critique their own developing participation in language learning, the classroom and SA. The current study’s results demonstrate that a multilingual turn for language education and the incorporation of flexible bilingual pedagogies (Creese & Blackledge, 2010) are sorely needed. A simple and meaningful flexible bilingual pedagogical intervention might start with a task in which L2 learners identify and rank a number of potentially facethreatening events or situations (e.g. asking for help at the train station, responding to negative feedback from a stranger). This collaborative project would lead to reflective discussions about why certain situations threaten an interlocutor’s face, with the goal of highlighting questions of power, sociopragmatics and identity work, while also emphasizing the multiple language resources that multilinguals already use to manage particular situations. The project would culminate in the actual deployment of these multiple language (and other) resources and strategies with L2 learning peers, calling into question common ideological beliefs about who ‘good’ L2 learners/users are (i.e. individuals who can communicate meaning appropriately in many different contexts or individuals who use complex grammar structures and ‘sound’ fluent). At the same time, language educators preparing students to go abroad may wonder: how can we encourage our students in short-term SA to utilize translanguaging practices in ways that promote the intentional and meaningful use of the L2 (Trentman, 2021)? Again, I argue that this must start in our beginner classrooms. For example, we must abandon the commonly adopted practice of including only native speaking German language audio in our textbook materials. Just as the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE, 2009) is a resource for those interested in investigating interactional data between speakers of English as a lingua franca (Jenks, 2013), we should establish a corpus of German learning peers’ informal, naturalistic talk in interaction across various languages and spaces, program types and L2 learning peer backgrounds. In this way, researchers could endeavor to learn more about how German learning peers use language in naturalistic interactions across time and across various different SA contexts. Moreover, German language educators could utilize German language learner corpus data in special activities that allow language learners to inspect and analyze other L2 learner’ language use for creativity and originality; in other words, language learners would come to understand how their own peers utilize multilingual language practices in ways that support L2 learning. This would help liberate language learners, especially in short-term SA, who might still be holding onto the unrealistic goal of learning how to speak like a native speaker and instead help them to reimagine what it means to become a highly proficient speaker of multiple languages.

94  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Note (1) See, for example, the following studies on peer interactions in the classroom, with native speaking peers (Belz, 2002; Belz & Reinhardt, 2004; Masuda, 2011), with heritage speaking peers (Valentin Rivera, 2016) and with other L2 learning peers (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005; Philp et al., 2005; Tsai & Kinginger, 2015).

References Belz, J. (2002) Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology 6, 60–81. Belz, J. and Reinhardt, J. (2004) Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated German language play. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14, 324–362. Bucholtz, M. (2003) Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 398–416. Canagarajah, S. (2011) Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal 95, 401–417. Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal 94, 103–115. Diao, W. (2014) Peer socialization into gendered L2 Mandarin practices in a study abroad contexts: Talk in the dorm. Applied Linguistics 37, 599–620. Fernández, J. and Gates Tapia, A.M. (2016) An appraisal of the Language Contact Profile as a tool to research local engagement in study abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 1, 248–276. Freed, B.F. (1990) Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of interactive and noninteractive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. In J.E. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Linguistics, Language Teaching, and Language Acquisition: The Interdependence of Theory, Practice, and Research  (pp.  459–477). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Freed, B.F., Dewey, D.P, Segalowitz, N. and Halter, R. (2004) The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 349–356. García, O. (2009) Education, multilingualism, and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local (pp. 128–145). New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan. García, O. and Li Wei. (2014) Translanguaging. Language, Bilingualism, and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Goodwin, M.H. and Kyratzis, A. (2012) Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs and B.B. Schiefflin (eds) The Handbook of Language Socialization (pp. 365– 390). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Goodwin, C.D. and Nacht, M. (1988) Abroad and Beyond: Patterns in American Overseas Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heller, M. (1999) Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London: Longman. Institute for International Education (2016) Open doors 2017. See https://www.iie.org/ Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors (accessed January 2018). Jenks, C. (2013) ‘Your pronunciation and your accent is very excellent’: Orientations of identity during compliment sequences in English as a lingua franca encounters. Language and Intercultural Communication 13, 165–181.

Investigation of L2 Learning Peer Interactions  95

Kinginger, C. (2008) (ed.) Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal 92 [monograph]. Kramsch, C. (2012) Authenticity and legitimacy in multilingual SLA. Critical Multilingualism Studies 1, 108–128. Lee, S-H., Wu, Q., Di, C. and Kinginger, C. (2017) Learning to eat politely at the Chinese homestay dinner table: Two contrasting case studies. Foreign Language Annals 50, 135–158. Li Wei (2011) Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1222–1235. Liebscher, G. and Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2005) Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 89, 234–247. MacDonald, M.N., Badger, R. and Dasli, M. (2006) Authenticity, culture, and language learning. Language and Intercultural Communication 6, 250–261. Masuda, K. (2011) Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. Modern Language Journal 95 (4), 519–540. McGregor, J. (2016) Metapragmatic talk and the interactional accomplishment of authenticity in study abroad. In R.A. van Compernolle and J. McGregor (eds) Authenticity, Language and Interaction in Second Language Contexts (pp. 177–197). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N. and McManus, K. (2017) Anglophone Students Abroad. Identity, Social Relationships, And Language Learning. Abingdon: Routledge. MLA (MLA Modern Language Association Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages) (2007) Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession 2007, 234–245. Pennycook, A. (2010) Language as a Local Practice. London: Routledge. Philp, J., Adams, R. and Iwashita, N. (2005) Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Prior, M.T. (2017) Accomplishing ‘rapport’ in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction. Applied Linguistics Review 9 (4), 487–511. doi: https://doi. org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0029. Shively, R. (2013) Learning to be funny in Spanish during study abroad: L2 humor development. Modern Language Journal 97, 930–946. Shively, R. (2018) Learning and Using Conversational Humor in a Second Language during Study Abroad. Boston/Berlin: DeGruyter. Steensig, J. (2013) Conversation analysis and alignment and affiliation. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 944–948). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Surtees, V. (2018) MCA in study abroad: Doing language learner as a resource for inviting collaborative interaction. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Chicago, IL, March 2018. Swain, M. (2010) ‘Talking it through’: Languaging as a source of second language learning. In R. Batstone (ed.) Sociocognitive Perspectives on Second Language Learning and Use (pp. 112–129). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. and Suzuki, W. (2008) Interaction, output, and communicative language learning. In B. Spolsky and F.M. Hult (eds) The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp. 557–568). Oxford: Blackwell. Thorne, S.L. (2003) Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology 7 (2), 38–67. Trentman, E. (2013a) Arabic and English during study abroad in Cairo, Egypt: Issues of access and use. Modern Language Journal 97, 457–473. Trentman, E. (2013b) Imagined communities and language learning during study abroad: Arabic learners in Egypt. Foreign Language Annals 46, 545–564.

96  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Trentman, E. (2021) Reframing monolingual language ideologies in the classroom: Evidence from Arabic study abroad and telecollaboration. In B. Dupuy and K. Michelsen (eds) Pathways to Paradigm Change: Critical Examinations of Prevailing Discourses and Ideologies in Second Language Education (pp. 108–132). Boston, MA: Cengage Heinle.  Tsai, M.H. and Kinginger, C. (2015) Giving and receiving advice in computer-mediated peer response activities. CALICO Journal 32, 82–112. Twombly, S.B., Salisbury, M.H., Tumanut, S.D. and Klute, P. (2012) Study Abroad in a New Global Century: Renewing the Promise, Refinding the Purpose. San Francisco: Wiley. Valentin Rivera, L. (2016) Activity theory in Spanish mixed classrooms: Exploring corrective feedback as an artefact. Foreign Language Annals 49, 615–634. van Compernolle, R.A. and McGregor, J. (2016) Authenticity, Language and Interaction in Second Language Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) (2009) Wilkinson, S. (1998) On the nature of immersion during study abroad: Some participant perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 4, 121–138. Wilkinson, S. (2002) The omnipresent classroom during summer study abroad: American students in conversation with their French hosts. Modern Language Journal 86 (2), 157–173. Wolcott, T. (2013) An American in Paris: Myth, desire, and subjectivity in one student’s account of study abroad in France. In C. Kinginger (ed.) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad (pp. 127–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Woolf, M. (2007) Impossible things before breakfast: Myths in education abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education 11, 496–509.

Appendix Transcription conventions (.) brief pause (1.0) longer pause; measured in seconds bolded text highlights translanguaging practices in English gloss [  ] overlapping = latching ° whispering : elongation ! exclamatory intonation ? rising intonation laughter

4 Monolingual Expectations and Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad Emma Trentman

Introduction

Although students frequently imagine study abroad as linguistic and cultural ‘immersion’, research on study abroad demonstrates a gap between students’ expectations and their actual experiences. Rather than being immersed in local social networks, students often spend their time with co-nationals and other international students because they find entering local social networks challenging (Bown et al., 2015; Coleman, 2013; Kinginger, 2009; Mitchell et al., 2015; Trentman, 2013). In addition to a standardized language they have studied in the classroom, students typically encounter local varieties of that language, other languages and dialects salient in the context and global Englishes; and they must develop the necessary sociolinguistic knowledge to navigate these unexpected linguistic realities (Brown, 2013; Diao, 2016; Fernández, 2016; Levine, 2015; McGregor, 2016; Mori & Sanuth, 2018; Trentman, 2013). To mitigate these gaps between students’ expectations and reality, some researchers have focused on the role of program interventions to promote language and intercultural learning (Jackson, 2006; Kinginger, 2011; Knight & Schmidt-Rinehart, 2010; Shively, 2010; Trentman, 2018; Vande Berg et al., 2012). Researchers have also examined the ideologies that underlie students’ expectations of study abroad. These studies have demonstrated that representations of study abroad in educational policy documents (Gore, 2005), media and government policy documents (Trentman & Diao, 2017) and study abroad program websites (Michelson & Alvarez Valencia, 2016) frequently represent study abroad as an opportunity for fun tourism or a modern-day incarnation of the Grand Tour of Europe. Gore’s (2005) critical discourse analysis of educational policy documents led her to conclude that study abroad as a Grand Tour is one of the dominant beliefs discourses of study abroad, although she also found alternative voices discourses of peace and professional preparation and 9/11 as a wake-up call for international education. Diao and I 97

98  Language Learning in Study Abroad

(Trentman & Diao, 2017) found that these ‘alternative’ discourses were also represented in US media and policy documents, but argue that a critical approach to representations of study abroad in these documents reveals that they recreate the colonial map, mask global inequalities and foster a new global elite. We also argue that discourses of study abroad in US media and policy documents take an Orientalist perspective that bundles together diverse destinations such as the Arab world and China using discourses of national security and bridge-building that appear contradictory but in fact represent an interest in continued US political hegemony (Diao & Trentman, 2016). While these discourses of study abroad inform students’ expectations of the study abroad experience, they often fail to match the realities of their experiences abroad. Language ideologies also play a role in students’ expectations for study abroad and language learning. Monolingual language ideologies have their origins in the European nation-state, where one language and one culture were associated with one nation (Beacco & Byram, 2007; May, 2014a). These ideologies emphasize the distinct boundaries of languages, as this was necessary to map them onto the borders of nations (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015a). In terms of language learning, a monolingual ideology of language implies that prior linguistic knowledge (whether a dialect of the same language or a different language) is not relevant to learners’ gaining of new linguistic knowledge (i.e. new varieties or languages), or in the worst case interferes with their acquisition of these new varieties. Furthermore, a monolingual native speaker is the model of linguistic behavior leaners should try to mimic, and monolingual classrooms where only the target language is spoken best suit language acquisition (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015a; Ortega, 2014). Monolingual ideologies of language were exported worldwide via colonialism, and remain dominant in the fields of applied linguistics and second language acquisition (Canagarajah & Liyanage, 2012; Makalela, 2015; Makoni & Pennycook, 2012). In recent years, this perspective has been critiqued by researchers using a variety of terms to describe alternative language ideologies, including the ‘multilingual turn’ (e.g. Conteh & Meier, 2014; May, 2014b; Ortega, 2013; Tullock & Ortega, 2017), ‘plurilingualism’ (e.g. Beacco & Byram, 2007; Council of Europe, 2018; Marshall & Moore, 2018; Piccardo, 2013) and ‘translanguaging’ (e.g. Cenoz & Gorter, 2015b; García & Li Wei, 2014; Li Wei, 2018; Otheguy et al., 2015). This proliferation of terms aligns to some degree with the multiple fields in which researchers critiquing monolingual language ideologies participate: in the fields of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Teaching English Speakers Other Languages (TESOL), the term ‘multilingual’ or ‘multilingual turn’ is more common (Kachru, 1994; Ortega, 2013). Scholars working in European language policy borrowed the term plurilingualism from French into English to distinguish their approach from approaches that were called multilingual but

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  99

in practice took a perspective informed by monolingual language ideologies (e.g. multilingualism as multiple monolingualisms) (Marshall & Moore, 2018; Piccardo, 2013). In the context of bi/multilingual education, where scholars taking this approach emphasize its importance in ensuring social justice for marginalized communities, the term translanguaging is commonly used to refer to theories of language that provide alternatives to monolingual approaches (García & Li Wei, 2014). While there are also critiques made between these communities of scholars (e.g. Flores, 2013), these approaches share several key features in proposing alternatives to monolingual language ideologies. These include a focus on the unique linguistic repertoires of individuals and the fluid and socially-determined nature of language boundaries (Beacco & Byram, 2007; García & Li Wei, 2014; Lüdi & Py, 2009; Otheguy et al., 2015). According to these theories of language, each individual has a unique and dynamic linguistic repertoire that is shaped by their lived experiences and shifts throughout their lifetime. Although the various linguistic elements in this repertoire may correspond to socially named languages such as Arabic or English, they are not stored separately in the repertoire; rather, the emphasis is on the connections between the linguistic and social knowledge contained in the repertoire. In a given communicative context, individuals will strategically draw from this entire repertoire in ways that may or may not correspond to socially prescribed language boundaries. These approaches contain several important implications for language learning. The connections between elements in the repertoire mean that an individuals’ prior linguistic knowledge is a resource for expanding their linguistic repertoire, rather than a hindrance (García & Li Wei, 2014; Piccardo, 2017). The dynamic nature of the linguistic repertoire emphasizes the ongoing and unbalanced nature of language acquisition, noting that ‘a language competence will never be “reached”: it develops throughout life’ (Lüdi & Py, 2009: 157). Finally, the emphasis on the strategic ways in which individuals draw from their linguistic repertoires in particular contexts means that competence is determined by one’s ability to draw upon their linguistic resources to achieve particular social goals rather than meeting prescribed external proficiency standards (Anya, 2017; Canagarajah, 2014; Leung, 2014). The linguistic practices of individuals whose linguistic repertoires include features associated with multiple social varieties are also described in various ways, with two of the most prominent terms being ‘codeswitching’ and ‘translanguaging.’ In general, researchers who use the term translanguaging are more likely to take the perspective of the individual drawing strategically from their unique linguistic repertoire to do things with language, critiquing the term code-switching for its speaker-external perspective that naturalizes the existence of different ‘codes’ or languages (Otheguy et al., 2015). They also emphasize the transformative nature of translanguaging spaces, where individuals can create identities and social

100  Language Learning in Study Abroad

practices that transcend those available in monolingual spaces, something that is particularly important when they belong to social groups marginalized in these spaces. This focus on taking the perspectives of individuals does not ignore the existence of societal, institutional and structural constraints (Marshall & Moore, 2018), and may indeed demonstrate the ways in which these constraints marginalize particular social groups or individuals (García & Li Wei, 2014; Li Wei, 2018). In this chapter, I use the term ‘plurilingual’ to refer to ideologies that represent an alternative to monolingual language ideologies, and the term ‘translanguaging’ to refer to the linguistic practices of speakers whose linguistic repertoires span multiple named languages (in this case, English, Spanish and Arabic, and varieties thereof). From my perspective as a US researcher and language teacher, these are the terms that for me most clearly mark an alternative approach to the monolingual language ideologies that dominate my field. However, it is also imperative to recognize that while these alternative approaches may be new to me and to the fields of SLA, applied linguistics and bi/multilingual education (hence the proliferation in terminology), these perspectives have long existed in pre- and postcolonial contexts (Canagarajah & Liyanage, 2012; Makalela, 2015; Makoni & Pennycook, 2005). For example, when Makalela introduced translanguaging pedagogy to his South African students, they recognized it immediately simply as ‘the way we talk ko kasi [in the location]’ for example, in Black townships (Makalela, 2017: 21). Despite the compelling insights plurilingual perspectives have provided in numerous linguistic and educational contexts, they have had little impact in the context of the US ‘foreign’ or ‘world’ language classroom where multilingual and monolingual English speakers in an English dominant setting learn other languages. Kramsch and Huffmaster (2015) note that foreign language programs, often founded on the idea of teaching a national language, literature and culture, are now caught between their origins in modern nationalism and the current era of globalization. These researchers argue that educators need to adopt plurilingual practices and critically reflect on these practices in order to develop learners’ linguistic and intercultural competence together (Byram & Wagner, 2018). Similarly, Levine (2011) argues that US foreign language classrooms are an inherently multilingual situation involving at least English and the target language, and a policy of principled code choice in such classrooms can help learners develop their linguistic and intercultural competence. Many US language learners begin and/or continue their language studies in classrooms rooted in monolingual ideologies of language, and keep this perspective as they engage in experiences outside of the classroom, such as study abroad. This can lead to disappointment when these students face multilingual realities. For example, Mori and Sanuth (2018) describe the frustration experienced by both students and the program director in a Yoruba program in Nigeria, where the monolingual ideology

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  101

of the program did not match the plurilingual realities of its postcolonial location and, thus, did not prepare students to engage in local translanguaging practices. Likewise, Anya (2017) demonstrates how a monolingual bias present in a study abroad program in Brazil led program personnel to consistently reprimand two participants for their inability to remain monolingual in Portuguese in an academic environment despite these students’ success in engaging with locals in non-academic contexts. Tullock and Ortega (2017) emphasize that study abroad is a highly multilingual experience, both in terms of students’ backgrounds and experiences abroad, and argue that researchers and practitioners should recognize, rather than erase, this multilingualism. In this study, I analyze the expectations and experiences of two Arabic learners abroad who successfully met their personal goals of practicing Arabic and joining local social networks. I demonstrate that, while their expectations of a successful experience were framed by monolingual ideologies of immersion, their success was actually a result of the translanguaging practices in which they engaged abroad. Consequently, rather than perceiving study abroad as monolingual immersion, we should reframe our expectations using a plurilingual lens that views translanguaging practices as natural and potentially transformative outcomes of study abroad. Method Participants, settings and data collection

Bella and Juan (pseudonyms), the two cases analyzed in this study, participated in two different study abroad programs and research projects in which I also participated as the faculty leader (for Bella) or the independent study instructor (for Juan). I selected these two cases for analysis based on their success in two areas research demonstrates can be unexpectedly challenging for students abroad: (1) using the local language (in this case, Arabic); and (2) joining local social networks. I chose Bella from among the eight other participants in her program as her ability to use Arabic in a variety of contexts and also make local friends was remarked upon by both her study abroad peers and Jordanian language partners. Juan was the only participant doing an independent study with me in his cohort, and I chose to analyze his case because of his reported success in joining local social networks and using Arabic and the contrast his case (i.e. longer period abroad, higher Arabic proficiency) provided to Bella’s data. Bella

Bella, a White undergraduate student in her early 20s from the southwestern USA, had never traveled abroad before and felt that a faculty-led

102  Language Learning in Study Abroad

study abroad would be preferable for her first trip abroad. In addition to four semesters of Arabic, she had taken one semester of Mandarin. Bella participated in a faculty-led study abroad with 11 other students that consisted of an eight-week online class plus two weeks in Jordan. As the faculty leader, I drew upon my knowledge of the field of study abroad to design a program that would encourage language and intercultural contact, reflection upon this contact, and connect the pre-, during and postprogram experiences. During the online class, students participated in telecollaboration assignments with Jordanian language partners, completed intercultural assignments, and practiced assignments for an ethnographic project for the program. Once abroad, students took a two-hour daily class that focused on a specific task, such as ordering food or riding in a taxi; their homework for the class was to record themselves doing that task. They also participated in cultural activities, such as going to a cafe or historical site, with their partners from the telecollaboration. Finally, with assistance from their language partners, the students wrote on a cultural topic using data gathered from observations, informal conversations and an interview. While abroad, Bella lived in a hotel with the other program participants, including myself and my family. The data collected from Bella included her written and recorded assignments for the online telecollaboration and the study abroad course, my participant observations of her interactions during the program, an interview with me after the class had formally concluded and an interview with her language partner. Juan

Juan was an undergraduate student in his early 20s of mixed Asian and Hispanic descent who grew up in the southwest USA. He self-­ identified as a heritage learner of Spanish, explaining that his father spoke fluent Spanish but had not used it in the household. Thus, Juan grew up hearing, but not speaking, Spanish. He started studying Spanish in high school and then studied abroad in South America in both high school and university. He received US government scholarships to study Arabic for two summers abroad in high school and university and also took one year of Arabic classes at the university. He had received a US government ­scholarship to study abroad for an academic year in Egypt but changed his plans to study in Oman following political events in Egypt at that time. Juan was studying full-time at an Arabic language institute while simultaneously doing online coursework for his home university, including an ethnographic project for study abroad as an independent study with me (see Trentman, 2018, for more details). He lived in an apartment with other students learning Arabic. The data collected from Juan included an interview in spring 2014, diary entries throughout his time abroad, correspondence with me concerning his ethnographic research project and the assignments submitted

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  103

Table 4.1  Data sources Bella

Juan

• Written and recorded class assignments for study abroad and telecollaboration. • Participant observation during study abroad. • Post-program interview. • Interview with her language partner.

• Assignments for ethnographic project for study abroad. • Diary entries from abroad. • Correspondence concerning the ethnographic project. • Near-end of program interview.

for the project. Table 4.1 summarizes the data collected from Bella and Juan. Role of the researcher

As noted above, in addition to being a researcher, I was the instructor of either the program (Bella) or class (Juan), and both students knew me as an Arabic professor at their home university. This position influences my data and analysis. Indeed, impacting the study abroad experience in terms of language and intercultural contact, reflection and learning was an explicit goal of both Juan’s independent study and Bella’s faculty-led trip abroad, and I shared this goal with the students. Both Bella and Juan reported using more Arabic in the assignments they completed for their classwork (and also that they appreciated this push), and these class assignments are part of the data analyzed for this study. Analysis

All participant data were analyzed using MAXQDA, a qualitative data analysis program. The data were coded for information related to expectations of study abroad, social groups and linguistic practices. Through a recursive process, these coded segments were then further analyzed to develop the narratives of Bella’s and Juan’s experiences presented below. Results Expectations of monolingual immersion

For both Bella and Juan, practicing Arabic and making local friends were important goals. In response to the question ‘What are your goals for this class and study abroad experience?’ posed on the first intercultural assignment, Bella responded: ‘Make friends, speak only Arabic, make lots of mistakes (the master has failed more times than the beginner has tried) and drink a ton of coffee.’ Prior to her experience abroad, she clearly had

104  Language Learning in Study Abroad

a strong association between making friends and speaking ‘only Arabic’. Juan also believed that using Arabic to make local friends was crucial to a successful study abroad experience, which was perhaps clearest in his judgment toward his colleagues whom he felt were not taking ‘full advantage’ of their time abroad. For example, he wrote in his diary, ‘I just hoped that they [other study abroad students] took full advantage of their time here in Oman by studying hard, BUT more importantly using their Arabic with actual Omanis’. Here, he emphasizes not only the need to socialize with Omanis but also discounts himself and his peers as Arabic speakers. In describing their expectations of a successful study abroad experience, both Bella and Juan relied upon beliefs of monolingual immersion, where engaging in friendships with locals in Arabic was the measure of success. In imagining this monolingual immersion, they also specifically excluded the possibility of socializing with co-nationals. For example, Bella wrote on her second intercultural assignment that she should ‘Be cool and make friends in your new language, etc. Don’t only hang out with Westerners.’ This observation emphasized the importance of using Arabic with local friends and distinguishing this experience from making friends with Westerners. This distinction also reinforces cultural and language boundaries, where she imagines using the new language (Arabic) with Jordanians rather than spending time with Westerners (presumably, in the familiar language, English). This link between language and nationality is another feature of monolingual ideologies of language and erases the existence of Jordanians who speak English and Westerners who speak Arabic. A similar emphasis on using Arabic with locals as the measure of a good study abroad experience and reinforcement of links between national and linguistic boundaries also surfaced in Juan’s diary. For example, in explaining why he chose to go to Oman, rather than other Arab countries after Egypt was no longer an option, he emphasized his vision of it containing more ‘native Arabic’ speakers, rather than expat ‘English speakers’: Jordan is a wonderful place and the Arabic is great, but because of the exodus out of Egypt1 many, many, many students of the Arabic language chose to go to Amman and study Arabic over there and it can be very tempting to only spend time with English speaking people for the duration of your trip. Then there is the Gulf, while I have only spent a short three hours in Abu Dhabi, I can still say that in many of the Gulf countries it is extremely hard to find a native Arabic speaker. This is because there are so many expats working in these countries that they are double or even triple the size of the native populations and you will never find an opportunity to speak Arabic with the people.

At another point in his diary, he chided himself for spending too much time with other study abroad students rather than Omani friends: ‘I was

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  105

so busy having fun with my friends at the institute, that I almost forgot about the most important task, making Omani friends.’ Again, the possibility of English-speaking locals and Arabic-speaking expats or study abroad students is erased in the linking of Arabic with locals and English with foreigners. Finally, both Bella and Juan connected their experiences abroad to larger sociopolitical issues, hoping to represent their nation in a way that broke down stereotypes about the USA in the Arab world. Bella wrote on her intercultural assignment, ‘I don’t want to sound like a crusader, but I also think that I could help change the attitudes about Americans.’ Juan viewed himself as ‘America’s diplomat to Oman’ (diary) with a goal of increasing understanding between the Arab world and the USA. Both participants were eager to discuss the potentially contentious issues of religion and politics. These expectations and connections to larger sociopolitical discourses are common among Arabic learners abroad (see Diao & Trentman, 2016; Lane-Toomey & Lane, 2012; Trentman & Diao, 2017). These links also emphasize nationalistic discourses of study abroad – even as the focus is on understanding between nations, the students themselves are expected to embody a particular nation. Thus, the monolingual nation state forms the ideological base for Bella and Juan’s expectations of the study abroad experience, including their goals of learning Arabic, developing intercultural friendships, and changing stereotypes about the USA in the Arab world. Although their focus is on crossing an imagined divide between nations, their association of Arabic with local native speakers and of English with other international students in fact reinforces this divide. While monolingual Arabic immersion is imagined as the ideal, their disparagement of socializing with international friends and using English demonstrates their recognition that study abroad is not an inherently monolingual environment. In the next section, I examine Bella and Juan’s actual experiences abroad in terms of their linguistic practices and local friendships. Bella’s translanguaging space: Mapping language to social function

In her interview following the study abroad program, Bella reported that she was happy with her experience because ‘I was hoping to get essentially everything I got, which is like a cultural learning experience, like friends in a different country and I learned a ton of Arabic and got to use it a lot.’ However, in contrast to her expectation that she would make friends in Arabic, Bella reported primarily drawing upon her Arabic resources to engage with strangers in taxis and other service encounters, but using mostly English to develop her friendships with the language partners. Thus, while she achieved both of her goals, she used different linguistic resources than she had anticipated. Analysis of her actual interactions demonstrates that Bella was creating with her interlocutors

106  Language Learning in Study Abroad

translanguaging spaces that supported her goals of language learning and developing social relationships. Yet the power of these translanguaging spaces went largely unrecognized in her monolingual framing of her experience. In terms of practicing Arabic, Bella cited both the fact that she was ‘forced’ to record herself interacting in Arabic for her homework as well as the fact that she felt less pressure engaging with strangers as key to her success. In contrast to her expectation of monolingual Arabic immersion, she discovered that as a White foreigner she was generally addressed in English. She explained that the recordings motivated her to actually interact in Arabic despite the fact that English was usually an option for her as well: like you can speak English entirely in an Arab country. So, having to go out and speak Arabic and force yourself to speak, really and those-those recordings motivated me to like – just like – A lot of it was cabs that actually – Just sitting in the back of a cab like forcing yourself to talk. (Interview)

Her description of using Arabic as a choice she had to ‘force’ herself to make demonstrates the continual efforts she had to make to use Arabic, contrasting with an imagined monolingual environment of study abroad where these efforts would be unnecessary because such a choice would not exist. In these situations, Bella explained that the fact that she was unlikely to see the person again made it feel like a ‘safe space’ for her to try her Arabic, presumably because, if the encounter did not go as planned, it was a one-time encounter and would not impact a longer-term relationship. She explained: but that kind of environment was kind of a – just like, uh, Oh, I’m not gonna see this person ever again. Oh, I don’t know anything about this person. So, it was kind of a safe space to start having those conversations for the most part. (Interview)

These experiences using Arabic with strangers formed a contrast with her experience using primarily English with the language partners with whom she formed friendships. She explained that she found it much more difficult to use Arabic with the language partners: it was just harder to speak and compute in Arabic…It was weirdly easier to speak with people on the street or like people I didn’t know as well, in Arabic. (Interview)

Key to this choice was the fact that Bella felt she had the resources in Arabic to answer direct, basic questions (like those she was asked by taxi drivers) or to discuss more academic topics, such as politics (conversations

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  107

she also had with taxi drivers). However, she did not feel she had the resources to establish and maintain lasting social relationships, which was key to developing her friendships. For this reason, she chose to use mainly English. She explained: They were just fluent enough in English to speak to me in sort of a friendly way in English. Just so that how I speak even with my peers, it’s so many like jokes and so much slang…It seemed like that stuff would take a long time to get. So, talking to new people was like when you don’t, you know was a lot easier.

In contrast to basic interactions with strangers she would not see again, developing friendships required the ability to express emotions, engage in an informal register, and most importantly continual performance of this ‘friendly way’ of speaking to maintain the relationships. This involves the use of linguistic and other resources to engage in complex identity and interactional work. However, further analysis of Bella’s experience demonstrates that this dichotomy, while highly relevant to Bella’s perception of her experience, simply demonstrates how monolingual ideologies of language shaped her perception of her linguistic practices, diminishing her awareness of her translanguaging practices. After all, neither her conversations with strangers nor her interactions with the language partners were limited to English or Arabic because the other language was always available as a resource. For example, in her interview Bella explained that in a successful conversation with a taxi driver she spoke ‘like mainly in Arabic maybe with a couple of like English words’: We were having this like a really good conversation and that was probably like a good 30 minutes…so, I felt good at that point and just like kinda it reflected at that moment, like, wow, how far have I gotten like at now, speak like this, like mainly in Arabic maybe with a couple of like English words. We were talking about elections, so, it was like, you would grow in like, you know a politics word but, mainly in Arabic, which I felt really good about. (Interview)

Although Bella describes the use of English as a scaffold for her lack of Arabic vocabulary, her translanguaging practices were not limited to scaffolding. For example, in lines 11 and 12 of the recorded interaction with a taxi driver in Table 4.2, the taxi driver says ‘no, no’ in English before continuing in Arabic, and Bella replies ‘yeah, yeah’ in English then continues in Arabic. These are words that Bella knew in Arabic and that the taxi driver could anticipate a novice speaker knowing. Although it is not possible to know the exact intention behind Bella and the driver’s use of their linguistic resources in this episode, using both English and Arabic does seem to allow them to align with each other as bilingual speakers

108  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Table 4.2  Language learning (bold denotes English in original speech) 1

Driver

How long have you been in Amman?

‫كم الك هون في عمان؟‬ ‫كم ايه؟‬

2

Bella

How long what?

3

Driver

How long have you been in Amman?

4

Bella

Two weeks

‫أسبوعين‬ ‫أسبوعين؟‬

5

Driver

Two weeks?

6

Bella

Yeah

‫كم الك هون في عمان؟‬

Yeah

7

Driver

Good speak Arabic (laughs)

8

Bella

Hopefully, I’m a student, stupid I know from all, all, yeah, what

‫ ايه‬yeah ‫إن شاء هللا أنا طالبة غبي أعرف من كل كل‬ ‫ غبي اللغة العربية‬No

9

Driver

No stupid, the Arabic language

10

Bella

Donkey (both laugh)

11

Driver

No, no, the Arabic language is hard for you

12

Bella

Yeah, yeah, but English is hard too

13

Driver

No

Good speak Arabic (laughs)

‫حمار‬ (both laugh) ‫ اللغة العربية صعبة عليكم‬No, no ‫ ولكن إنجليزي صعبة كمان‬Yeah, yeah, ‫ال‬

discussing language learning. Furthermore, although Bella noted in her interview that she felt uncomfortable joking in Arabic, she does successfully pull off a joke in this interaction. In line 10 she refers to herself as a ‘donkey’, a term that in Arabic is used to denigrate a person’s intelligence, when she struggles in Arabic. Although this can be a strong insult, in this case Bella is making a joke, which is recognized by the taxi driver as they both laugh and he contests this characterization. Similarly, while Bella described her interactions abroad with the language partners as being mostly in English, Arabic remained available as a resource. In Table 4.3, an excerpt from a telecollaboration conversation between Bella and her partner, Aya, they draw upon both English and Arabic resources to discuss Bella’s project and Arabic grammar. In line 21, Bella makes a joke by saying the word ‘normal’ in English when she was unable to come up with it in Arabic and then repeating it in English with an Arabic accent, which causes Aya to laugh. It is certainly possible that these recorded interactions for the telecollaboration project contain more Arabic than Bella’s informal interactions with Aya abroad. However, my observations of her conversations with Aya abroad (which were not recorded) indicate that she engaged in translanguaging practices abroad with the language partners as well. Aya also noted in her interview with me that she felt that Bella used more and more Arabic with her, and had developed an ability to understand the gist of ­conversations among the Jordanian partners in Arabic. She also highlighted Bella’s sense of humor, describing her as ‫ بتمزح‬،‫ بتضحك‬،‫[ إنسانة رائعة‬a wonderful person,

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  109

Table 4.3  Language learning (bold in English translation is English in original) , um, it’s going ‫ برنامج‬But I have my project or my ‫ األسرة وتعيش مع األسر‬،‫ األسرة في الشرق األوسط‬to be on ‫في عيد أعياد‬

1

Bella

But I have my project or my program, um, it’s going to be on the family in the Middle East, the family and you live with the family on holiday, holidays

2

Aya

You will live with a family?

3

Bella

mmhmm

4

Aya

Mmhmm will you do will you talk with them and meet other families?

‫ هل سوف تتحدثين معهم وتلتقي‬--‫ هل سوف تعمل‬mmhmm ‫بأسر أخرى؟‬

5

Bella

Well, like the different between the family culture between America and Jordan, like

like ،‫ مثل المختلف بين الثقافة األسرة بين أمريكا وأردن‬well

6

Aya

mmhmm

7

Bella

The different, different (f.), differen–

8

Aya

You will say difference

9

Bella

Difference, difference

10

Aya

Different, different, uh-huh, different is an adjective, it’s an adjective

11

Bella

Oh yeah

12

Aya

13

Bella

Difference is the noun Plural noun right?

14

Aya

mmhmm

15

Bella

Plural, plural

16

Aya

If you will say I will work on the difference between the two cultures

17

Bella

yeah

18

Aya

And not between the different, the difference

19

Bella

The difference between the family in America and my family like especially so yeah, so I have questions about um like, you live with your family and you know the holiday with your family and holidays, holiday, holiday, holiday, holidays, the plural

20

Aya

holidays

21

Bella

The holidays with your family and um, your life like everyday life what is that like, your you know normal life, your normaal life with your family maybe

22

Aya

(Laughs)

‫سوف تعيشين مع أسرة؟‬ mmhmm

mmhmm -‫ مختلفة مختل‬،‫المختلف‬ ‫المخت— إنتي سوف تقولين االختالف‬ ‫االختالف االختالف‬ ‫ مختلف صفة‬uh-huh ‫ مختلف‬،‫مختلف‬ It’s an adjective oh yeah ‫االختالف هو االسم‬ ‫؟‬plural noun right mmhmm ‫‬جمع جمع‬ ‫إذا إنتي سوف تقولين سوف أعمل على االختالف بين الثقافتين‬

yeah ‫ االختالف‬،‫وليس ليس بين المختلف‬ so ،‫ خاصة‬like ‫االختالف بين األسرة في أمريكا وأسرتي‬ you ‫ تعيش مع أسرتك و‬um like ‫ عندي أسألة عن‬yeah ‫ العيد مع أسرتك وأعياد عيد عيد عيد أعياد الجمع‬know

‫األعياد‬ ‫ حياتك و‬um ‫األعياد مع أسرتك‬ like everyday life what is that like ‫ حياتك نورمال مع أسرتك‬normal you know ‫حياتك‬ maybe (Laughs)

110  Language Learning in Study Abroad

she laughs, she jokes]’. Thus, these conversations are examples of how Bella and her interlocutors drew upon their plurilingual repertoires to create translanguaging spaces that allowed Bella to not only learn language and information, but also align with other speakers, for example by making jokes. While Bella may certainly have used more English resources to make friends and more Arabic with strangers, she in all cases engaged in translanguaging practices. Furthermore, although she represented her use of English as a result of her lack of Arabic proficiency and expectations of using English with foreigners, there are clearly other functions to the use of English resources in these conversations, including jokes and social alignment. While translanguaging as a scaffolding practice is certainly important, representing translanguaging practices as only a path towards monolingual ones perpetuates a framing of these interactions from monolingual, rather than plurilingual, perspectives on language. Thus, it is clear that, while Bella did create translanguaging spaces abroad, this space went largely unrecognized as she mapped her translanguaging practices onto a monolingual framework that separates English and Arabic by social function and viewed mixed language as a scaffold to monolingualism as her proficiency level increased. Juan’s translanguaging space: Creating multilingual identities and emotional expression

Juan’s experience provides further support for a plurilingual lens on study abroad, by demonstrating that contrary to what might be expected from a monolingual perspective, increased proficiency does not lead to more exclusive use of the target language, but rather to a greater awareness of his plurilingual competence and repertoire. As a more proficient Arabic speaker than Bella, Juan certainly had the linguistic resources to develop friendships and, indeed, engage in most interactions in Arabic. However, an examination of his linguistic practices abroad reveals that rather than following the monolingual pattern of using only Arabic he imagined as ideal, or mapping languages to social functions based on his linguistic resources like Bella, Juan engaged in complex and intentional negotiations between the context and his linguistic resources. For example, although he tended to use Arabic in service encounters, he at times reported using English, for example, to return the favor of a taxi driver who invited him to lunch: He told me about his dream to one day speak English well enough so that he could complete his studies in the United Kingdom or the United States. He was preparing for the IALETS [sic: IELTS], which is an English test for foreign speakers. His teacher said that the best way to improve his English was to listen and talk with native English speakers, which is the same advice I was given to learn Arabic. Thus, we were language students

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  111

but students of the opposite languages. I wanted him to speak to me in Arabic, but I knew he wanted to learn English, so I decided English would be the main mode of communication. (Diary)

The taxi driver’s emphasis on improving his English by ‘listening and talking with native English speakers’ also reflects the power of monolingual ideologies of language on theories of language learning in the local context. Like Bella, Juan also represents this as a binary choice (English or Arabic), despite the fact that his description of choosing the ‘main mode of communication’ indicates that other modes of communication (e.g. Arabic) were also in play. With his friends, whether local or international, he reported using a mix of languages and making deliberate choices according to the situation. For example, on a hike with a local friend and two other study abroad students, one advanced learner of Arabic, one beginning, he explained: As we continued the hike into the mountains I noticed that the conversation had become a mixture of Arabic and English but Arabic still dominated the majority of the time. I was talking with Fadi the most, but I made sure that when I was speaking Arabic that it would be semi understandable to Cora who had just began her studies in the language. (Diary)

On another trip, he describes deliberately choosing to talk to another study abroad student (‘John’) in Arabic to maintain his ability to think in Arabic as the conversation moved between English and several varieties of Arabic: As we were heading over there Fadi and Halim were talking about things in Omani dialect, while I could understand the majority of the conversation, John was having a hard time keeping up and understanding what was going on. Thus, in order to keep us thinking in Arabic I decided to speak Arabic to John. What was interesting about this, is that we chose to speak Arabic in order to maintain cohesiveness of the languages that we were using. (Diary)

While these examples demonstrate how Juan sometimes chose to use Arabic with international students to maintain conversations, at other times he used English with locals to achieve the same purpose. Another example is at a dinner where he began a conversation with an Omani he met in Arabic, but ‘Then after a while we realized that not everyone in the group can keep up with the conversation, thus we switched back to English’ (Diary). In both of these examples, Juan’s deliberate translanguaging and use of his plurilingual competence allows for interlocutors of

112  Language Learning in Study Abroad

a variety of language backgrounds and proficiencies to be included in the conversation. In addition to Arabic and English, Juan also used Spanish, trying it out with locals who claimed some knowledge of the language. His best Omani friend spoke Arabic, English and Spanish, and Juan described their conversations and social media messaging as a mix of all three languages. ‫عندي صديق هو اسمه فادي وهو يتكلم اللغة العربية واإلنجليزية واإلسبانية فيعني هذا شيء مثير االهتمان عشان نحن نجتمع‬ ‫مع بعض وبعض األحيان نختار هذا اليوم سيكون باإلسباني وهذا اليوم بالعربي وهذا اليوم باإلنجليزي أو في يوم عندما نحن‬ .‫نجتمع مع بعض يعني نخلط المناقشة بين ثالث لغات‬

[I have a friend, his name is Fadi, and he speaks Arabic and English and Spanish, so like this is an interesting thing because we meet and sometimes we chose this day will be in Spanish and this day in Arabic and this day in English or on a day we meet like we mix between the three languages.] (Interview)

In contrast to Bella, who was always identified as an English-speaking foreigner based on her blonde hair and white skin, Juan’s brown skin and ambiguous racial identity sometimes allowed him to avoid being immediately identified as a potential English speaker. While he appreciated the opportunities this could give him to engage in Arabic, these racialized language mappings frustrated him in other ways, such as when his interlocutors were surprised to learn he was from the USA due to his skin color. Thus, while Juan was more proficient in Arabic than Bella, his greater proficiency did not lead to more exclusive or monolingual use of the target language but, rather, to an increased ability to strategically deploy his linguistic resources and plurilingual competence to support his language learning and participation in social networks. Juan’s case also offers further insights into the role of multilingual desires and identities in the study abroad experience and into how these roles shaped his plurilingual practices abroad. Juan’s close friends abroad, whether local or international, were those who shared some of his language backgrounds and desired to develop their existing linguistic resources further. This goal is evident in his description of meeting a group of Omanis via a US friend below where their conversation turned explicitly to language learning: I started a conversation with Hamed and with Anas, the Omani acquaintances, about English learning. Anas learned English in India, while Hamed learned from TV, video games, and talking with Americans like Ian. Thus, it was interesting because all of us were some kind of student of a language. We all faced the same types of difficulties and challenges learning the language that we wanted and there existed a desire to get to know one another so that there would be more opportunities to practice the language. (Final Project)

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  113

The role of multilingual desire is perhaps most apparent in Juan’s desire to meet his friend Fadi, the Omani who shared his linguistic background in English, Arabic and Spanish and who became his best friend. He related in his diary that it was his discovery of Fadi’s shared language skills that made him realize ‘he had to meet the guy’: On the eve of Anas’s birthday party I was told that I would finally be able to meet Anas’s cousin, who also happens to speak Spanish. At first when I heard that his cousin knew how to speak Spanish I was a bit suspicious of his capability. A few of my friends in Salalah had claimed to know Spanish, but it turned out that their speaking abilities was limited to a few set phrases, which is alright but I was expecting more. However, Anas was certain that his cousin knew how to speak Spanish and showed me a video of him on his phone. I took his phone and played the video. Immediately, I was stunned because this guy was speaking Spanish. I paid attention to how he pronounced words and used grammar, and realized that he actually spoke Spanish. From that moment I knew I had to meet the guy. (Final Paper)

In addition to the strong desire Juan shows to meet someone who shares his language backgrounds, this quotation also demonstrates the continued influence of monolingual ideologies in Juan’s framing of language learning, as he assesses Fadi’s Spanish ability based on his pronunciation and grammar. When Juan and Fadi did meet, it was their shared languages and multilingual conversations that led to the desire to continue the friendship and to make Juan to feel they were immediately ‘brothers’: Immediately we felt like we were brothers, because he was so excited to meet another Spanish speaker, especially one that was trying to learn Arabic. Our first conversations were a mixture of Spanish, Arabic, and English and for both of us it was an exciting and linguistically confusing night. At times we were confused of what language to speak in or respond to, but we ended up laughing amidst the confusion. We exchanged information and vowed to be in contact. (Final Paper)

Beyond the initial attraction of unexpectedly being able to use all of his linguistic resources, Juan explained that spending time with Fadi allowed him to not only affirm his full plurilingual identity, but also to feel as though he could fully be himself, across English, Arabic and Spanish. He explained in his interview: ‫ كاملة ويعني أقدر أن أشرح له مشعورتي بهذه اللغة أو بهذه‬. . . ‫ فأشعر عندما أنا مع فادي أو نطلع مع بعض إنه شخصيتي‬. . . ‫إسباني فعندما الثالثة‬. . . ‫ إنجليزي شبح عربي وشبح‬. . .‫اللغة وعندي اختيار فيعني مثال مثال ال أعرف كيف فيه شبح‬ ‫موجودين هذا يتكون أنا لكن في شخص حقيقي فدائما عندما أتكلم واحد من اللغات أشعر إن يعني فيه شخص ثاني بس مش‬ ‫ أعبر‬. . .‫الشخص كامل فيه شيء يعني شو اسمه منقوص ناقص في حياتي فعندما هم موجودين مع بعض وعندي فرصة ل‬ ‫نفسي بهذه الثالثة لغات أشعر إن أنا شخص كامل بس بالثالثة الحين أشعر إنه فيه شيء ناقص يعني بين كل هوياتي اللغوية‬

114  Language Learning in Study Abroad

[…so I feel when I’m with Fadi or we go out together that my personality is…complete and like I can explain to him my feelings in this language or this language and I have a choice so like for example, for example I don’t know there’s an…English ghost, an Arabic ghost, and a…Spanish ghost and when the three are together that forms me, but in a real person, so always when I speak one of the languages I feel that like there’s another person, but not the whole person, there’s something like, what is it called, missing in my life, so when they are together and I have the opportunity to…express myself in these three languages I feel like I’m a complete person, but in each of the three now I feel like there’s something missing like in my linguistic identity.]

Juan’s description of his relationship with Fadi makes it clear that they are highly aware of their plurilingualism, and draw upon their respective repertoires to create a translanguaging space that allows Juan (and likely Fadi as well) to express emotions and co-construct identities that are unavailable in monolingual spaces. In this way, the translanguaging space is not the sum of multiple monolingual spaces but stems from a plurilingual repertoire that connects and transcends them (García & Li Wei, 2014; Piccardo, 2013). Like Bella, Juan succeeded in his goals of using Arabic and making local friends by using translanguaging practices to create translanguaging spaces. However, Juan demonstrated a much more deliberate and strategic deployment of his full linguistic repertoire and plurilingual competence than Bella, in a variety of situations. This approach allowed him (and his friends) to create translanguaging spaces where they could affirm their plurilingual identities, draw from a wider range of resources for emotional expression and develop close friendships based on their shared (and desired) linguistic repertoires. Juan was clearly influenced by monolingual perspectives as, for example, in his stated expectation of the importance of using Arabic with Omanis. But he was also much more conscious of the power of his plurilingual repertoire and translanguaging practices than Bella and, consequently, more intentional in his use of these practices to achieve his goals abroad. Discussion

Taken together, these two cases demonstrate how monolingual ideologies of language shape students’ expectations of monolingual immersion as the ideal study abroad experience. For both Bella and Juan, this influence was particularly strong in their framing of success as using Arabic with locals to help break down stereotypes shaping perceptions of the USA in the Arab world and in their disavowal of using English with other study abroad students. Monolingual ideologies of language are also present in their focus on pronunciation and grammar as measures of linguistic competence.

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  115

Yet while they were abroad, despite their differing backgrounds, proficiency levels and programs, both Bella and Juan were able to create translanguaging spaces that allowed them to pursue their goals of learning Arabic and developing local friendships. Bella continued to report her experiences through a monolingual frame, mapping languages to social functions and viewing English as a scaffold due to her lower Arabic ­proficiency; however, her translanguaging practices clearly transcended this monolingual model. In the translanguaging space, she incorporated all of her linguistic resources to allow her to learn information, joke and socially align with her interlocutors. At a higher proficiency level, Juan did not become more monolingual in Arabic, but rather more intentional in his use of his linguistic repertoire to support the language learning of himself and his interlocutors. While he primarily engaged with strangers in Arabic, he also used English to accommodate their learning goals or other speakers in the group. He used Arabic with Omanis as well as other study-abroad students, even when their proficiency was lower. With his friends, he used both English and Arabic, and it was a shared linguistic repertoire crossing Arabic, English and Spanish that led to his closest friendship. Crucially, the desire to learn and practice multiple languages was at the heart of the friendships he formed and allowed him and his friends to create a translanguaging space in which they could express emotions and construct identities as multilinguals. When Juan was able to draw from his entire linguistic repertoire (as was the case with his best friend) he felt as though he was able to express his entire self, something that was not possible outside of the translanguaging space, when his linguistic choices were more limited. Yet even for Juan, elements of monolingual ideologies of language remained salient in his assessment of what study abroad ‘should’ be like and his judgements of others’ language proficiencies and social networks. Overall, these two cases illustrate the discrepancies between monolingual expectations of Arabic immersion and the actual plurilingual experiences of students abroad who succeeded in both using Arabic in a variety of contexts and making local friendships (by using translanguaging practices). Given the clear value of the translanguaging space for student success abroad demonstrated in this as well as the other chapters in this volume, I argue that researchers and practitioners of study abroad should take up pedagogies informed by plurilingual language ideologies that recognize, value and encourage translanguaging practices. While focusing on how students can best use their existing linguistic resources (including English) to expand their linguistic repertoires is certainly a more complex task than focusing on what languages and varieties learners are using, these pedagogies have great potential for not only language learning but also social justice. Although social justice is a focus of translanguaging approaches in particular (García & Li Wei, 2014), study abroad too often reproduces social injustices (Hartman et al., 2018; Trentman & Diao, 2017).

116  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Adopting a plurilingual perspective allows us to both reframe existing language learning practices and create transformative spaces in our pedagogies (see also Trentman, 2021). In terms of reframing existing practices, a common language learning behavior is for a learner to begin an utterance in the target language, insert an English word or phrase and then continue in the target language. While a monolingual perspective would interpret the switch to English as a failure on the learner’s part and possibly an invitation to switch the entire conversation to English, a plurilingual one would emphasize the strategic nature of this choice and how it allows the learner to, in fact, continue to use Arabic resources rather than switching completely to English in difficult moments (see also Al Masaeed, 2016, 2018). By continually pushing learners to use and expand their Arabic resources, but also acknowledging learners’ and their interlocutors’ resources in other languages, plurilingual pedagogies encouraging translanguaging practices can assuage worries about not using enough Arabic. This also allows us to reframe fears about the widespread availability of English and its threat to the ability of English speakers to learn other languages. Contrary to this belief, research on study abroad demonstrates that English can be a resource that students use to access local social networks during study abroad (Dewey et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2017; Trentman, 2013), that the English proficiency of local friends can in fact be a strong predictor of linguistic gain (Dewey et al., 2013), and that learners and their Arab language partners use English as a tool to expand the learners’ Arabic knowledge in structured conversations abroad (Al Masaeed, 2016, 2018). Accepting the global nature of English and focusing on how learners can use this part of their linguistic repertoire to expand it may be a more useful approach than banning the use of English or bemoaning its global reach. This has the further potential to expand English speakers’ linguistic repertoires to include not only elements of other languages, but also of local or lingua franca varieties of English. In addition to expanding learners’ linguistic repertoires to include more elements from the target language and global Englishes, plurilingual pedagogies recognize the plurilingual nature of situations such as study abroad, and emphasize deliberately developing students’ translanguaging skills in order to create transformative spaces that allow them to accomplish their social and educational goals and establish their plurilingual identities. This forms a contrast with prevailing monolingual approaches that imagine study abroad as ideally monolingual, and when faced with multilingual realities try to create an artificially monolingual environment. Developing students’ translanguaging abilities can disrupt links between language choice and social function or race, nationality and ethnicity, as learners and their interlocutors draw from their full linguistic repertoires to engage in social interactions and construct their desired plurilingual identities. The experiences of Bella and Juan, as well as the

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  117

learners in other chapters of this volume, demonstrate this potential. Furthermore, an emphasis on developing translanguaging abilities can allow us to recognize the strengths that language minoritized students in particular may bring to the language classroom and to study abroad (Flores & Rosa, 2015). These students, who have experienced plurilingual realities from birth, already have strong translanguaging skills (as Juan did). Encouraging them to draw upon these skills, rather than overlooking them owing to a monolingual perspective, is key to these learners’ continued expansion of their linguistic repertoires. This may also make it easier for them to take advantage of unexpected opportunities to engage their full linguistic repertoires abroad, such as when Juan was able to draw upon not only the local language (Arabic) and a relevant global language (English), but also his heritage language (Spanish). To date, the multilingual turn in applied linguistics has been largely overlooked in the context of study abroad and the US language classroom. However, as the cases of Bella and Juan demonstrate, this exclusion results in a gap between expectations of study abroad shaped by monolingual ideologies and the plurilingual realities of study abroad. Adopting a plurilingual perspective can not only provide new insights into the study abroad experience, but also help us develop more effective language learning pedagogies at home and abroad. Note (1) He is referring to the evacuation and sharp decline in students studying in Egypt following the 2011 revolution.

References Al Masaeed, K. (2016) Judicious use of L1 in L2 Arabic speaking practice sessions. Foreign Language Annals 49, 716–728. Al Masaeed, K. (2018) Code-switching in L2 Arabic collaborative dyadic interactions. In M. Alhawary (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Arabic Second Language Acquisition (pp. 289–302). New York: Routledge. Anya, U. (2017) Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. New York: Routledge. Beacco, J-C. and Byram, M. (2007) From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe. See https:// rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docume ntId=09000016802fc1c4 (accessed 19 December 2018). Bown, J., Dewey, D.P. and Belnap, R.K. (2015) Student interactions during study abroad in Jordan. In R. Mitchell, K. McManus and N. Tracy-Ventura (eds) Social Interaction, Identity, and Language Learning during Residence Abroad (pp. 199–222). See http:// www.eurosla.org/monographs/EM04/Bown_etal.pdf (accessed 27 October 2016). Brown, L. (2013) Identity and honorifics use in Korean study abroad. In C. Kinginger (ed.) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad (pp. 269–298). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Byram, M. and Wagner, M. (2018) Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals 51 (1), 140–151.

118  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Canagarajah, S. and Liyanage, I. (2012). Lessons from pre-colonial multilingualism. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge and A. Creese (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (pp. 49–65). New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. (2014) Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone. In S. May (ed.) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education (pp. 78–102). New York: Routledge. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2015a) Towards a holistic approach in the study of multilingual education. In J. Cenoz and D. Gorter (eds) Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2015b) Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, J.A. (2013) Researching whole people and whole lives. In C. Kinginger (ed.) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad (pp. 17–46). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Conteh, J. and Meier, G. (2014) Introduction. In J. Conteh and G. Meier (eds) The Multilingual Turn in Languages Education (pp. 1–14). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dewey, D.P., Belnap, R.K. and Hillstrom, R. (2013) Social network development, language use, and language acquisition during study abroad: Arabic language learners’ perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 22, 84–110. Diao, W. (2016) Gender, youth and authenticity: Peer Mandarin socialization among American students in a Chinese college dorm. In R.A. van Compernolle and J. McGregor (eds) Authenticity, Language and Interaction in Second Language Contexts (pp. 109–130). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Diao, W. and Trentman, E. (2016) Politicizing study abroad: Learning Arabic in Egypt and Mandarin in China. L2 Journal 8, 31–50. Europe, C.O. (2018) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/­ common-european-framework-reference-languages (accessed 19 December 2018). Flores, N. (2013) The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and plurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly 47, 500–520. Flores, N. and Rosa, J. (2015) Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review 85, 149–171. Fernández, J. (2016) Authenticating language choices: Out-of-class interactions in study abroad. In R.A. van Compernolle and J. McGregor (eds) Authenticity, Language and Interaction in Second Language Contexts (pp. 131–150). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. García, O. and Li Wei. (2014) Translanguaging. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Gore, J.E. (2005) Dominant Beliefs and Alternative Voices: Discourse, Belief, and Gender in American Study Abroad. New York: Routledge. Hartman, E., Kiely, R.C., Boettcher, C. and Friedrichs, J. (2018) Community-Based Global Learning: The Theory and Practice of Ethical Engagement at Home and Abroad. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Jackson, J. (2006) Ethnographic preparation for short-term study and residence in the target culture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30, 77–98. Kachru, Y. (1994) Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly 28 (4), 795–800. Kinginger, C. (2009) Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kinginger, C. (2011) Enhancing language learning in study abroad. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 58–73. Knight, S.M. and Schmidt-Rinehart, B.C. (2010) Exploring conditions to enhance student/host family interaction abroad. Foreign Language Annals 43, 64–71.

Plurilingual Realities in Arabic Study Abroad  119

Kramsch, C. and Huffmaster, M. (2015) Multilingual practices in foreign language study. In J. Cenoz and D. Gorter (eds) Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging (pp. 114–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lane-Toomey, C.K. and Lane, S.R. (2012) US students study abroad in the Middle East/ North Africa: Factors influencing growing numbers. Journal of Studies in International Education 16, 1–24. Leung, C. (2014) Communication and participatory involvement in linguistically diverse classrooms. In S. May (ed.) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education (pp. 123–146). New York: Routledge. Levine, G.S. (2011) Code Choice in the Language Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Levine, G.S. (2015) A nexus analysis of code choice during study abroad and implications for language pedagogy. In J. Cenoz and D. Gorter (eds) Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging (pp. 84–109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li Wei (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39, 9–30. Lüdi, G. and Py, B. (2009) To be or not to be … a plurilingual speaker. International Journal of Multilingualism 6, 154–167. Makalela, L. (2015) Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education 29, 200–217. Makalela, L. (2017) Translanguaging practices in a South African institution of higher learning: A case of Ubuntu multilingual return. In C.M. Mazak and K.S. Carroll (eds) Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies (pp. 11–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (2005) Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 2, 137–156. Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (2012). From monological multilingualism to multilingua francas. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge and A. Creese (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (pp. 439–453). New York: Routledge. Marshall, S. and Moore, D. (2018) Plurilingualism amid the panoply of lingualisms: Addressing critiques and misconceptions in education. International Journal of Multilingualism 15, 19–34. May, S. (2014a) Introducing the ‘multilingual turn’. In S. May (ed.) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education (pp. 1–6). New York: Routledge. May, S. (2014b) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. New York: Routledge. McGregor, J. (2016) Metapragmatic talk and the interactional accomplishment of authenticity in study abroad. In R.A. van Compernolle and J. McGregor (eds) Authenticity, Language and Interaction in Second Language Contexts (pp. 177–197). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Michelson, K. and Alvarez Valencia, J.A. (2016) Study abroad: Tourism or education? A multimodal social semiotic analysis of institutional discourses of a promotional website. Discourse & Communication 10, 235–256. Mitchell, R., McManus, K. and Tracy-Ventura, N. (2015) Placement type and language learning during residence abroad. In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura and K. McManus (eds) Social Interaction, Identity and Language Learning during Residence Abroad (pp. 115–138). EUROSLA. See http://www.eurosla.org/monographs/EM04/ Mitchell_etal.pdf. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N. and McManus, K. (2017) Anglophone Students Abroad: Identity, Social Relationships, and Language Learning. New York: Routledge.

120  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Mori, J. and Sanuth, K.K. (2018) Navigating between a monolingual utopia and translingual realities: Experiences of American learners of Yorùbá as an additional language. Applied Linguistics 39, 78–98. Ortega, L. (2013) SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning 63, 1–24. doi: ­ 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x Ortega, L. (2014) Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (ed.) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge. Otheguy, R., García, O. and Reid, W. (2015) Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6, 281–307. Piccardo, E. (2013) Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Toward a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly 47, 600–614. Piccardo, E. (2017) Plurilingualism: Vision, conceptualization, and practices. In P.P. Trifonas and T. Aravossitas (eds) Handbook of Research and Practice in Heritage Language Education (pp. 207–225). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Shively, R.L. (2010) From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatics instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 43, 105–137. Tullock, B. and Ortega, L. (2017) Fluency and multilingualism in study abroad: Lessons from a scoping review. System 71, 7–21. Trentman, E. (2013) Arabic and English during study abroad in Cairo, Egypt: Issues of access and use. Modern Language Journal 97, 457–473. DOI: 10.1111/modl.v97.2. Trentman, E. (2018) Research-based interventions for language and intercultural learning. In M. Al-Hawary (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Arabic Second Language Acquisition (pp. 303–327). New York: Routledge. Trentman, E. (2021) Reframing monolingual ideologies in the language classroom: Evidence from Arabic study abroad and telecollaboration. In B. Dupuy and K. Mitchelson (eds) Pathways to Paradigm Change: Critical Examinations of Prevailing Discourses and Ideologies in Second Language Education (pp. 108–132). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Trentman, E. and Diao, W. (2017) The American gaze east: Discourses and destinations of US study abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 2, 175–205. Vande Berg, M., Paige, R.M. and Lou, K.H. (eds) (2012) Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students Are Learning, What They’re Not, and What We Can Do About It. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

5 Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China1 Wenhao Diao

The folding city was divided into three spaces…Time had been carefully divided and parceled out to separate the populations: Five million enjoyed the use of twenty-four hours, and seventy-five million enjoyed the next twenty–four hours. Jingfang Hao, Folding Beijing

Introduction

The Chinese science fiction book, Folding Beijing, depicts a dystopia in which the city of Beijing is so strictly stratified that people from different classes would never meet each other because they live in assigned separate temporal and spatial units. While this depiction is the writer’s imagination, Chinese cities like Beijing are witnessing rapid stratification of class (Ren, 2013), and language is quickly becoming a way of marking class differences (Zhang, 2005). In this chapter, I present an analysis of two study abroad students’ multilingual experiences in relation to their class identity in Beijing. Specifically, I focus on how, as Mandarin L2 learners in China, their exposure to and use of English needs to be understood as situated in local and global linguistic hierarchies. Traditionally, discussions of using multiple languages are limited in the study abroad setting, often with the assumption that only the target language use is good and desirable. A typical study abroad program advertisement often highlights a ‘fully immersed’ experience in the language of the host country (Block, 2009: 145). Students’ use of other languages tends to be viewed as an indication of their reluctance to use their L2 or their reliance on socializing with each other rather than native speakers (e.g. Wilkinson, 1998). Many programs also adopt pedagogical practices to ensure students’ immersion experience. For example, a popular practice is a language pledge; that is, students pledge to use the target language exclusively for all communication throughout their time overseas. Such a pledge is not unique to the study abroad setting – and indeed it can be found in domestic language immersion programs – but study 121

122  Language Learning in Study Abroad

abroad is often thought to be the optimal place for it because students would naturally use their target language exclusively with native speakers of that language. However, empirical research has shown that monolingual immersion is all too often an illusion. Learners often have difficulty finding opportunities to interact with native speakers in meaningful and lasting ways (e.g. Kinginger, 2008; Trentman, 2013). Students enrolled in study abroad programs report spending significantly less time using the target language than those in domestic immersion programs (Freed et al., 2004). Even for study abroad students under a language pledge, violating the pledge is not uncommon (Du, 2015). Therefore, it is of paramount importance to investigate the multilingual realities of study abroad instead of simply equating students’ use of English to their unwillingness to learn. In this study, by examining study abroad students’ use of English and Mandarin during their time in China, my analysis explores multilingualism during study abroad. However, I do not intend to frame multilingualism per se as a preferable alternative to monolingualism. Rather, I draw from theories that critically analyze the use of multiple languages (Flores, 2013; McNamara, 2011; Potowski, 2007) and focus on how multilingual practices can reveal ideologies and inequalities underscoring language(s) in a specific context. In particular, my critical analysis focuses on two students’ class identity as geographically mobile members of the global elite class. Class is defined here not simply as a socioeconomic status, but a social identity. In this sense, while class is still related to one’s economic position, it is also a cultural process that encompasses various symbolic resources, such as occupation, place of residence, education and social networks (Block, 2014). As a social identity, class is marked not only by possession of material wealth but also by symbolic behaviors such as consumption patterns, language and accent, the conditions in which one lives, mobility, and access to healthcare and personal comfort (Block, 2015; Darvin & Norton, 2014). Simply put, just like other types of social identity, class is performed through social practices, but in the case of class, these practices require resources that are closely associated with economic means. The focal class identity in this study is that of the global elites (Vandrick, 2011). As economic globalization intensifies, a new class of global elites has emerged. Members of global elites benefit from the global expansion of multinational corporations, and they in return invest in their children’s transnational mobility and multilingual/multicultural skills (Block, 2015). Children of the global elites typically have lived and studied in multiple (more than two) countries, and they came from affluent and privileged families, often with a sense of global membership (Vandrick, 2011). The two focal students in my study, Mae and Zolton (pseudonyms), can both be considered children of the global elites (Vandrick, 2011: 160).

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  123

They both come from transnational expatriate families, having studied in more than three political entities and going on to live in more. Before her arrival in mainland China, Mae was raised in an American expatriate family in Hong Kong and moved to the USA to attend college, and she would go to the UK to spend the following semester after Beijing. In Hong Kong, she attended a private elite international school and was educated trilingually in Cantonese, Mandarin and English. Zolton grew up in a Hungarian academic family, and had lived in the USA, Hungary and Singapore. After the semester in China, he also planned to go to Europe – preferably Spain – to intern in the financial industry. During their time in China, Mae and Zolton both had to pledge to use Mandarin exclusively and lived in the dorm with Chinese roommates. Yet, they both reported frequent use of English throughout their semester in Beijing. In what follows, I begin with a critical overview of multilingualism and how it may relate to class privilege and study abroad. My following analysis reveals that Mae and Zolton’s frequent use of English and limited use of Mandarin was linked to their class-based aspirations in the transnational corporate world and their leisure time lifestyles as global elites. Theoretical Framework: A Critical Approach to Multilingualism

Language is meaningful, not just literally but also culturally. These cultural meanings associated with linguistic varieties create linguistic hierarchies and reproduce social stratifications (Blommaert, 2010). A critical approach to multilingualism, therefore, is to unpack the cultural ideologies behind linguistic hierarchies. The spread of English in the corporate world is an example of linguistic inequalities in the context of global capitalism. Since the late 1970s, big corporations – many of which are US based – have been expanding their networks of production, distribution and consumption across national borders (Harvey, 2005). Such international expansion has allowed corporations to maximize their profit as they can identify cheaper sources of materials or labor and lower prices elsewhere, and simultaneously discover new markets or create new desires in these markets to sell their products (Heller & McElhinny, 2017). These globally spread networks of capitalism profit transnational corporations, and they also produce a linguistic hierarchy that prioritizes English in the corporate world. As English becomes seen as the lingua franca of the workplace, the hiring of the highly skilled labor in the corporate world also often requires English, even when it is rarely used in everyday life in the locality where the work takes place (Park, 2009). Therefore, although global economic elites and their children are often invested in learning other languages (Vandrick, 2011), they only expect to adapt to different linguistic and cultural environments to the extent that it would be economically beneficial, so that they can fit the development of global

124  Language Learning in Study Abroad

capitalism (Flores, 2013). In reality, they continue to speak mostly English and further distribute the ideology that positions English as the most desirable code of communication. This type of corporate multilingualism actually reinforces, rather than challenges, English monolingualism. This critical insight regarding societal multilingualism coincides with discussions related to translanguaging at the micro level. Translanguaging refers to the phenomenon that speakers creatively draw from their entire linguistic repertoire and modes of communication to accomplish interactive and identity work (García & Li Wei, 2014; Li Wei, 2017). Often by focusing on language use among individuals from linguistically minoritized groups, such as heritage speakers, translanguaging scholars argue that bilingual speakers – who might not be equally proficient in both languages – draw on their entire repertoire for meaning-making instead of simply switching between two separate and bounded linguistic systems (García & Li Wei, 2014). As shown in Li Wei (2017), instances of translanguaging are often not comprehensible to a monolingual speaker of either language, or even a speaker who knows both sets of codes but are not familiar with the cultural context. The perspective of translanguaging illuminates the connection between the languages that one individual speaks and the many communities of which they are a member, as Li Wei (2017: 27) points out: [Translanguaging] stresses that languages are historically, politically, and ideologically defined entities. It defines the multilingual as someone who is aware of the existence of the political entities of named languages and has an ability to make use of the structural features of some of them that they have acquired.

As translanguaging has to be understood in relation to the ‘political entities of named languages’ (Li Wei, 2017: 27), scholars also caution us not to take an over-simplistic approach to celebrate the mere use of multiple languages. For example, Potowski’s (2007) ethnography in a dual language immersion school in Chicago demonstrates that, despite the school’s effort to promote Spanish/English bilingualism, students in fifth grade used mostly English and little Spanish for social purposes, and ultimately ‘in eighth grade they used none [Spanish] at all.’ (Potowski, 2007: 203). This switch is likely due to English to the prevalence of English and the stigmatization of Spanish at the society level in the USA (Potowski, 2007). While Potowski’s (2007) point deals with heritage language and bilingual education, the linguistic hierarchy with English dominance is also prevalent outside of the USA. Several scholars focusing on sociolinguistics of globalization (Duchêne, 2019; Park, 2009) have urged that the extensive reliance on English in neoliberal contexts where other languages are the societal norm exacerbates the ideological and political hierarchies between English/Anglophones and other languages and their speakers. Multilingualism is receiving attention in study abroad research. Mori and Sanuth (2018) highlight the disappointment among the participants

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  125

who arrived in Nigeria with the expectation that they would be fully immersed in Yorùbá, but only to discover that English, once the language of the colonizer there, continued to be a co-official variety with translingual practices as the norm. Anya’s (2017; see also Chapter 2, this volume) describes how a Portuguese learner who utilized her Spanish skills to negotiate opportunities to speak Portuguese and perform her racialized identity in Brazil. While these studies (Anya, 2017; Mori & Sanuth, 2018) illustrate the necessity to understand multilingualism and translanguaging, the focus thus far has been multilingualism in postcolonial Nigeria and Brazil. There is still a need to situate study abroad in the context of neoliberal capitalism (Harvey, 2005), in which the prevalence of English has been normalized to benefit transnational corporations and serves to stratify class (Flores, 2013; Park, 2009). As several recently published studies have urged further examination of students’ use of English while overseas (Geoghegan & Pérez-Vidal, 2019; Llanes, 2019), this current study focuses on the use of English among global elite students participating in a Mandarin immersion program in China. Background Study abroad and class

The American model of study abroad has its origins in the academic Grand Tour that was a part of the British upper-class culture in the early 18th century (Gore, 2005). Today, many of the US-based college students who participate in study abroad come from affluent families with transnational aspirations for their children (Simon & Ainsworth, 2012). Study abroad continues to be associated with the young and wealthy (Gore, 2005). Not surprisingly, members of the global elite are frequently found among study abroad students. Yet, despite its centrality, class remains an under researched topic in the study abroad literature and applied linguistics in general (Block, 2015). Scholars who have delved into the issue of class and language learning/use have primarily focused on the experiences of students coming to Anglophone countries (Vandrick, 2011, 2014), particularly from a range of East Asian contexts, such as Japan (Kanno, 2003), South Korea (Park, 2009; Park & Bae, 2009; Shin, 2014) and China (Gao, 2014). Their findings demonstrate the close connection between class, migration and language learning in these study abroad contexts. Students’ elite or upper class identity is often reinforced through speaking English during their time in these developed Anglophone countries (Gao, 2014). As Kanno (2014: 120) remarks, [People in countries like Mexico and China] may spend a significant portion of their lives in English-speaking countries and/ or go back and forth between their country and another country, retaining strong ties to both

126  Language Learning in Study Abroad

at all times. For people of such classes, English is not simply a mark of distinction but also a critical tool kit for leading a transnational life.

Therefore, studying abroad in Anglophone countries and speaking English become symbolic of the elite class identity in many of these countries. Class remains under researched when examining Anglophone students overseas and learning other languages. While many studies have demonstrated how identity can become critical to learner’s investment in language learning and their study abroad experience – such as gender (e.g. Diao, 2016; Kinginger, 2008), national identity (Iino, 2006) and race (Anya, 2017) – only a couple of them have touched upon class. Kinginger (2004) is one example. She documented how ‘Alice’, a student from a modest background, could not afford extensive tours across Europe and had to remain in France while she was studying abroad there. This experience, however, enabled her to establish meaningful relationships with her local associates and allowed her to use French. In another similar case (Diao, 2011), ‘Bill’ came from a working-class family and felt the need to distance himself from his American peers when he was studying in China, whom he perceived to be privileged and wealthy. Instead of visiting bars that would have cost him money, he found a part-time English language teaching job at a local college that allowed him to use Mandarin in a meaningful way. Alice’s and Bill’s stories illustrate how students from underprivileged backgrounds might end up having more opportunities to engage in interactions with local people, because they lacked the financial means to partake in luxurious tourist events like their American peers. Yet these findings also leave us to wonder how members of wealthier classes, the more representative type among study abroad populations, use language when they study abroad. Multilingualism and class (shift) in study abroad

Class in transnational context needs to be understood both from the perspective of the individuals who move across borders, and from that of their local hosts, who also discern performances of class and act based on the global hierarchy of class (Darvin & Norton, 2014). This dialogic nature of class identity in transnational movements mean that language learners may experience a shift of class when they move across borders, which can also shape their opportunities to use or not use a certain language. Darvin and Norton (2014) examine this process by focusing on two Filipino students, ‘John’ and ‘Ayrton’, as they moved to Anglophone Canada. John was from a lower middle class family in the Philippines and experienced a shift to low working class upon his arrival in Canada. He could only interact within a limited network, within which he rarely used English. Ayrton, by contrast, came from a wealthy family and did not

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  127

experience any devaluing of his or his family’s capital. His schooling experience enabled him to speak English in a way that did not reveal him as a Filipino. As a result, Ayrton successfully gained access to a wide network of Anglophone speakers in Canada. US-based students studying abroad in a developing country may experience the opposite of what Filipino immigrants encounter when they move to Canada. The developed world is often imagined to be affluent with higher living conditions. Moreover, the language that US-based students speak, English, is typically associated with symbolic capital (e.g. social prestige) and often can be translated into material capital (Bourdieu, 1972) in many parts of the world. This association between English and symbolic and material capital is certainly true for study abroad students in China. China has been embracing the learning and teaching of English, but multilingualism in China is not equally distributed. English is often associated with elite education, symbolizing these students’ class identity and transnational mobility (Kanno, 2014; Tong & Shi, 2012). English is not regularly used in many parts of China. However, in megacities such as Beijing, elites in transnational corporations frequently mix English when speaking Mandarin to signal their upper class identity (Zhang, 2005). Even though in China English often appears as a localized version with unconventional use, standard English is commonly seen in highly modernized urban areas that are heavily populated by affluent expatriates from wealthy countries, and restaurants and other business avenues in these areas use standard English to cater to global economic elites from other countries as well as China (Pan, 2010). Situated in this context, this study focuses on the multilingual study abroad experience in China of two students from US institutions. Although they were in a program that mandated a language pledge, they were still frequently exposed to English. The guiding question of the study is why and how these students and their Chinese hosts use English in everyday communication, and in what ways their multilingual experience was linked to their social class identity. This Study Research context

Data presented here came from a larger project that examined American students’ study abroad and language learning experience in China. The project took place in 2016 at three intensive language programs located in Beijing and Shanghai, all of which catered exclusively to US-based college students. The project recruited a total of 21 dyads, including 21 US-based college students, 19 Chinese roommates and two Chinese host parents.

128  Language Learning in Study Abroad

The two focal students in this chapter came from one semester program in Beijing (pseudonym ‘Semester-in-Beijing’, or SiB as its acronym). The majority of SiB’s students came from private colleges in the USA, where tuition typically exceeded US$40,000 a year. Enrollment in SiB was also costly, with its fees identical to the tuition of a semester at an elite liberal arts college in the USA. Indeed, most of the students enrolled at SiB were either from affluent and globally mobile families, or those with scholarships or financial assistance programs that helped fund their semester in China. SiB only accepted intermediate to advanced students of Mandarin. It was known for its rigid language pledge, which required its participants to speak Mandarin exclusively for all communication purposes throughout their time in the program. To facilitate students’ immersion experience, SiB mandated that all students live with a Chinese roommate. These roommates were recruited from the students enrolled in the host institution, and all of them were informed of the language pledge. All SiB students and their Chinese roommates were living in the designated international student dormitory building on campus. 2 The international students’ dormitory was an entirely air-conditioned high-rise building with hotel-like facilities, including a spacious lobby area, elevators, an indoor pool and two-bed standard rooms. Several rooms had large windows overlooking the city. In contrast, the dormitories for local Chinese students provided rather minimal facilities, typically with bunk beds, no air conditioning or heating, and limited hot water. At over US$1200 (RMB 8500) per student per semester, the international students’ dormitory rooms were also almost 10 times more expensive than the Chinese dormitories, the latter of which usually cost only around US$200 (RMB 1200) or less a year. While the minimal facilities and low cost for local students ensured college affordability for those from impoverished backgrounds in China, this living arrangement also segregated study abroad students from their Chinese peers, both in terms of socioeconomic class and citizenship. This residential arrangement resulted in an automatic class booster for the study abroad students enrolled in SiB. Compared with their Chinese peers, they were already privileged international students. According to the interviews with the Chinese roommates, many of them wanted to become a Chinese roommate for the SiB program because they were attracted to the opportunity to live in a dormitory with far superior conditions free of charge. The director at SiB informed me that becoming a Chinese roommate was so selective that the acceptance ratio was only around one to four. The program administrators interviewed all the applicants and selected the candidates who they believed would commit to only speaking Mandarin. The program designed many activities to facilitate interactions between students and their Chinese roommates. For example, during my

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  129

visit, all Chinese roommates were invited to a field trip to the Great Wall. During the trip, the students were encouraged to sit with their Chinese roommates on the bus. Later in the program, Chinese roommates were also invited to longer overnight trips to other cities. Researcher

I gained access to the SiB program through its director, whom I had already known through professional communication. I presented myself as a researcher interested in language learning and identity in the study abroad setting, and spent a week with the students in the program in Beijing. During the week, I participated in their routine activities outside of the classroom setting, such as field trips and meals, and spent time with them in a café where many students did their homework and met with their tutors. I also chatted with their Chinese roommates during these events, if they were present. The American students viewed me as someone who had lived in the USA and spoke Mandarin, whereas their Chinese roommates asked me questions related to studying abroad in the USA. Participants

The two focal students in this chapter, Mae and Zolton (both pseudonyms), were purposefully selected from a diverse group of students because of their transnational and multilingual background and their class identity, and because of their Chinese roommates’ multilingual background as well. Mae was born and raised in Hong Kong, to a Hong Kong mother (Cantonese/English speaker) and a White American father (English/ Mandarin speaker). She grew up speaking Cantonese, English and Mandarin, and was educated in a private elite English/Mandarin bilingual school in Hong Kong. She had also been learning French since middle school. She moved to the USA to attend a highly ranked liberal arts college, and she would go on to study in London for a semester after finishing her time in Beijing. Zolton also came from an affluent transnational family of expatriates. His parents were both Hungarian, and his father was an economist and an academic. Zolton moved with his family while growing up, first to the USA at a young age, then back to Hungary and then to Singapore five years prior to this study. He was raised bilingually (English and Hungarian), and he learned Spanish in the USA, which he continued to study in both Hungary and Singapore. He then returned to the USA to attend a liberal arts college, where he began to learn Mandarin. He intended to spend the following semester in Europe, with a preference for Spain.

130  Language Learning in Study Abroad

The Chinese roommates of Mae and Zolton were also transnationally mobile, though neither would fit the description of ‘global elites’ (Vandrick, 2011). Mae’s Chinese roommate, Kim, is of Korean ethnicity and speaks Korean natively. She moved to South Korea with her family as a child, when her parents went there to attend postgraduate programs. She did not learn Mandarin until later when her family moved back to Beijing and sent her to a local elementary school. Zolton’s Chinese roommate, Shen, was born in Hunan and grew up in Shenzhen, a neighboring city to Hong Kong. His family later emigrated to Hong Kong, where he also gained citizenship. He attended college preparatory courses in English and became fluent in Cantonese in Hong Kong. While Kim and Shen were typical of children from the rising middle class in urban China who aspire for transnational mobility (Fong, 2011), they were also distinctively multilingual compared with the other Chinese roommates in my sample. Data collection

Data in this study were collected from the following sources: (1) Pre- and post-background surveys, which were distributed to all SiB students at the beginning and the end of their program. (2) Semi-structured interviews. These interviews were conducted with each of the SiB students at the beginning and the end of their program. They were conducted in the language of students’ preference and audio recorded. (3) Sociolinguistic interviews with their Chinese roommates. Each interview lasted for about an hour and was conducted in Mandarin. (4) Audio recorded interactions between the SiB students and their Chinese roommates. Each student was given an audio recorder and instructed to record routine interactions that took place between themselves and their Chinese roommates. (5) Field notes that I took during my site visits. I took a qualitative, interpretive approach and analyzed the data from multiple sources in a holistic way. My particular focus was on their language use. Findings

Despite the language pledge, Mae and Zolton both reported extensive use of English rather than Mandarin. The recurring themes of English use point to their class identity as global elites and stratified multilingualism in China. Below I present the findings, organized by themes.

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  131

English in the transnational corporate workplace of economic elites

The frequent use of English was primarily due to their professional needs. Study abroad is often viewed as a form of professional preparation (Gore, 2005), and neither Mae nor Zolton took time off from that goal. Their professional preparation also differed from students from underprivileged families, the latter of whom typically look for employment in local contexts that would transform their labor into immediate monetary rewards (such as Bill who taught English in a community college in China; Diao, 2011). As children of global elites, Mae and Zolton were selectively searching for opportunities – often unpaid – in transnational enterprises that would prepare them to become global elites. Zolton aspired to work for the financial consulting industry or an investment bank, and he was seeking for internship opportunities in Europe for his following semester. In this sense, he was making transnational professional plans a semester in advance to prepare himself to work in the global corporate world. Even though he was physically in Beijing, he frequently had interviews with companies in Europe, and he had to violate his language pledge and use English in these interviews: Because this semester I really spent a lot of time applying for jobs. […] So I think I- this- actually I spoke a lot of English. Because I often had Skype calls with people in America, or people in Europe. And they of course don’t speak Chinese. Because they work at a bank or a- a consulting company. So I- really spent a lot of money- a lot of time- talking to them. (Zolton, post interview)

Zolton had several interviews with companies in Spain. But he still spoke English during these interviews, even though he had also learned Spanish. In his recorded conversations with his roommate Shen, Zolton explicitly stated that Spanish would not be important even for an internship in Spain. Excerpt 5.1 below is from this conversation. Zolton began by saying that his interviewers in Spain expected him to speak Spanish, but he asked them to switch to English because he could not understand what they were saying in Spanish. Excerpt 5.1 ‘Speaking Spanish is not the most important thing’ (ZT = Zolton; SH = Shen)

1. 2. 3. 4.

ZT: So I told them- asked- needed to change our language. Should speak English. SH: Oh. ZT: They told me no problem. SH: Oh- you mean that speaking Spanish is not the most important requirement to work in Spain?

132  Language Learning in Study Abroad

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

ZT: Not the most important, because they also have many foreigners working there. SH: Oh. ZT: So they for- so they- so work- also a lot of work- a very big part of work uses English, but also uses, a little bit, um, Spanish. But they believe I- I can speak Spanish, because I told them I have been learning Spanish for fivefive years. SH: Uh huh. ZT: So they believe me.

Compare Shen’s surprise in line 4 with Zolton’s taken-for-granted attitude. According to Zolton, although Spanish was perceived as a desirable quality for the job applicant to work in Spain, English was the language that was required because ‘many foreigners’ work there. Instead of thinking these foreigners as multilingual speakers who can translanguage, Zolton automatically associates them with English, equating it to be the language of the transnational financial industry. He only needed to inform his potential employer that he had learned Spanish without having to engage in any real use of it, framing himself as a flexible multilingual who could adapt to the linguistic and cultural context of work in the transnational corporate world (Flores, 2013). Similarly, Mae also used English frequently during her time for workplace communication. She found an internship through SiB at a Beijing office of an international law firm, and she received special permission from SiB’s director to not follow the language pledge while there. The program director encouraged students to gain work experience so that study abroad could also be their professional preparation opportunity (Gore, 2005), and he had to acknowledge the lingua franca status of English in transnational corporations in Beijing. However, Mae’s supervisor was actually from Hong Kong and, just like Mae herself, also spoke Cantonese and Mandarin in addition to English. But Mae reported that their conversations took place entirely in English. When asked why she chose to communicate in English but not Mandarin or Cantonese, Mae responded by pointing out their shared educational background in Hong Kong: Then when she was growing up [in Hong Kong], she also spoke English. In Hong Kong, the school that she went to was- was also a school- like an international school. So, just like mine. (Mae, post interview)

Having grown up in Hong Kong as global elites, Mae and her boss shared the experience of attending private international schools that taught English, Mandarin and Cantonese. This experience enabled her to recognize her boss’s use of English as a socially meaningful act of identity.

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  133

Despite the fact that they both were able to speak Mandarin and Cantonese, and that they were physically working in Beijing, it was English that symbolized their elite status in neoliberal Hong Kong and indexed their global mobility. Speaking English only was Mae’s way of responding to this identity work and her engagement in the co-construction of this shared understanding of language and class. English as a lingua franca in residential and leisure spaces

Outside of the professional sphere, Mae and Zolton also encountered frequent use of English in their residential setting and in spaces where their leisure activities took place. With the exception of people associated with the SiB program (teachers, other American peers, and the Chinese roommates), the language that they used most frequently was English. 3 Both of them reported difficulty initiating and sustaining connections with local Chinese speakers, in part due to the fact that they were living in the international students’ dormitory, which effectively separated them from local Chinese students (except for their roommates). As Mae stated in her post interview: Actually it’s hard to make friends with local students, because our dorm is for international students. So all the people [in the dorm] are from all over the world. They don’t necessarily have a language pledge like ours, so we cannot communicate with them because we have to speak Chinese. (Mae, post interview. Originally in Chinese)

Within the dormitory, even though the students came from many national and linguistic backgrounds, and they were all studying in Beijing, English was the lingua franca. Thus, the dormitory also became a linguistically segregated space from the rest of the campus. While Mae and Zolton would still refrain from speaking English by not talking to other international students in the dorm, outside of the campus they had to speak English frequently. This was in part because the places that they frequented primarily, such as bars, clubs and upscale restaurants, catered to tourists and expatriates. While their frequent visits to these places show the close association between study abroad and tourism (Gore, 2005; Michelson & Alvarez, 2016), it was also because their leisure activities were structured differently compared with their Chinese roommates, who often dined at university cafeterias. As Mae described: Because they [the Chinese roommates] – I feel their goals in life- or theirhabits in life are somewhat different. For example- perhaps- for example American students like to go to bars and stuff like that. Sometimes on the weekend [they] go get some drinks and communicate with others. I think local students very rarely do things of this kind. And we sometimes would choose to go to places that are more internationalized, for example, the

134  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Chaoyang District, Sanlitun, and places like that. They don’t like to go. Some even have never been. So right. […] Perhaps my roommate sometimes she would go out to sing karaoke and stuff like that. But, I don’t like karaoke very much. (Mae, post interview. Originally in Mandarin)

What Mae referred to as ‘habits in life’ was essentially what Bourdieu (1972) refers to as habitus; that is, everyday practices that are shaped by social structure and class. The place that she named, the Chaoyang District, is an example of stratified multilingualism in Beijing. As the most affluent and internationalized area in Beijing, Chaoyang is where foreign embassies and headquarters of multinational corporations are located; standard English is so common there to the extent that signs would sometimes only have English (Pan, 2010). Mae’s orientation towards such an area symbolizes her own class identity and a consumer of global capitalism. In these internationalized areas, students often met other tourists or sojourners rather than locals, who also tended to use English as the lingua franca, as Zolton stated: Because of course when we go out, there are many foreigners. And they are only here sightseeing, or they are expats. And their Chinese isn’t good. So with them we use English. (Zolton, post interview)

Here, Zolton described the situation of encountering expatriates when going out in Beijing as being inevitable (‘of course’). As a child of transnationally mobile global elites, Zolton engaged in leisure activities in a way that Western tourists and expatriates in China would. Their shared consumption pattern is also linked to their use of English in these spaces. When interacting with local speakers of Mandarin, these US-based students were often perceived and treated as speakers of English. In Chinese cities such as Beijing, quality English education is viewed as a form of elite education (Tong & Shi, 2012), and native English speakers from developed Anglophone countries are positioned as expert English speakers equipped with the ‘authentic language skills’ (Kramsch et al., 2015: 87). Trading her English skills for opportunities to speak Mandarin became one of Mae’s strategies to meet speakers of Mandarin in Beijing: For example my roommate has also introduced some of her friends [to me] because she has friends who want to find international students to do work related to English. For example, I did a recording job, just helping a relatively small company to prepare recording materials in English. Just English educational materials, so I met these friends, my roommate’s friends, and then I spoke Chinese when contacting them. (Mae, post interview. Originally in Mandarin)

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  135

While the use of English in instances like this one illustrates how study abroad students may benefit from their own multilingual identities rather than simply an L2 Mandarin learner, these opportunities were overall rare. Students often felt that they should not actively seek opportunities to speak English because of their language pledge. Translanguaging by Chinese roommates in the dorm rooms

Their Chinese roommates were required to observe the language pledge while living with the SiB students. When asked why they participated as Chinese roommates, both Kim and Shen, the two Chinese roommates, cited the far superior living conditions in the international students’ dormitory as a major reason that motivated them to apply for this position as Chinese roommates. Shen described his own dormitory as an overcrowded ‘heartbreaking place’. Kim even expressed her disappointment after finding out that she would not be able to speak English: The mo- most important factor is culture. I wanted to experience different cultures. Then a secondary factor was having a private bathroom and shower […] Actually I also thought about improving my own English. But then after I came here, they won’t even allow us to speak English. (Kim, Mae’s roommate, interview)

This quote illustrates that this unequal economic relationship between the American students and the Chinese roommates, which required the Chinese roommates to alter their language behaviors and follow the language pledge at SiB. Although they stated their desire to experience different cultures, their willingness to become Chinese roommates and speak Mandarin with their American peers was mainly shaped by the latter’s privileged access to superior residential facilities and their financial ability to sponsor a local student to share that space. However, it became progressively more challenging for these students and their roommates to find time to have interactions with each other. Zolton’s evenings were often filled with interviews with European companies (owing to the time difference between China and Europe), and Shen found a part-time job tutoring English on weekends. Mae spent a significant amount of her time interning at the law firm, while Kim was busy searching for internship opportunities (required for graduation in China) and became stressed toward the end of the semester. Their unequal relationship also led to complaints from Mae, who complained of her roommate spending most of her time in the dormitory ‘sleeping in her bed’ and being ‘only concerned about her own life’ (Mae’s post interview). As a result, these students struggled to record their routine interactions with their Chinese roommates for this project during the second half

136  Language Learning in Study Abroad

of the semester. In their limited interactions with the SiB students, the Chinese roommates diligently observed the language pledge, but very occasionally English would still appear. Below is an excerpt from Mae and her roommate Kim’s recordings. They were discussing the juice that Kim was drinking, which was supposedly a beverage with many health benefits. They disagreed over the effectiveness of the noni juice. Excerpt 5.2 ‘Noni Fruit’. M = Mae; K = Kim. (Bold denotes English words.)

M: [Oh it’s] a Korean- Oh of course it’s a Korean product. K: Why? M: But- because you have such- hardworking students= K: =No no no. NHT ((name of the company)) is an AmericanM: But here it says product of Korea. K: Then maybe this product was with Chi- with the U.S. together- No with South Korea together then that. There’s a thing called nuoli [in Mandarin]. I don’t know if you know about it. Noni. No- noni fruit. This is the product that NHT first released. It was from the U.S. side. The U.S. side. 7. M: Really? 8. K: Yes you can search for it online. NHT ((7 turns omitted, in which Kim describes how the juice cured her before.)) 16. ((long pause)) 17. K: [But that product of theirs] 18. M: [But does it taste ] like a drug or19. K: Just like candy. [Before ] 20. M: [I don’t really-] I don’t really believe it. 21. K: They released a product called noni. A fruit- a beverage. It can cure some diseases. But at that time I was really cured. 22. M: Really? 23. K: Just only by drinking that beverage. [I used to- ] 24. M:  [What kind] of beverage? 25. K: ((long pause.)) A thing called- used- noni. It should be a noni fruit called noni. Made from that. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Here, Mae initially positioned Kim as Korean (line 3), suggesting that Korean companies might make such claims to market to academicallyoriented students. Kim immediately rejected the statement and argued that the noni juice was a US product. She repeatedly used English to refer to the fruit, noni, as well as the proper noun for the name of the company. She became unsure about her own recollection of its English name, as evidenced by the long pause in line 25; yet she insisted on calling it in

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  137

English to argue that the noni juice was a US product. Global capitalism has created a hierarchy of value of products, linking Western Europe and North America with products of higher value (Manning, 2012). While Kim’s use of multiple codes may be meaningful to other multilinguals who could understand the context (Li Wei, 2017), such as other Chinese consumers like herself, Mae appeared neither able to recognize the English word noni nor the pragmatic subtleties that connect English with its marketed origin or its claimed effectiveness. Her response was to frequently interrupt her roommate (lines 18, 20 and 24), rather than unlinking the USA with inherently higher quality or value. Translanguaging to achieve interactional and identity work also took place in conversations between Zolton and his Chinese roommate Shen. In one episode of interaction in which Shen was making a complaint regarding the mandatory political science courses in China, he used English to distance himself from the political system of China. Excerpt 5.3 ‘I can leave too’. Z = Zolton; S = Shen. (Bold denotes words uttered in English.)

S: Actually it’s not at all Marx’s. Now- Marx in it- Not a single sentence was written by Marx himself. All were added by them- themselves= 2. Z: =Oh. This in English is called the Mao Zedong Thought. 3. S: Right Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism. 4. Z: Marxism= 5. S: =Ma-ke-si-ism. ((sic: Marxism.)) 6. Z: Right right= 7. S: =But but he actually didn’t write a single sentence in the book 8. Z: ((Misheard and checking)) You didn’t– didn’t study it yet? 9. S: I have studied it. I test- I even have been tested. Very important. 10. Z: ((laughing)) 11. S: But I don’t like it at all. Why do I have to study it? I should be able choose to study the history of political science of the West. 12. Z: Hm. 13. S: I want to study political thoughts in the West. They didn’t give me the right to choose. 14. Z: Hm. ((Eight turns omitted.)) 23. S: =You say this situation- this situation is truly unfree. Don’t you think this is not- isn’t this very unfree? To you guys it’s very unfree. To me it’s even more unfree. 24. Z: Yes. Because I can leave. 25. S: Yes. You can leave=

1.

138  Language Learning in Study Abroad

26. 27. 28. 29.

Z: =so= S: =But I too can leave. Z: Right! You too can [leave ] S:  [Yes.]

In this conversation, Zolton switched to English after hearing Shen’s description (line 2), and Shen also repeated it in English in the following turns. Later, even after Zolton said Marxism in Mandarin (line 4), Shen continued to mix English with Mandarin when discussing Marxism, calling it Ma-ke-si (Mandarin for Marx) with the English suffix -ism (line 5). His translanguaging was not to facilitate Zolton’s comprehension. As Shen reminded Zolton later in this conversation, he too was not a citizen of mainland China. Although he was mandated to take classes on Marxism in Chinese, these instances of English allowed Shen to discursively signal his Hong Kong citizenship and his alignment with the criticism of China’s political system in the West. However, these discursive meanings signaled by translanguaging did not seem apparent to Zolton, as he appeared almost incognizant of Shen’s transnational mobility until the latter explicitly announced it (line 27). Discussion

Even though both Zolton and Mae were enrolled in a program with a strict language pledge in Beijing that supposedly prohibited the use of any language other than Mandarin, the findings here highlight the Englishspeaking spaces that they encountered and the English practices they engaged in while in China. Their language use was restricted by their active engagement in professional preparation for the transnational corporate workplace, which ideologically prioritizes English. Professional preparation is increasingly being framed as a reason to study abroad (Gore, 2005; Trentman & Diao, 2017). As global elites, Mae and Zolton actively engaged with the transnational corporate world while studying in Beijing. In these workplace interactions, even though they were speaking to individuals with whom they shared languages other than English (Spanish for Zolton and Mandarin/Cantonese for Mae), English was assumed to be the language that defined them as highly skilled elites in the transnational corporate workplace (Flores, 2013; Park, 2011). In addition, they resided in a dormitory that was designated exclusively for international students. This living arrangement automatically granted them (and all international students) an upward class shift (Darvin & Norton, 2014) and further restricted their access to local networks or the use of Mandarin. Mae and Zolton continued to engage in consumption behaviors associated with Western expatriates and global elites in China. The places that they visited outside of the campus were frequented by expatriates and Chinese members of the global elites,

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  139

rendering them to be effectively segregated from most local people in Beijing who relied on Mandarin for communication. Therefore, while these findings confirmed that students in ‘language pledge’ programs do not use the target language exclusively (Du, 2015), they also point to the centrality of class and how class privilege might reinforce English monolingualism for elite students abroad. Mae and Zolton were in fact critical of American racism and social privileges, and they frequently distanced themselves by claiming that they were not Americans (field notes). Yet they seemed uncritical of their own consumption of their class privileges or their frequent English use, which was directly related to such class privileges. While they complained of having limited opportunities to speak Mandarin with local Chinese people outside of the SiB program, they seemed ignorant of the link between the limited Mandarin that they encountered and their privileges as global elites – and also as foreigners in China. Moreover, within the dorm rooms, these Chinese roommates came from multilingual backgrounds and had multilingual aspirations. They diligently followed the language pledge and spoke Mandarin for the absolute majority of the time, but the pledge overlooked these roommates’ multilingual realities and neglected their wish to practice their English. To an extent, the language pledge that regulated the Chinese roommates’ language behaviors also reinforced the idea that native speakers of Chinese should be monolingual Chinese speakers. In all instances of translanguaging presented in the findings, Mae and Zolton seemed unable to make sense of their roommates’ translingual practices, even though they were quick to recognize similar practices when employed by expatriates from outside mainland China. This observation highlights the need to not simply position these Chinese roommates as native speakers hired by the program to practice Chinese with the American students, but also as multilinguals who, like the students themselves and the expatriates that they have encountered, also translanguage. Even though the type of English that the Chinese roommates used was sometimes not comprehensible or meaningful to their Anglophone roommates, these instances of translanguaging were social semiotic tools that they used to signal their consumption patterns, their middle class identity, or their own transnational mobility. The findings here shed light on the hybrid language use among China’s educated urban youth (Li Wei, 2017), but it is also a missed opportunity for study abroad students, who are often unable to engage in such meaningful translingual practices in part due to the emphasis on Mandarin immersion under the language pledge. Mae and Zolton cannot represent all study abroad students, though they are not unique. Universities in the USA and study abroad programs are increasingly enrolling such global elite students who are ‘able to pay the high tuition and other expenses’ and ‘personally familiar with several countries and cultures’ (Vandrick, 2011: 160). In the particular case of

140  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Mandarin L2 learning, students belonging to the global elite class also appear to be common. Mandarin was rarely taught in North America just four decades ago (Diao & Trentman, 2016). The recent growth of Mandarin L2 learning coincided with China’s active participation in economic globalization, and the learning of Mandarin is often associated with the possibility for economic success in global capitalism (Duff et al., 2013). Global elites play a significant role in shaping the culture of universities and academic programs and the lifestyles of their students (Vandrick, 2014). Thus, the experience of Mae and Zolton have implications for research and pedagogical practices related to study abroad. Pedagogical implications

Even though Mae and Zolton both were aware that their Chinese roommates were multilinguals, they failed to view them as such or connect their language use with stratified multilingualism in China’s changing socioeconomic context. Based on the findings, there is a pressing need to incorporate a critical awareness of multilingualism and social inequalities (Duchêne, 2019) in language pedagogy, including discussions related to multilingualism and class privileges for study abroad students. Potentially, one pedagogical intervention in the future is to engage Anglophone students in recognizing, documenting and discussing multilingualism and social stratification. The language pledge idealized China as a monolingual Chinese-speaking place and forcefully prevented such critical reflections to take place. It created many contradictions with the multilingual realities of China. Even though the SiB program administrators and the students negotiated ways to permit the use of English, such tolerance was officially available during participation in the transnational corporate workplace, but not for purposes that would allow the students to adequately acknowledge the status of English as a lingua franca in certain spheres of globalizing China. As a result, the language pledge could only be implemented by forcing the Chinese roommates to alter their language behaviors, and yet the American students still complained not being exposed to Chinese as soon as they left their classes and dorm rooms. Therefore, perhaps in addition to or instead of implementing a simple language pledge, it would be more meaningful to have study abroad students reflect upon the places that they frequent, and record their everyday conversations that involve multiple codes. Then, they can be engaged in critical discussions of their language use and transnational habitus could enhance their learning experience. With the acknowledgement that English constitutes a major part of their linguistic landscape and soundscape both on and off campus – but probably not for everyone else in China – students can be guided to analyze such multilingual phenomena

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  141

and participate in discussions regarding what languages they are usually exposed, in what spaces, and why. For advanced learners such as Mae and Zolton, these discussions could take place mostly in their target language. While lower level learners may have difficulty engaging in these abstract conversations, various analytic tools (e.g. a linguistic landscape activity) could also be employed to facilitate meaningful and critical reflections of multilingualism and class. In addition, these discussions could also take place in other courses before and after a student goes abroad. Maybe they can even be guided to use English to trade for opportunities to meet other people, as evidenced in Mae’s experience with Kim’s friends. Furthermore, instead of forcing local hosts – such as these Chinese roommates – to speak Mandarin exclusively and pretending that translanguaging does not take place, we can support the hosts by having them view study abroad students as multilinguals who are willing and able to speak their target language, rather than simply constructing American college students as native or fluent speakers of English. Notes (1) This project received a grant from the US federal Department of Education through the Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language and Literacy (CERCLL), a Title VI Language Resource Center. It also received additional funding from CERCLL the College of Humanities at the University of Arizona. (2) Chinese policies require all international students to live in dormitories specifically designated for foreign students, which often provide far superior facilities and services compared to the dormitories for local Chinese students (Trentman, 2013), unless they rent off campus. (3) Zolton actually reported using Hungarian once in China, when he needed to translate for his grandfather and an old Chinese friend of his. His grandfather had a Chinese roommate and friend in college, who was a student from China, because both Hungary and China belonged to the Communist Bloc then. However, they lost contact with each other owing to difficulties with such long-distance communication. Zolton helped his grandfather reconnect with this friend and translated between Hungarian and Mandarin.

References Anya, U. (2017) Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. New York: Routledge. Block, D. (2009) Second Language Identities. London: Continuum. Block, D. (2014) Social Class in Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge. Block, D. (2015) Social class in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35, 1–19. Blommaert, J. (2010) The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1972) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cholakian, R. (1992) Study Abroad: Paris. ADFL Bulletin 23, 19–25.

142  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Darvin, R. and Norton, B. (2014) Social class, identity, and migrant students. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 13, 111–117. Diao, W. (2011) Study abroad, participation and turn taking: A case study. In G. Granena, J. Koeth, S. Lee-Ellis, A. Lukyanchenko, G. Prieto Botana and E. Rhoades (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 2010 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 1–17). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings. Diao, W. (2016) Peer socialization into gendered L2 Mandarin practices in a study abroad context: Talk in the dorm. Applied Linguistics 37 (5), 599–620. Diao, W. and Trentman, E. (2016) Politicizing study abroad: Learning Arabic in Egypt and Mandarin in China. L2 Journal 8, 31–50. Du, H. (2015) American college students studying abroad in China: Language, identity, and self-presentation. Foreign Language Annals 48, 250–266. Duff, P., Anderson, T., Ilnyckyj, R., VanGaya, E., Wang, R. and Yates, E. (2013) Learning Chinese: Linguistic, Sociocultural, and Narrative Perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Duchêne, A. (2019) Multilingualism: An Insufficient Answer to Sociolinguistic Inequalities. Social Science Research Council. Retrieved November 1, 2019 from https://items.ssrc.org/sociolinguistic-frontiers/multilingualism-an-insufficientanswer-to-sociolinguistic-inequalities/?fbclid=IwAR1Ypc8tXeFxQpm21Ru-_FzrYr xfBbTRAz_A8gqwZ7N-W6_ewSzH0kyP874. Flores, N. (2013) The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and plurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly 47, 500–520. Freed, B.F., Segalowitz, N. and Dewey, D.P. (2004) Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 275–301. Fong, V. (2011) Paradise Redefined: Transnational Chinese Students and the Quest for Flexible Citizenship in the Developed World. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gao, F. (2014) Social-class identity and English learning: Studies of Chinese learners. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 13, 92–98. García, O. and Li Wei (2014) (ed.) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education (pp. 63–77). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Geoghegan, L. and Pérez-Vidal, C. (2019) English as a lingua franca, motivation and identity in study abroad. In M. Howard (ed.) Study Abroad, Second Language Acquisition and Interculturality (pp. 103–135). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gore, J.E. (2005) Dominant Beliefs and Alternative Voices: Discourse, Belief, and Gender in American Study. New York: Routledge. Hao, J. (2015) Folding Beijing (trans: K. Liu). Uncanny Magazine. Retrieved August 30, 2018 from http://uncannymagazine.com/article/folding-beijing-2/. Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heller, M. and McElhinny, B. (2017) Language, Capitalism, Colonialism: Toward a Critical History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Iino, M. (2006) Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward a two-way flow of linguistic and cultural resources. In M.A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds) Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 151–173). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kanno, Y. (2003) Negotiating Bilingual and Bicultural Identities: Japanese Returnees Betwixt Two Worlds. New York: Routledge. Kanno, Y. (2014) Forum commentary. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 13, 118–123. Kinginger, C. (2004) Alice doesn’t live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity reconstruction. In A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge (eds) Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts (pp. 219–242). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Language Use, Class and Study Abroad in China  143

Kinginger, C. (2008) Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. The Modern Language Journal 92, 1–124. Kramsch, C., Zhang, L. and Jessner, U. (2015) The legitimacy gap: Multilingual language teachers in an era of globalization. In U. Jessner and C. Kramsch (eds) The Multilingual Challenge: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 87–114). Berlin: de Gruyter. Llanes, A. (2019) Study abroad as a context for learning English as an international language: An exploratory study. In M. Howard (ed.) Study Abroad, Second Language Acquisition and Interculturality (pp. 136–154). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Li Wei (2017) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39, 9–30. Manning, P. (2012) The Semiotics of Drink and Drinking. London: Continuum. McNamara, T. (2011) Multilingualism in education: A poststructuralist critique. The Modern Language Journal 95, 430–441. Michelson, K. and Alvarez, J.A. (2016) Study abroad: Tourism or education? A multimodal social semiotic analysis of institutional discourses of a promotional website. Discourse & Communication 10, 235–256. Mori, J. and Sanuth, K.K. (2018) Navigating between a monolingual utopia and translingual realities: Experiences of American learners of Yorùbá as an additional language. Applied Linguistics 39, 78–98. Pan, L. (2010) Dissecting multilingual Beijing: The space and scale of vernacular globalization. Visual Communication 9, 67–90. Park, J.S.Y. (2009) The Local Construction of a Global Language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Walter de Gruyter. Park, J.S.Y. (2011) The promise of English: Linguistic capital and the neoliberal worker in the South Korean job market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 14, 443–455. Park, J.S.Y. and Bae, S. (2009) Language ideologies in educational migration: Korean jogi yuhak families in Singapore. Linguistics and Education 20, 366–377. Potowski, K. (2007) Language and Identity in a Dual Immersion School. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ren, H. (2013) The Middle Class in Neoliberal China: Governing Risk, Life-Building, and Themed Spaces. New York: Routledge. Shin, H. (2014) Social class, habitus, and language learning: The case of Korean early study-abroad students. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 13, 99–103. Simon, J. and Ainsworth, J.A. (2012) Race and socioeconomic status differences in study abroad participation: The role of habitus, social networks, and cultural capital. International Scholarly Research Notices  2012. DOI: 10.5402/2012/413896. Trentman, E. (2013) Arabic and English during study abroad in Cairo, Egypt: Issues of access and use. The Modern Language Journal 97, 457–473. Trentman, E. and Diao, W. (2017) The American gaze east: Discourses and destinations of US study abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 2, 175–205. Tong, F. and Shi, Q. (2012) Chinese–English bilingual education in China: A case study of college science majors. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, 165–182. Vandrick, S. (2011) Students of the new global elite. TESOL Quarterly 45, 160–169. Vandrick, S. (2014) The role of social class in English language education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 13 (2), 85–91. Wilkinson, S. (1998) Study abroad from the participants’ perspective: A challenge to common beliefs. Foreign Language Annals 31 (1), 23–39. Zhang, Q. (2005) A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society 34, 431–466.

144  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Appendix Transcription conventions for conversations regular originally said in Mandarin and translated into English by the researcher bold originally said in English = latched talk ((notes)) researcher’s notes underlined emphasis dash- prolonged speech [brackets] overlapping talk

6 ‘Sorry, I don’t speak any English’: An ActivityTheoretic Account of Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea1 Lucien Brown

Introduction

The study abroad literature often assumes that the target language is spoken monolingually when learners interact with the local native-speaker community, whereas the native language is employed to communicate with other exchange students or foreign friends. Interactions with the local community are thus viewed positively as opportunities to develop language competence, whereas interacting with other foreigners is perceived negatively (Tullock & Ortega, 2017: 16). To take one example, Isabelli-García’s (2006) study of Spanish learners in Argentina describes how learners who were succesful in establishing social networks with Argentines made greater linguistic gains, whereas those who maintained more social networks with American friends were less successful. The extent to which the learners established social networks with Argentines was found to be associated with higher motivation and more positive attitudes toward the target language culture. Throughout the study, terms such as ‘social networks with Argentines’ and ‘Spanish social networks’ are used interchangeably, thus directly equating interacting with Argentines with speaking Spanish. My point here is not to question the validity of the findings of this particular study. Rather, I wish to highlight two simplistic assumptions. The first is that the choice of using the target language versus the native language is directly conditioned by the identity of the interlocutor: the target language is used with ‘locals’ and the native language with ‘foreign friends’. The second is that native language usage is symptomatic of a lack of integrative motivation.

145

146  Language Learning in Study Abroad

The current chapter challenges this depiction through the analysis of narrative data collected from a proficient and highly-motivated White American female learner of Korean, Grace, who spent six months studying in Seoul. We might assume according to Isabelli- García’s (2006) findings that a highly-motivated learner such as Grace would establish robust social networks with Korean native speakers, who would interact with her monolingually in Korean. Indeed, Grace explicitly stated before study abroad that her goal was to speak only Korean while she was in Seoul, at least in interactions with Koreans. However, the analysis shows that many of Grace’s daily interactions with Korean native speakers actually featured English, and that it was difficult for Grace to establish Koreanspeaking interactions. Also, interacting with fellow overseas students ultimately developed as an important context for Grace to establish herself as a Korean speaker or, more precisely, as a translingual speaker competent in both English and Korean. The goal of the chapter is to advance our understanding of language choice in study abroad, and go beyond the assumption that it is necessarily conditioned by factors such as the national identity of the interlocutor, or the motivation of the learner. The chapter will argue that the prevalence of English in Grace’s interactions was not primarily dependent on factors internal to Grace such as her motivation, personality or mindset. Rather, the emergence of English and Grace’s endeavors to negotiate higher frequencies of Korean usage were socially situated within the study abroad programs in which Grace participated, and also within Korean society at large. To understand Grace’s experiences requires consideration of complex language ideologies, and appreciation of linguistic and cultural inequalities in the way that Korean is positioned vis-à-vis English in South Korea and global society. Through exploring these factors, the chapter contributes to an emerging line of research looking at ideologies and identities in study abroad in Korea (e.g. Brown, 2013, 2016) and other East Asian countries (e.g. Diao, 2016; Iino, 1996; Siegal, 1995). In order to capture the socially embedded nature of language choice in Grace’s narrative, I adopt an activity-theoretic analysis (e.g. Engeström, 1987; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Leont’ev, 1978), precisely for the reason that activity theory is known for the way that it ‘shift[s] the unit of analysis from the individual to the collective’ (Shively, 2016: 52). Using narrative data collected from Grace, I will analyze three interlocking activity systems that were prominent in Grace’s study abroad environment: the university, her Korean friendships and her relationship with Korean society at large. I model these three systems using activity theoretic methodology based on Engeström (1987), and then look at their temporal progression. The chapter will thus demonstrate how an activity theoretic framework can be used to model the contextually situated nature of language choices in study abroad.

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  147

Activity Theory

Activity theory views human development as being fundamentally social, and as being achieved through object-related activity. Learning is mediated by the social context in which it takes place, and through the availability of tools, including the sociohistorically constructed formations of language itself. From the activity-theoretic perspective, L2 learning is a struggle, not merely to learn grammar and vocabulary, but to gain participation in the context where the L2 is spoken. Since this struggle is situated in the social-material world, it is not ‘neutral’ but is tied up with relations of power (see Lantolf & Genung, 2003: 178). In the context of this chapter, these relations of power include local ideologies regarding language usage in South Korea. Activity theory analyzes human practices as being socially structured. According to Engeström’s model (1987), an activity system is comprised of a number of interrelated components (Figure 6.1). The subject is the focal individual (or possibly multiple individuals), whereas other participants are referred to as the community. Communities are governed by divisions of labor and rules of interaction, which may be explicit or tacit. For instance, in language classrooms there is an explicit division of labor between teachers and students (i.e. teachers teach, students study), as well as other tacit divisions of labor (e.g. stronger students assist weaker students). Students follow explicit rules of interaction dictated by the teacher (e.g. using only the target language), but also follow tacit rules (e.g. sitting in the same seat every class, even when not directed to do so). Instruments include material tools (e.g. textbooks) and also symbolic tools (e.g. concepts) (Shively, 2016: 53). Finally, the key component of the activity system is the object: the goal toward which the activity is directed. This object emerges from a motive, in other words, ‘the cultural-psychological-institutional impetus that guides human activity’ (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006: 223). The object is in turn projected to a desired outcome or result.

Figure 6.1  Structure of the activity system

148  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Objects (and their associated motives) are multifarious and dynamic. Different students participating in the same class may have different impetuses for studying the same language (e.g. travel, employment, L2-speaking partner) (Shively, 2016: 53). These motives, however, will be constained by the sociomaterial conditions of the activity system, including the rules, division of labor and instruments. Lantolf and Genung (2003) showed how ‘PG’, an American learner on an intensive Chinese program, abandoned her ‘higher level motive’ (Lompscher, 1999) of becoming fluent in Chinese, since she came to view this as an impossibility in a program focused on teacher-fronted drills. She instead focused on the more superficial motivation of simply passing the course. Alternatively, learners may choose to challenge the sociomaterial conditions of their language learning. Brown (2016) shows how Julie, a lesbian nontraditional learner of Korean, challenged the tacit rules of interaction in her Korean classroom in order to escape the unwanted attentions of Peter, a ‘misogynistic’ male learner. By purposefully refusing to sit next to Peter who was her de facto partner for all pairwork interactions, she forced the instructor to assume the ‘labor’ of assigning pairwork partners. The examples of Julie and PG show that learners exercise agency in the ways that they form their motives and position themselves within the structure of the activity system. Here, agency is loosely defined as ‘the socioculturally mediated capacity to act’ (Ahearn, 2001: 112). In asserting their agency, learners may make use of various ‘identity artifacts’ (Leander, 2002), including speech, actions and other cultural designs to redefine their role in the activity system and redesign the rules of interaction. From an activity theoretic perspective, it is the participant’s actions that define their identity: the self is ‘something that humans make of themselves, affirming their humaness’ (Leont’ev, 1978: 225, cited in Stetsensko & Arievitch, 2004: 489). This is not to say, however, that agency simply represents free will (Ahearn, 2001: 114). Rather, agency is contextually mediated and constrained by the sociomaterial conditions of the activity system, as described above. Also, although the type of agency we are looking at here largely corresponds to what Ahearn (2001: 130) calls ‘oppositional agency’ (i.e. instances where those in positions of suppression challenge the status quo), agency is a complex and varied phenomenon that may be manifested in different ways beyond simple ‘opposition’. Whereas agency is the capacity to act, motive, as defined above, refers to the impetus that guides human activity. According to Engeström (1987), motives form or change when the subject faces choices between competing alternatives, particularly when this choice cryztalizes into a ‘double bind’ – an unbearable dilemma between two messages that negate each other.

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  149

The Sociogenetic Formation of Language Ideologies

This section outlines three types of sociohistorical language ideologies: language use in study abroad, Korean language ideologies and English in South Korean society. Ideologies of language usage in study abroad

In the USA, and many other countries, study abroad is idealized as ‘an imagined monolingual utopia’ where students can go to be completely immersed in the target language (Mori & Sanuth, 2018: 94). During study abroad, the desired outcome is that students interact as much as possible with locals in the target language, with usage of the native language viewed as ‘a danger to be averted’ (Tullock & Ortega, 2017: 16). This ‘monolingual ideal’ erases the ‘translingual realities’ (Mori & Sanuth, 2018: 87) of study abroad. Mori and Sanuth’s (2018) study of American learners of Yoruba in Nigeria found that the program promoted a monocultural and monolingual image of Nigeria. In contrast to this image, ‘all personnel [faculty and staff] in the program…were multilingual speakers of Yoruba and English who had learned to mix these languages in various domains of communication’ (Mori & Sanuth, 2018: 89). These translingual practices were, however, ‘seldom addressed in the program, in which the supposed default language was monolingual Yoruba’ (Mori & Sanuth, 2018: 88). With her self-professed goal of ‘speaking only Korean to Koreans’ during study abroad, Grace bought into this idea of study abroad as monolingual language immersion. However, this was not necessarily an ideology that was promoted by Grace’s home university, or the study abroad program she was enrolled in. At her home university, promotional materials for study abroad emphasized cultural opportunities rather than linguistic gains, and stressed the opportunities to learn other content areas or skills (politics, management, fashion, art, winemaking). Indeed, the word ‘study abroad’ had recently been dropped for terms such as ‘global education’ and ‘global experiences’. At the university where Grace spent most of her time in Korea (PU), the program was structured around credit-bearing courses taught in English, with Korean language classes offered supplementary to that. 2 The website for the program boasts that PU teaches 40% of its regular courses in English, but makes no mention of Korean language offerings. Ideologies of Korean

Whereas the traditional ‘monolingual ideal’ of study abroad outlined above (see section ‘Ideologies of language use in study abroad’) would assume that monolingual Korean would be the appropriate means of

150  Language Learning in Study Abroad

interaction for Grace during study abroad, this was not an assumption shared by linguistic ideologies in South Korea. South Korea maintains a high congruity at the ideological level between speech community and ethnonational identity (see Coulmas, 1999: 408). This close link is fueled by ideologies of racial homogeneity in Korean, which have played an important role in nation building over South Korea’s 70-year political history, with Watson (2012: 429) describing South Korean as ‘a country which has built its national security on an assumption of racial and ethnic homogeneity’. The Korean language becomes a strong marker of this homogeneic national identity through the presumed superiority of the Korean language, particularly its writing system and intricate levels of honorifics (see Brown, 2011b; Harkness, 2015; King, 2007). This ideology of language as a marker of ethnic homogeneity can be subdivided into two folk beliefs shared to varying extents within South Korean society: (1) that all people of Korean ethnicity should be able to speak good Korean; and (2) that learning Korean is difficult for those of non-Korean ethnicity. Evidence for the first of these beliefs can be found in the experiences of heritage learners of Korean, who face public shaming for their ‘poor’ Korean skills even if they are conversationally fluent (Brown, 2011a; Min & Chung, 2014). In contast, non-heritage learners may be met with astonishment and rapturous praise for using simple Korean sentences. The link between language and ethnonational identity in South Korea has been challenged in recent years by a growing overseas population (which passed 2 million in 2016 – over 3% of the population 3), and in particular by a high ratio of marriages between Koreans and non-Koreans (over 13% of all marriages4). The majority of these mixed-race marriages feature rural Korean men who marry ‘mail-order brides’ from China and South-East Asia. South Korea has attempted to promote a discourse of multiculturalism (tamwunhwa), which focuses on the linguistic and cultural assimilation of these women and their offspring. However, crucially for the current study, this discourse of assimilation does not extend to other populations of long-term overseas residents, let alone sojourners such as Western exchange students. Having said that, exchange students who are ethnically East Asian may be faced with higher expectations that they learn Korean and assimilate to local norms (Brown, 2011a). The folk belief that non-East Asian foreigners cannot speak Korean is perpetuated by the linguistic evidence on offer. Many South Koreans will rarely interact with Westerners, except perhaps with native-speaker teachers when learning English. Besides English teachers, the other highly visible group of Westerners is soldiers deployed by the US military. Levels of Korean competence among English teachers and US soldiers tend to be low. Gearing and Roger’s (2018) study of 14 English teachers who had resided in Korea for 7.9 years on average found that 12 of them had little

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  151

investment in learning Korean, since they perceived few practical benefits. In addition, until recently, Westerners of non-Asian heritage were typically portrayed in Korean popular culture as monoligual English speakers with no knowledge of Korean. 5 Ideologies of English

English has gained importance and ideological signifcance in South Korean society. In less than 30 years, South Koreans have become one of the most succesful groups of English second language learners, now only surpassed by Western European countries and their former overseas colonies. The EF English Proficiency Index places South Korea sixth out of 30 countries in Asia, bettered only by Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, India and Hong Kong.6 The rise of English in South Korea resulted from 1990s governmentsponsored moves to ‘globalize’ the country and its economy. The government identified English as an essential ‘resource’ that would help Korea to be competitive on the global stage (see Park, 2009). Korean companies made English proficiency a requirement for employment, contract renewal and promotion, even in cases where the job itself did not involve using English. Park (2009) notes that the official discourse on the necessity of English in South Korea claims that all Koreans need to speak English for the country to become a regional center of finance in Asia. Koreans have pursued language study with luster. Fifteen billion US dollars is spent per year on private English education, both in Korea and overseas.7 The extraordinary extent to which Koreans pursue English has attracted the attention of the Western media, such as in reports of Korean children undergoing tongue surgery to improve their English pronunciation (Park, 2009: 1) and so-called ‘wild geese’ (kileki) families where the wife accompanies the children to attend school in English-speaking countries, while the husband works in Korea (Park & Bae, 2009). The importance of English has had a profound influence on mainstream education, where many receive immersive English instruction from preschool through to university. At most South Korean universities, around 20–40% of all regular courses are taught in English (Barnard & Hasim, 2018). Despite the necessity for English in the Korean job market, the social meanings of English in South Korean society remain somewhat mixed. On the one hand, English is associated with modernity and upward mobility. Despite the apparent sacrifices made by ‘wild geese’ families, sending children to English-speaking countries to study is a marker of social status. On the other hand, English is still viewed as an ‘external’ force (Park, 2009: 77), which is a threat to local culture. The argument that the pursuit of English constitutes ‘selling out’ to the West holds particular prominence in South Korea owing to the complex power relationship with the USA. The continual stationing of US troops in South Korea remains

152  Language Learning in Study Abroad

controversial, and South Korea’s unbalanced relationship with the USA is equated in the national consciousness with a history of Korea being overreliant on greater powers, such as China historically (Park, 2009: 77). English is ideologically linked to the image of the White foreigner. This ideology is manifest in racialized practices in Korea whereby language schools prefer to hire White English teachers, 8 and a general presumption that all White people in Korea are English speakers. The identity of White people in South Korea is therefore valenced in the same way as the use of English itself: they both serve as evidence of South Korea’s increasing cosmopolitanization, but also remind Koreans of the contentious presence of the US military and of their ambivalence towards Westernization. This means that White study abroad learners in Korea are likely to be viewed as monolingual English speakers, with the ambivalent attitudes that this entails. Discussions here highlight the over-simplicity of assuming that South Korea is a monolingual space that American learners can enter for Korean language immersion. Moreover, the choice between Korean and English is not a selection between two neutral alternatives. Rather, both languages come with distinct racialized expectations, and their juxtaposition in South Korean society is embedded in complex geopolitical inequalities. Research Design Research participant

The focal particant, who goes here by the pseudonym Grace, was a 21-year old White female from the USA studying Asian Studies and Korean at a mid-size state university on the West Coast. Grace was a former student of mine, whom I recruited through an email announcement. Grace had taken Korean classes for three years, including a five-week intensive program in South Korea the previous summer. She had quite extensive exposure to Korean through interactions with the family of her boyfriend, who was Korean-American, and also through attending a Korean church. The study abroad experience analyzed in this chapter took place in the fall term of Grace’s senior year and the preceding summer. Grace registered for two separate programs: a summer program at a growing university in a satellite city of Seoul (SU, herein), and then an intensive Korean language program in fall at a renowned universities in Seoul (PU). At SU, Grace spent the first two weeks teaching English and then had five weeks of Korean classes for two hours per day and a Korean history course taught in English. At PU, Grace took Korean classes for three hours per day and also took an English-taught course on Korean diplomacy. Grace was placed into the fourth of six proficency levels at PU. At both

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  153

programs, she was assigned to stay in dormitories earmarked for exchange students. Prior to study abroad, Grace had already noted a tendency for Korean people to address her in English rather than Korean. Keen to practice Korean and to negotiate an identity as a Korean speaker, Grace’s strategy in such encounters was to ‘keep replying in Korean’. During study abroad, Grace hoped to transition to pure Korean interactions as her language ability increased. Data collection

Data was collected through a language learning journal, which was solicited by the researcher and submitted via email. Grace submitted one journal entry each week except for her final week in Korea, resulting in a total of 21 journal submissions. The journal template contained two sections, both of which specifically pinpointed language usage. In the first section, Grace was asked to list details regarding her percentages of English versus Korean usage. In the second section, Grace was asked to describe any incidents over the past week in which language choice had been negotiated, including translingual practices. In total, Grace described 105 incidents. Grace also participated in two audiorecorded interviews, one before study abroad and one approximately one month after returning. The methodology here can be broadly defined as a form of narrative inquiry. The legitimacy and importance of using narrative inquiry in SLA research has been argued extensively (Dörnyei, 2007; Duff, 2013; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). From the activity-theoretic perspective, narratives ‘bring to the surface aspects of human activity […] that cannot be captured in the more traditional approach to research’ (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000: 159). Data analysis

Analysis of the data followed the activity-theoretic methodology of Engeström (1987), and subsequently applied in SLA studies including Thorne (1999), Nelson and Kim (2001), Lantolf and Genung (2003), Brown (2016) and Shively (2016). First, I modeled the activity systems that emerged in the data using Engeström’s (1987) iconic model (Figure 6.1). According to this model, an activity system has a number of components including subject (i.e. Grace herself), community, object, outcome, instruments, division of labor and rules of interaction. In my analysis, I place particular focus on identifying the rules and divisions of labor, since these constitute the tacitly agreed organizations through which Grace’s choice of language (English versus Korean) was mediated. Furthermore, I looked at how the object of Grace’s

154  Language Learning in Study Abroad

study abroad and the projection towards an anticipated outcome changed owing to the prevalence of English, which led to Grace redesigning her desired outcome of becoming a monolingual Korean speaker. Second, I examimed the temporal progression of the activity system during Grace’s study abroad period. As noted earlier, activity systems are dynamic, with change being driven by contraditions and conflicts. I looked at the narrative data for evidence of conflict, and also for evidence of Grace exercising agency to redesign her motives and/or the sociomaterial conditions of her study abroad context. Data Presentation

The data presentation begins by modeling the different activity systems emerging in the data, then looks at progression in these systems. The activity systems

I identified three interconnected activity systems in Grace’s journals, which are most easily conceived of as three sets of relationships: (1) her relationship with the hosting universities and their student bodies; (2) her relationship with Korean friends and family members; and (3) her relationship with Korean society at large.9 The universities

At both SU and PU, Grace was positioned within a body of exchange students, who had certain set avenues for interacting with the wider Korean student body (‘community’). Although Grace learned Korean with other non-Korean students during class time, the structures set up for exchange students to interact with Korean students mostly favored the use of English. At SU, Grace’s primary opportunity for meeting Korean students came through the English classes that she taught in the first two weeks of the program. At PU, exchange students’ interactions with the wider student body were mediated through an organization that paired exchange students with Korean buddy volunteers, PUBS (PU Buddy System). According to Grace’s account, communication from the buddy and the PUBS organization was always initiated in English and the possibility to use Korean with the buddy was never explicitly mentioned. PUBS apparently recruited volunteeres based primarily on their ability in English (and additional foreign languages), which meant that all volunteers were competent English speakers, who most likely viewed PUBS as a context to practice English. Provision of English language assistance, including translation services, became one of the primary functions of PUBS according to the assumed ‘division of labor’.10 In Week 12, Grace described having lunch with a PUBS member:

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  155

While I was looking at the menu, he asked me if I needed him to translate for me. I replied, ‘well don’t you know I study Korean?’ and he said, ‘oh right, sorry, I’m used to translating for all the exchange students in PUBS when we go out to eat.’ When the waiter took our order, he also told my order to the waiter. I told him that I prefer to speak Korean while I’m in Korea, but we continued speaking in English. Despite each of my hints, it seemed like he would rather speak English with me. (Week 12)

Another contextual factor in this activity system that cemented the position of English as the primary means of communication was the low overall Korean proficiency of the exchange students. While enrolling for classes at PU, Grace observed that the majority of students were placed in novice-level classes. In this situation, it was perhaps to be expected that PUBS catered primarily for the survival needs of low-level students. Grace’s journal furthermore captures a system whereby exchange students were in relatively powerless positions within the university structure, and had few opportunities to interact in Korean with the main student body. Exchange students were provided with accommodation in special ‘foreigner’ dormitories, although Grace ultimately took up alternative accommodation at PU (see following section). Although they took English-taught classes alongside regular Korean students, they were not able to take Korean-taught classes. In addition, exchange students were no longer given tickets to a large sports event in which PU competed against a rival school, which had traditionally represented a good opportunity for exchange students to interact with Korean students. According to Grace’s account, the student council had withdrawn tickets from exchange students owing to an incident of drunken behavior the previous year, which had resulted in a Korean student receiving injuries. It is unclear whether there was any precedence for other groups of students to be banned in this fashion for the inappropriate behavior of their peers, at an event notorious for rowdy behavior. However, PUBS circumvented the ban by procuring leftover tickets from other departments and Grace was ultimately able to attend. In this situation that favored the use of English in all university contexts outside of Korean class, it is perhaps unsuprising that Grace fell short of her goal to interact only in Korean with Koreans during her study abroad experience. Although the ‘object’ of study abroad was to learn Korean, this took place in the isolated context of the Korean language classroom, and did not extend to the integration of exchange students into the wider Korean-speaking community of the university. Grace reported an average of 2.6 hours of Korean usage per day, compared with 3.6 hours using English.

156  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Friends and acquaintances

Grace interacted with a large network of friends and casual acquaintances beyond the university, including members of her boyfriend’s extended family. In interactions with her boyfriend’s family, Grace’s primary subject position was that of ‘family member’s girlfriend’ rather than ‘foreigner’ or ‘English speaker’. She had already established a history (‘ontogenesis’ – Vygotsky, 1978) whereby she used Korean with her boyfriend’s extended family. When visiting her boyfriend’s cousin and her family, or attending the first birthday party of their baby daughter, Korean was the primary language of interaction with the adults, many of whom had limited English ability. However, the tacit ‘division of labor’ also saw Grace assume the role of English teacher or conversational partner for the children in the family. At her cousin’s house, she was asked to read an English book to their one year-old daughter. At the birthday party, some of her boyfriend’s aunts ‘brought over their children who had been studying English and encouraged them to speak English’. When one child did so, Grace noted in her journal that she could ‘hear the older people at the table next to us giving comments about how struck they were at her ability to communicate flawlessly in English’. Grace provided the much-coveted opportunity for exposing the children to authentic English interaction, and potentially for the family to show off their English. Although Grace was happy to assume this role, the expectation that her ‘labor’ should be assigned in this way evidently rests on sociogenetically formed values of English in South Korea, as well as connections between White foreigners and English learning. Although Grace gained plentiful opportunities for Korean interaction when meeting Korean friends and casual acquaintances, a subset of these acquaintances appeared to see the object of interacting with Grace as the opportunity for English practice. As in the following example which occurred with a male acquaintance who had wanted to meet Grace ‘because I am not a Korean person’, some of these aquaintances were assertive in enforcing the division of labor whereby Grace provided them with exposure to English: Even though I would speak in Korean with this person, […], he would consistently reply to me in English. I asked him why he replies in English despite me using Korean and his reply was that it was because he is learning English. I replied that I am also learning Korean. […] I also asked if it was an issue with my Korean and he said that he was surprised that I could speak any Korean at all. I asked if it be more comfortable to just speak in Korean, but he said he prefers English when talking with me. (Week 5)

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  157

Even in relationships where Korean had been established as the primary language of communication, Grace noted that some acquaintances would strategically switch to English seemingly in order to show off their language skills. When interacting with one particular male acquaintance, Grace reported in her journal that he would use only Korean when ‘away from others’, but would switch to English ‘in very public or crowded places we visited, such as sitting down for sulbing [a dessert café chain]’. In other words, this acquaintance would seemingly revert to the sociohistorically expected pattern of language usage with Caucasian foreigners when interacting in public, and potentially benefit from socially constructed positive perceptions that came from being seen speaking English in public. Korean society at large

I now look at Grace’s interactions with service personnel and other strangers, which formed the interface for her relationship with Korean society at large. When away from the confines of the university campus and without the companionship of Korean acquaintances, Grace was particularly likely to be positioned as a monolingual English-speaking foreigner. The ‘division of labor’ assumed that service personnel should take on the linguistic burden of providing service in English to foreign customers. During the post-study abroad interview, Grace reported that 60–70% of service interactions featured English. Although the use of English occurred in all areas of Seoul that she visited, English was particularly frequent in touristy areas: At the restaurant in Myeongdong [a touristy shopping area in Seoul], Daisy and I were immediately greeted in English. […] I felt the employee was incessant to speak English with us, which gave us no opportunity at all to use my Korean to order. […] I can’t blame the employee either because there are probably a ton of international people that stop by there and cannot use any Korean. […] It just felt very presumptive because she assumed we knew no Korean. (Week 2)

Grace found that this linguistic division of labor could not necessarily be reversed by Grace herself initiating Korean. In fact, Grace frequently greeted store employees, and asked for prices and locations of items in Korean, but received replies in English. This even happened when her ability to speak Korean was explicitly established: I was eating out with my friend, Chloe [a heritage learner from the same US university] at a Japanese style cuisine restaurant in the Wangshimni station. […] After Chloe ordered her item, the waiter turned to me and asked in English what I would like to order and Chloe started laughing and said that I can also speak Korean too. So, I ordered my meal in

158  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Korean while the waiter kept affirming what I wanted back into English by reading the English translations on the menu while I would affirm my order back in Korean, which didn’t happen with Chloe when she ordered her item. (Week 9)

Grace’s struggle to establish Korean as the language for interaction was exacerbated by her identity as a White English-speaking foreigner. Particularly given the socially constructed assumption that Korean is difficult for non-Asian foreigners to learn, speaking simple phrases did not result in any change to the rules of interaction. In fact, Grace noted that her use of Korean tended to result in confusion, since it contradicted expectations about language usage. Indeed, Grace noted two incidents in her journal in which her Korean was seemingly so unexpected that the interlocutor mistakenly assumed that she was speaking English. In one instance, when attempting to alert an employee at a café that the café’s dog was trying to escape, Grace’s Korean utterance was met with ‘oh no, sorry, I don’t speak any English’. Grace found that she was frequently approached on the street or subway by strangers attempting to strike up a conversation, which was always initiated in English. Many of these interactions were with older Koreans, typically males. ‘I’ve had many older people approach me it seems out of curiosity for what I am doing in Korea and they will always talk to me in English first until I switch to Korean,’ reported Grace in Week 13. ‘They are always concerned about what my plans are in Korea and surprised that I can speak Korean with them.’ The way that these older Koreans showed interest in Grace simply because she was a foreigner harks back to a previous sociohistorical era before Seoul became a globalized city, and when the number of foreign visitors to Seoul was small. In those days, it was common for foreign visitors to be regularly questioned in this way and treated as special guests (see Duff et al., 2013 for a similar phenomenon in China). However, in one incident involving an older Korean on the subway, Grace also encountered the less friendly side of older generation attitudes towards foreigners and, specifically, the use of English in public: We were all standing on the subway having a conversation with Oscar (from Denmark), Elise (China), and Dennis (Germany). Mid-conversation, an older man approached Oscar to tell him that his voice was too loud in English and that ‘this was public’. Oscar looked really confused because he didn’t quite understand what he was trying to say. The man turned to Elise and asked if she spoke any Korean in Korean. Elise just didn’t answer him and stared at him and then he started to curse at her in Korean. (Week 16)

Whereas in many circumstances during Grace’s study abroad experience the rules of interaction favored English, in this encounter Grace and her

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  159

study abroad peers were reprimanded for using English, or at least for the volume at which they were speaking it. We do not have access to the older man’s intentions, and we do not know if he also approached loud-­speaking Korean youths in this way. (Besides, if indeed it was the use of English in particular that he found bothersome, then the stereotype of ‘loud foreigners’ annoying the locals merely by speaking in the language of their choice is certainly not confined to South Korea.) However, the older man’s behavior could be seen as embodying the more negative attitudes toward the presence of foreigners and the use of English in South Korea that may be held by older generation Koreans. Unlike the younger generation for whom the use of English may be linked to job opportunities, travel, cosmopolitanism and positive attributes of American and Western culture, for older generations the associations may instead be with the contentious presence of the American military and the loss of local culture. In particular, the older man’s rude treatment of Elise (who he presumed to be Korean) is reminiscent of the male belligerence traditionally faced by Korean women who accompanied Western men (particularly American soldiers), who were taken to be prostitutes or yanggongju ‘Yankee whore’, lit. ‘Western princess’ as they were popularly known (see Lo & Kim, 2011: 442). Grace noted in her journal that this ‘uncomfortable’ incident made Grace and her peers more aware of the effects that their language choices could have on others: ‘Now Elise says when she goes on the subway and she communicates with her foreign friends that she is always looking around to see if anyone looks visually upset by them talking.’ Although this final incident may appear qualitatively different to other situations described in this section, it actually displays some key features shared by all interactions. In all situations, the rules of interaction worked so that it was the Korean native speakers who were policing language usage, whether this ‘policing’ involved stipulating the use of English or censuring the use of loud English in public. The tacit division of labor cast the Korean native speakers as the policers of language choice, and Grace and her peers as the followers of this prescription. Second, the way that the Korean native speakers policed language choice was neither random nor incidental but was a form of activity that was embedded in and shaped by specific sociohistorical conditions, including emergent ideologies related to language usage in South Korea. Temporal development of the activity system

As her study abroad experience progressed, Grace faced an increasingly painful predicament regarding the desired outcome of her sojourn in Korea and, in particular, her original goal of interacting only in Korean. ‘It feels very difficult to validate my Korean’, she wrote in Week 17. ‘It doesn’t matter if I am alone, with a foreigner, or with a Korean person, but the majority of people I’ve noticed tend to assert their English with

160  Language Learning in Study Abroad

me’, continued Grace in Week 21. This made her question her Korean ability: ‘It makes me feel that my Korean ability is not good enough to have a natural conversation’ (Week 5). She also noted in Week 17 after the experience with heritage learner Chloe at the Japanese-style restaurant that it was ‘embarrassing’ to be treated like a novice in front of heritage learners who had actually studied Korean in an instructed setting for a shorter period. In particular, Grace faced a growing realization that her strategy of just replying in Korean was not working: ‘I expected that as my Korean continued to improve that I could somehow combat this through speaking Korean. Even if I attempt this, I feel like that goes against their expectation and they continue to speak to me in English’ (Week 21). As the various times given for the quotations in the previous paragraph suggest (Week 5 to Week 21), this conflict did not suddenly surface, and neither was it ever completely resolved. However, over time and against the sociomaterial backdrop of her study abroad context, Grace reformed her own motives for being in Korea to some extent and, importantly, made a series of moves that led to positive changes in the activity systems. These actions displayed ‘oppositional agency’ (Ahearn, 2001: 116) aimed at manipulating or challenging the status quo.11 Looking first at the activity system within the university, Grace reached a certain level of exasperation with the predominance of English in the PUBS buddy system. ‘Some people go to Korea just for the purpose of improving their Korean’, said Grace during the post-study abroad interview, ‘and I didn’t think that that organization was really catering to that at all’. Although she did not attempt to challenge the structure of the PUBS organization as such, she instead sought out individual Koreanspeaking relationships with PUBS members. With her assigned PUBS buddy, Hyuna, Grace noted in her journal that she explicitly ‘made her aware that I am also comfortable with speaking Korean’. As a result of this, Grace noted that Hyuna started using Korean to her both in ­computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face exchanges. From interacting with PUBS members in one-on-one contexts, Grace came to realize that some of the PUBS members valued interacting in Korean with exchange students, and were also dissatisfied that provision of English translation had become their main form of labor. One area of university life where Grace exhibited a high level of agency was her choice of accommodation and how she managed relationships in her accommodation setting. Grace was due to stay at an international dormitory at PU, but ultimately withdrew her application and stayed at a kosiwen (private-run accommodation offering dorm-style rooms). Although the kosiwen was populated mostly with foreign students, some of them were long-term international students with whom Grace purposefully negotiated Korean-speaking interactions, including Elise (a Chinese female of Korean heritage), Ihsan (an Iranian male) and Jinwoo (a

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  161

Korean-American male). The use of Korean with these three housemates was not necessitated by a lack of English ability on their part; in fact, all were proficient in English and conversed in English with other exchange students. With all three of these international students, Grace began by speaking English, before skillfully negotiating a shift to Korean. The following describes how Grace initiated a shift to Korean with Elise while walking to the class they took together: While on the way to class, [Elise] received a phone call from her friend and started to use Korean. I overheard the conversation and her friend was letting her know that the entire front of the class had already been filled and that she was saving some seats in the back and that she would also save one for me. After her phone call finished, I asked if we needed to sit in the back because there were no seats. Elise reacted and said she was surprised I could understand her Korean and complimented me saying that my Korean must be pretty good. After getting to the classroom, I met her friend and introduced myself in Korean to her. From this point, both Elise and her friend started to communicate more with me in Korean. (Week 11)

Grace quickly realized that interaction with these international students was a valid and productive context for her to use Korean, particularly since they were motivated to use Korean with her, in a way that was not necessarily shared with native speakers. Grace noted in her journal that Ihsan in particular was ‘as enthusiastic as I am to use Korean’ and was someone who ‘will try to find any opportunity to use his Korean and I’m glad that I am one of them’. Grace began to recognize that her ability to speak in Korean allowed her access to communities of non-English speaking international students, particularly the large population of Japanese students. These experiences interacting with international students in Korean accompanied something of a shift in the way that Grace perceived her desired outcome for studying abroad. Rather than conceptualizing it purely in terms of using Korean to assimilate to a monolingual target culture, she instead aspired to the role of the translingual international student, as exemplified by Elise and Ihsan, who both spoke Korean and English, in addition to their native languages. In order to position herself in this way, Grace skillfully made use of the linguistic resources available to her, notably by choosing to introduce herself to Koreans as a yuhaksayng ‘international student’, a term more typically used to refer to an overseas student enrolled on a full degree program rather than an exchange student. Grace made use of the ‘international student’ tag as a type of ‘identity artifact’ (Leander, 2002) outside of the university setting too. With friends and acquaintancs outside of the university her initial strategy for negotiating the use of Korean had been to say ‘we are in Korea, shouldn’t we speak

162  Language Learning in Study Abroad

in Korean?’ However, as Grace reported during the post-study abroad interview, she quickly realized that ‘this might sound standoff-ish and… defensive’. Now, by positioning herself as an international student keen to learn Korean (but also willing to converse in English), Grace was able to project a more welcoming persona, and also meet the expectations of her Korean acquaintances. With her friend Kongyoon, Grace noted that they conversed in Korean over coffee (Week 18) and drinks (Week 20), including when Kongyoon assisted Grace with preparing for her Korean class presentation on South Korea’s divorce rate. They then switched to English to talk in more depth about Western culture, and Kongyoon’s own planned study abroad in the Netherlands. Grace noted in her journal that it felt ‘intuitive to discuss items related to foreign cultures in English, while on the other hand it feels more natural to discuss topics about Korea in Korean’. She continued in the same journal entry by saying that she was happy to engage in these kinds of translanguaging practices where ‘it enhances the conversation or topic in some way’. In her relationship with the wider Korean community, it was more difficult for Grace to communicate the identity of a translingual international student and to negotiate the ‘rules of interaction’ that came with it. As mentioned above, her initial strategy for dealing with being addressed in English during service encounters was to simply continue replying in Korean. However, Grace found that exerting her agency in this way was less than effective, since it did not always result in the other party switching to Korean and therefore created what Grace described in her journal as an ‘inefficient’ communicative situation in which she was using one language and her interlocutor was using another. Grace also realized that there was a certain hypocrisy in asserting her Korean in this way, when at the same time she was objecting to Koreans asserting their English. After a friend commented that it was ‘funny’ that she always responded to English by using Korean (Week 3), she noted in her journal that she became ‘more conscious about it coming off as aggressive or strange’. Grace’s revised strategy was to attempt to initiate service interactions by using Korean first, and therefore to establish ab initio that the language of interaction was Korean. This was not a perfect strategy since, as noted above, people frequently replied to Grace’s Korean utterances in English, particularly if she used a simple, stock phrase that did not supply sufficient information about her Korean level. However, by initiating the conversation in Korean, Grace felt that she was establishing rules of interaction whereby it was logical and natural for her to continue using Korean even if she was replied to in English. ‘I feel I have more control as the person who initiated the conversation’, noted Grace in the post-study abroad interview. In addition, just as Grace came to appreciate that translanguaging with Korean friends could enhance the conversation, she also realized that mixing English with Korean in service encounters could be advantageous

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  163

particularly in complex situations such as when she had to call her Korean bank to report that she had lost her debit card (Week 21). ‘I remember being pretty panicked about losing my wallet’, wrote Grace, ‘but I was relieved that I could communicate the details of my situation easily with the English operator over the phone’. During an eye examination at the optometrist, Grace ended up reading numbers off a chart in English after getting confused as to which set of numbers should be used, pure Korean numbers or Sino-Korean numbers. ‘I think the exchange ended up successful because I accomplished what I needed’, commented Grace in her journal. Here, too, we see how the rules of interaction in the activity system were set up to provide English language service for non-Koreans. Rather than seeing the provision of these services as impediments to monolingual Korean interaction, Grace now saw these opportunities for translanguaging which were in tune with her redesigned object of being a translingual international student. Discussion

Grace’s narrative reveals that the ‘rules of interaction’ of her study abroad context favored the use of English, rather than Korean. Whereas Grace perceived practice and eventual fluency in Korean as being the ‘outcome’ of study abroad, this ‘outcome’ was not validated by other participants in the activity system. For her Korean interlocutors, the ‘outcome’ of interacting with Grace was instead perceived as an opportunity to practice English. Most notably, even the buddy system at PU was focused on providing English translation services for exchange students (and opportunities for the volunteers to practice English). This was in a context in which the majority of exchange students at PU were not competent Korean speakers, whereas the level of English competence in the Korean student community was high. Consistent with the claims of activity theory, these ‘rules of interaction’ (as well as connected ‘divisions of labor’) were sociohistorically situated. To some extent, we see the presence of general sociohistorical factors such as the rise of global English, and we can expect that English-speaking learners in many contexts are faced with questions of how to balance their learning of the target language with the demands for providing English practice. We see, however, particularly in the extremely low expectations that Grace should be able to speak Korean, and the vigor with which some Koreans pursued English interactions with her, that localized sociohistorical factors were also at play. Even though Korean friends and acquaintances were aware that Grace was an exchange student, they were ‘surprised that I could speak any Korean at all’ (Week 5). Koreans also apparently made use of Grace to show off their English skills in public, at least partially to gain the prestige associated with being a cosmopolitan English speaker. Although Grace and her association with the English

164  Language Learning in Study Abroad

language was generally seen in a positive light, we saw in one interaction on the subway with an older male that more negative associations with English were also at play. The division of labor was tacitly arranged so that it was the Korean native speakers who policed language usage. These observations confirm the claims of Lantolf and Genung (2003: 178) that power is important to understanding the functioning of activity systems. In the case of Grace, power was working in a complex way. In terms of language choice, Grace’s identity as a White Westerner and English speaker made it more problematic for her to assert her Korean. However, at the same time, her English skills were highly valued and her whiteness came with prestige. As an English speaker, she also enjoyed the benefit of English language services in difficult encounters, such as in the interaction when she lost her debit card. These complex power dynamics influencing White learners of East Asian languages are noted in previous studies, including Diao (2016), where Mac was seen as a foreign student who had no need to learn Mandarin, and Iino (1996), where host families in Japan viewed an American student’s Japanese classes as being unnecessarily difficult. Train (2012: 151) and Mori and Sanuth (2018: 80) note that English-speaking learners of minoritized languages occupy a complex and asymmetrical position vis-à-vis the languages that they are learning, which are threatened by the hegemony of English and Westernization. These power complexities appear to be particularly pronounced in the Korean context, given the history of US-Korea relations and the prestigious but also controversial status of English in South Korea. This social context that heavily favored the use of English led to Grace redesigning her expected outcome, namely the goal of interacting fluently in monolingual Korean with native Korean speakers. The way that the sociohistorically constructed circumstances of Grace’s study abroad led her to change this motive is reminiscent of the narrative of ‘PG’ in Lantolf and Genung (2003), who relinquished her goal of becoming a competent Chinese learner. But whereas PG abandoned her ‘higherlevel motive’ outright and instead focused merely on satisfying the ‘lower-level motive’ of passing her Chinese class, Grace’s goal to become a proficient speaker of Korean did not change. Instead, she learned how to strategically renegotiate the rules of interaction to create spaces for learning Korean. She also learned how to balance the need to speak Korean with an acceptance for English communication, and the reimagining of her study abroad context as a translingual space. Ultimately, she realized that pushing for Korean monolingual interactions had not made her a more efficient or effective communicator, and that this was better achieved through translingualism. The chapter throws up the practical question of how we can prepare learners for negotiating language choice during study abroad. It is unclear whether many language classes or study abroad preparation sessions cover

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  165

this issue at all, let alone with the subtly for which Grace’s narrative highlights the need. Simple messages such as ‘stick to the target language’ or ‘say no to English’ might seem like effective rules of thumb, but actually deny the translingual nature of study abroad and ignore the potential benefits of mixing Korean with English. In addition, they encourage students to adopt behavior that might be seen by the local community as aggressive, hypocritical or simply unexpected. An important caveat to add at this point, however, is that Grace’s struggle to gain legitimacy as a Korean speaker was made more accute by her privileged status as an English-speaking White learner of a minoritized language. Although previous studies of White learners from Western backgrounds have shown findings compatible to the current study (see Diao, 2016; DuFon, 1999; Higgins, 2011; Iino, 1996; Siegal, 1995), evidently the experiences of heritage learners and other non-White learners are quite different. This was in fact evident in Grace’s narrative data, including in the differential treatment that Grace and her KoreanAmerican peer Chloe experienced in the Japanese-style restaurant. Previous research has shown that Western learners of East Asian appearance in Korea (Brown, 2011a), Japan (Kumagai & Sato, 2009) and China (Du, 2018) confront questions related to their less-than-native language skills and their assumed native looks. We might also wonder whether gender intersects with race in the treatment of White learners in East Asia, and whether male learners may have quite different experiences to Grace. For instance, the male belligerence that Grace encountered in the incident with the elderly Korean man on the subway may represent a situation more commonly encountered by White men, who are more directly associated with the image of the American soldier corrupting Korean women. Treatment of this issue within the language classroom and study abroad preparation sessions needs therefore to prepare students for the range of racialized and gendered expectations that accompany questions of language choice and perceptions of language proficiency in study abroad. Classroom or orientation sessions can begin by discussing how different groups of overseas visitors in Korea receive variegated treatment according to their identities (Brown et al., 2016). Discussions can then move to strategies for negotiating language choice, including nonthreatening ways of asserting target language usage. To better prepare learners for study abroad, language classrooms also need to challenge the ideologies of monolingualism that pervade language teaching, for instance through the inclusion of materials that feature translanguaging practices and/or the L2 being used as a lingua franca between non-native speakers. Host institutions should also include questions of language choice in the training that they provide to volunteers involved in their buddy systems.

166  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Conclusion

Through an activity-theoretic analysis, we see that the reasons for the prevalence of English in Grace’s study abroad expereince were socially embedded. The use of English was not ‘caused’ by pre-determined factors internal to Grace herself such as a lack of motivation, or a lack of investment in creating a second language identity. To the contrary, Grace was highly motivated to speak as much Korean as possible, and to establish herself as a legtimate speaker of the language. The use of English instead emerged according to the dynamics of the activity systems within which Grace was situated, where the tacit ‘rules of interaction’ favored English and the ‘division of labor’ positioned Grace as the provider of English practice and the recipient of Korean to English translation. These dynamics were strongly tied into the complex power relations and racialized expectations surrounding English in South Korea. Although these forces constrained Grace’s motive to speak only in Korean, she was still able to exert her agency to resdesign the motives and anticipated outcomes of her study abroad, as well as to uncover new contexts to use Korean. Indeed, Grace skillfully used identity artifacts such as referring to herself as an ‘international student’ in order to challenge the workings of the activity systems. The current chapter has thus demonstrated how activity theory can be employed as a fruitful methodology for looking at the way in which the negotiation of language choice is socioculturally situated. Some limitations of course remain, not least the need to capture the perspectives of the target language speakers themselves. Evidently, the analysis in the current chapter relies entirely on the testimony of the learner with the intentions of the Korean speakers to use English being ascribed by Grace herself, and/or described by the researcher according to the findings of previous research. It would be an important empircal step to interview the native Korean speakers themselves, to see how they understand their own use of English and describe it according to their own terms (see Brown & Cheek, 2017 for a paper that does this). In addition, the impact of the prevalence of English in Korean study abroad is likely to apply mostly to White learners. Thus, further research will be needed to assess how much the observations made in this chapter apply to larger populations of learners. Despite these obvious shortcomings, the current chapter nonetheless underlines the importance of researching the socially embedded nature of language choice during study abroad. Notes   (1) This work was supported by the Core University Program for Korean Studies through the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and Korean Studies Promotion Service of the Academy of Korean Studies (AKS- 2017-OLU-2250002).   (2) As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, Korean universities tend to offer two types of study abroad programs: (1) exchange programs structured around

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  167

  (3)   (4)   (5)   (6)   (7)   (8)

  (9)

(10)

(11)

credit-bearing content courses taught in English; and (2) intensive Korean language programs. Although this was also the case at PU, Grace reported that this distinction was never made explicit during the application process via her home university, which only placed students in the first type of program. Source: Ministry of Justice, Republic of Korea. Source: Ministry of Justice, Republic of Korea. This situation has changed over the past 10 years owing to the popularity of programs such as Misuta (‘Global Talk Show’, KBS, 2006–2010) and Picengsanghoytam (‘Non-Summit’, JTBC, 2014–). See here: https://www.ef-australia.com.au/epi/regions/asia/south-korea/. Source: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/n_feature/2011/06/14/81/4901000000AE N20110614003700315F.HTML. One instance of that was widely reported in the media came in 2014 when Sean Jones, an African American English teacher in South Korea, received a text message from a recruiter telling him that his application to a particular school had been rejected since ‘they actually want a white teacher’: http://www.koreaobserver.com/ american-rejected-for-job-in-korea-because-of-being-black-24676/. There were most likely other activity systems in operation which were not captured by the methodology. Notably, Grace’s journals made almost no reference to her Korean language classes, presumably since this was one context where the status of Korean went unquestioned. The prevalence of English in PUBS may not be typical for how these buddy systems work at Korean universities. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, many universities run different buddy systems for exchange students and intensive language students. For exchange students, the buddy system often works as a language exchange, whereas buddies for intensive language students are typically encouraged only to use Korean. Although I focus here on instances of oppositional agency, it should be noted that the concept of agency does not only apply to cases in which the subject challenges the status quo. Cases in which Grace decided to conform to the cultural expectations that she encountered in Korea, such as the expectations that she would provide English conversational practice should also be seen as her agency

References Ahearn, L.M. (2001) Language and agency.  Annual Review of Anthropology  30, 109–137. Barnard, R. and Hasim, Z. (eds) (2018)  English Medium Instruction Programmes: Perspectives from South East Asian Universities. New York: Routledge. Brown, L. (2011a) Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brown, L. (2011b) Korean honorifics and ‘revealed’, ‘ignored’ and ‘suppressed’: Aspects of Korean culture and politeness. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini and D. Kádár (eds) Politeness across Cultures (pp. 106–127). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, L. (2013) Identity and honorifics use in Korean study abroad. In C. Kinginger (ed.) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad (pp. 269–298). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brown, L. (2016) An activity-theoretic study of agency and identity in the study abroad experiences of a lesbian nontraditional learner of Korean. Applied Linguistics 37, 808–827. Brown, L. and Cheek, E. (2017) Gender identity in a second language: The use of first person pronouns by male learners of Japanese.  Journal of Language, Identity & Education 16, 94–108.

168  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Brown, L., Iwasaki, N. and Lee, K. (2016) Implementing multiliteracies in the Korean classroom through visual media. In Y. Kumagai, A. Lopez-Sanchez and S. Wu (eds) Multiliteracies in World Languages Education (pp. 158–181). Routledge. Coulmas, F. (1999) The Far East. In J. Fisherman (ed.) Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity (pp. 399–413). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Diao, W. (2016) Peer socialization into gendered L2 Mandarin practices in a study abroad context: Talk in the dorm. Applied Linguistics 37 (5), 599–620. Du, H. (2018) The complexity of study abroad: Stories from ethnic minority American students in China. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 38, 122–139. Duff, P. (2013) Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In S. Gass and A. Mackey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 410– 441). New York: Routledge. Duff, P., Anderson, T., Ilnyckyj, R., VanGaya, E., Wang, R. and Yates, E. (2013) Learning Chinese: Linguistic, Sociocultural, and Narrative Perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DuFon, M.A. (1999) The acquisition of linguistic politeness in Indonesian as a second language by sojourners in naturalistic interactions (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii. Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Gearing, N. and Roger, P. (2018) ‘I’m never going to be part of it’: Identity, investment and learning Korean.  Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development  39, 155–168. Harkness, N. (2015) Linguistic emblems of South Korean society. In L. Brown and J. Yeon (eds) The Handbook of Korean Linguistics (pp. 492–508). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Higgins, C. (2011) Identity Formation in Globalizing Contexts: Language Learning in the New Millennium. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Iino, M. (1996) ‘Excellent foreigner!’: Gaijinization of Japanese language and culture in contact situations – An ethnographic study of dinner table conversations between Japanese host families and American students (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania. Isabelli-García, C. (2006) Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In M.A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds) Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 231–258). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. King, R. (2007) North and South Korea. In A. Simpson (ed.) Language and National Identity in Asia (pp. 200–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kumagai, Y. and Sato, S. (2009) ‘Ignorance’ as a rhetorical strategy: How Japanese language learners living in Japan maneuver their subject positions to shift power dynamics. Critical Studies in Education 50, 309–321. Lantolf, J. and Genung, P. (2003) ‘I’d rather switch than fight’: An activity theoretic study of power, success and failure in a foreign language classroom. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization (pp. 175–196). London/New York: Continuum. Lantolf, J. and Thorne, S. (2006) Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leander, K.M. (2002) Locating Latanya: The situated production of identity artifacts in classroom interaction. Research in the Teaching of English 37, 198–250. Leont’ev, A. (1978) Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Language Choice in Study Abroad in South Korea  169

Lo, A. and Kim, J. (2011) Manufacturing citizenship: Metapragmatic framings of language competencies in media images of mixed race men in South Korea. Discourse & Society 22 (4), 440–457. Lompscher, J. (1999) Motivation and activity.  European Journal of Psychology of Education 14, 11–22. Min, P. and Chung, T. (2014) Younger-Generation Korean Experiences in the United States: Personal Narratives on Ethnic and Racial Identities. Plymouth: Lexington Books. Mori, J. and Sanuth, K.K. (2018) Navigating between a monolingual utopia and translingual realities: Experiences of American learners of Yorùbá as an additional language. Applied Linguistics 39, 78–98. Nelson, C. and Kim, M. (2001) Contradictions, appropriation, and transformation: An activity theory approach to L2 writing and classroom practices.  Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education 6, 37–62. Park, J. (2009) The Local Construction of a Global Language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Park, J.S.Y. and Bae, S. (2009) Language ideologies in educational migration: Korean jogi yuhak families in Singapore. Linguistics and Education 20, 366–377. Pavlenko, A. and Lantolf, J. (2000) Second language learning as participation and the (re) construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shively, R.L. (2016) An activity theoretical approach to social interaction during study abroad. L2 Journal 8, 51–75. Siegal, M. (1995) Individual differences and study abroad. In B. Freed (ed.) Second Language Acquisition in A Study Abroad Context (pp. 225–244). Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stetsenko, A. and Arievitch, I. (2004) The self in cultural-historical activity theory: Reclaiming the unity of social and individual dimensions of human development. Theory and Psychology 14, 475–503. Thorne, S. (1999) An activity theoretical analysis of foreign language electronic discourse (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California-Berkeley. Train, R.W. (2012) Postcolonial complexities in foreign language education and the humanities. Critical and Intercultural Theory and Language Pedagogy 141–160. Tullock, B. and Ortega, L. (2017) Fluency and multilingualism in study abroad: Lessons from a scoping review. System 71, 7–21. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watson, I. (2012) Cultural identity and securitising the Korean peninsula: Transformations in the South Korean security narrative. Geopolitics 17, 429–454.

7 Study Abroad as a Transformative Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish Tracy Quan

Despite the increasing number of US Latinx1 students enrolled in higher education institutions (Gramlich, 2017) and their projected growth in study abroad (SA) (Beaudrie et al., 2014; Shively, 2018), domestic language and abroad programs continue to teach Spanish with monolingual performance of standardized varieties as points of reference (García, 2014; García & Otheguy, 2014; Leeman, 2014; Ortega, 2014; Shively, 2018). US-administered SA programs are often designed for English speakers traveling to ‘exotic monolingual’ communities (Marijuan & Sanz, 2018: 9) and who have no presumed personal or ancestral connection with the target language (TL) or the host culture (Surtees, 2016). A more realistic understanding of who students are and could become abroad as they deal with issues of identity is needed, especially for US-based heritage speakers of Spanish who tend to negotiate and navigate an array of identities across cultural and linguistic spaces. To date, most heritage language research has concentrated on making Spanish language classrooms and programs more inclusive and empowering, and only recently has SA come into focus. While studies on how heritage speakers of Spanish experience and interpret an SA context has been increasing (e.g. Quan et al., 2018; Shively, 2016, 2018), there is still a need to theorize how they ‘deploy various aspects of their translingual repertoires to construct and index multifaceted identities’ across a range of contexts (Leeman, 2015: 114). Compared with most L2 learners, heritage speakers of Spanish may have complex relationships with their heritage languages, cultures and life histories that influence their language learning and use (Kinginger, 2013; Potowski & Lynch, 2014). Heritage 170

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  171

speakers of Spanish often experience stigmatization of their Spanish (and English) proficiency and variety because of racial and class-based discrimination (Rosa, 2016b; Zentella, 2007). In turn, Spanish language curricula and departments reinforce these ideologies by marginalizing heritage language speakers and programs, and by holding standardized varieties and the linguistic competence of educated monolinguals as ideal targets (Ortega, 2014; Valdés, 2015). This chapter presents an in-depth case study of a heritage speaker of Spanish, Maria (pseudonym), who studied for a semester in Córdoba, Spain. The analysis aims to demonstrate how Maria translanguages in an SA context, how she uses her language practices to negotiate her identities and how this process relates to her developing critical translingual competence during and after a sojourn abroad. While there are differing opinions on the terminology and definition of heritage speaker (see Fairclough, 2014; Fairclough & Beaudrie, 2016; García, 2014; Leeman, 2015), the current study defines heritage speakers of Spanish in the USA as individuals who possess a cultural and/or linguistic connection to Spanish, ‘whether they speak the language [at home or in their communities], understand it, or simply see it as part of their family history’ (Beaudrie & Fairclough, 2012: 7). The term Spanish heritage learner is also used because Maria has chosen to study Spanish in an educational setting (Polinsky & Kagan, 2007). By utilizing the terms heritage speaker and learner, this study is situated at the crossroads of Spanish as a heritage language and Hispanic multilingualism research, recognizing that a heritage speaker of Spanish may also be a multilingual, and the two terms are not mutually exclusive (García & Otheguy, 2014). Theoretical Framework Translanguaging as a transformative space

Heritage speakers of Spanish utilize an array of linguistic resources to make meaning, such as codeswitching, lexical borrowings and calques (Leeman & Serafini, 2016). However, despite studies showing that these practices are rule-governed and communicatively purposeful (Lipski, 2014; Zentella, 1997) and demonstrate sophisticated knowledge of both Spanish and English (Carvalho, 2012), heritage speakers of Spanish have been criticized and labeled deficient language users for such practices (Montrul, 2013; Zentella, 2007). As such, some researchers (e.g. García, 2009; García & Otheguy, 2014) have opted instead for the term ‘translanguaging’ to describe how multilinguals, including heritage speakers, employ their entire linguistic repertoire – including their background, identities, histories and beliefs – to make meaning and to interact across complex social, economic and political contexts (García & Flores, 2014). In the context of bi/multilingualism research, translanguaging 2 is defined

172  Language Learning in Study Abroad

as ‘speakers’ construction and use of original and complex interrelated discursive practices that cannot be easily assigned to one or another traditional definition of a language, but that makes up the speakers’ complete language repertoire’ (García & Li Wei, 2014: 22). Bilingualism has often been portrayed as an additive process, whereby bilinguals add a second and separate language to their otherwise monolingual self, and users shift between independent language systems (Lambert, 1974). Yet, as García and Otheguy (2014) argue, the ‘bi’ (or ‘multi’) distinction between language systems is the result of social construction framed around the monoglossic norm and the one person-one nation-one language conception, and ‘not of psychological or cognitive dualism’ (García & Otheguy, 2014: 645). In contrast, translanguaging aligns with a dynamic view of bilingualism that centers around the agency of multilingual speakers to draw on all available resources and modalities to negotiate their identities and to transform their languaging – or language practices – and communicative selves in the process (García & Li Wei, 2014; Li Wei, 2018). If we conceptualize ‘language’ as everything we use to interact and make meaning in a given context, then all language users translanguage. However, translanguaging as a flexible discursive practice, an analytical paradigm and a pedagogical tool has differing significance and impact for multilingual populations, like heritage speakers of Spanish, because they are oftentimes marginalized for their languaging. Translanguaging challenges beliefs that languages are internalized as delimitable units and that heritage speakers have flawed linguistic competence or incomplete acquisition (García & Otheguy, 2014; Leeman & Serafini, 2016). Such negative perceptions stem from interlocutors comparing heritage speakers of Spanish with an idealized ‘monolingual and native’ target (Valdés et al., 2003) and from curricular preferences for standardized and academic varieties of Spanish (Leeman, 2012, 2014; García & Otheguy, 2014; Rosa, 2016b; Valdés, 2015; Zentella, 2007). As Li Wei points out, the act of translanguaging creates ‘a social space for the multilingual user by bringing together different dimensions of their personal history, experience and environment, their attitude, belief and ideology, their cognitive and physical capacity into one coordinated and meaningful performance’ (Li Wei, 2011: 1223). For multilinguals, this translanguaging space has the potential to fuse and generate new values, practices, and language-identity habitus (Bourdieu, 1991) by adopting creativity and criticality (García & Li Wei, 2014). Habitus is an individual’s ways of being and behaving that are reproduced by social structures and personal life history (Bourdieu, 1991; Kramsch, 2009). Creativity refers to the ability to choose whether to observe language rules and norms, or to challenge such boundaries to make something novel (García & Li Wei, 2014). Criticality is the capacity to utilize available evidence to inform views of cultural, social, political and linguistic phenomena, to question and problematize received knowledge and to express views

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  173

through well-thought-out responses to situations (García & Li Wei, 2014). Translanguaging moves beyond language to offer a transformative space for the performance and embodiment of identities that contribute to critical and creative learning (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; Li Wei, 2018). When heritage speakers are in an SA context, where these critical and identity features may be more salient, the act of engaging in and confronting translingual practices may lead to the awareness of language ideologies, attitudes and critical translingual competence. Critical translingual competence

Drawing on critical pedagogies (Freire, 1970), researchers have stressed the need for critical approaches in Spanish heritage language education in order to raise learners’ consciousness of how politics, ideologies and social hierarchies are manifested, reproduced and socialized through language (Carreira, 2012; Holguín Mendoza, 2018; Leeman, 2012, 2015, 2018; Leeman & Serafini, 2016). Heritage speakers of Spanish in the USA are oftentimes labeled illegitimate or incompetent users of both Spanish and English because of racial and socioeconomic factors as well as their so-called ‘non-standardized’ dialects and language practices (Rosa, 2016b; Rosa & Flores, 2017). Monolinguals reproduce these biases when they claim linguistic authority over what is and how to speak Spanish (Mrak, 2011), intimidate or belittle the Spanish of bilinguals (Aparicio, 2000) and privilege varieties associated with the educated, upper class (Leeman, 2014; Valdés et al., 2003). As such, heritage speakers benefit from developing their critical translingual competence, or an awareness of how their language practices are imbued with social meaning for themselves and others. According to Leeman and Serafini (2016: 65): [Critical translingual competence involves] multiple dialect acquisition and entails exploration of principles and social meaning of variation; the sociolinguistic functions of translanguaging practices, language attitudes, and ideologies; the relationship between language and identity; and the sociopolitics of language inside and outside the United States.

The aim of critical translingual competence is to empower heritage speakers of Spanish to contest inequalities that subordinate their languaging and their multilingual identities (Leeman, 2018; Leeman & Serafini, 2016). By employing translanguaging and critical pedagogies, researchers and practitioners can encourage students to recognize how their languaging and their and others’ views of their languaging – good/bad, standardized/ nonstandardized – form part of their habitus, which further intersects with their embodied habitus – or ways of being that stem from one’s physical attributes, such as race, gender, sexuality and ability. In other words, the social value placed on speakers and their languaging stems from who

174  Language Learning in Study Abroad

the speakers are and not from the language itself. For some multilingual US Latinx communities, translanguaging is an integral component of identity and belonging because it focuses on individuals’ social and communicative practices, allowing them to utilize their linguistic resources to construct fluid subjectivities that resist marginalizing language ideologies (Noguerón-Liu & Warriner, 2014). For example, Spanglish may serve as a primary symbol of identity, connecting Spanglish users to other Latinxs who identify similarly or engage in similar linguistic practices despite widespread disapproval of theses language practices (Zentella, 2007). In Rosa (2016a), adolescent Mexicans and Puerto Ricans employed Inverted Spanglish – pronunciation of Spanish with English phonology – to claim Spanish and English as their own, to highlight a shared US Latinx identity, and to interrogate pejorative views of their Spanish and English proficiency by demonstrating knowledge and adeptness in both. Additionally, when heritage speakers of Spanish decide to increase their Spanish knowledge by enrolling in a language course or program, they may learn another dialect of Spanish in addition to their home dialect, and how to operate between them (Ortega, 2013). Abroad, heritage speakers may learn a local variety alongside an academic one, whereas at-home instruction typically focuses on academic Spanish. While heritage speakers may develop critical translingual competence on their own – as in the examples previously mentioned (Rosa, 2016a; Zentella, 2007) – their beliefs and practices may deepen or be heightened in educational contexts, like an SA setting. Heritage Speakers of Spanish and Study Abroad

For heritage speakers of Spanish, being in a context where the Spanish language is part of a dominant majority may have contrasting outcomes. On the one hand, it may reinforce deficit views of their Spanish abilities. Spanish heritage learners have faced negative attitudes from their hosts due to race, ethnicity, social class and speaking a non-standardized variety of Spanish (Gorman, 2011; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). Spanish heritage learners may also embark on a process of identity reflection and negotiation when host nationals do not legitimize their multilingual and multicultural backgrounds (Shively, 2016). On the other hand, an SA context may support positive attitudes toward the Spanish language and their heritage. An immersion experience can reaffirm Spanish heritage learners’ ethnolinguistic identities (Chang, 2017; Quan et al., 2018) and increase their linguistic confidence (de Félix & Cavazos Peña, 1992). An SA context can also heighten heritage and L2 learners’ awareness of sociolinguistic variation and its implications in speech. In Moreno (2009), Katherine did not want to lose her Mexican Texas accent when she studied in Spain, yet she incorporated Castilian features like vosotros (an informal second-person plural form of address) upon her return to the

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  175

USA. In George and Hoffman-González (2019), three of their participants of Mexican descent adopted regional phonological features when studying in Argentina and Spain, while one maintained their Mexican accent throughout. Meanwhile, studies of US-based L2 learners in Spain demonstrated a general tendency to avoid Castilian phonological variants – ­interdental fricative [θ] and uvular fricative [χ] (George, 2014; Knouse, 2012; Ringer-Hilfinger, 2012). Such results have been attributed to ­learners’ decisions to choose dialectal features that best align with their communicative needs and desired Spanish-speaker identity, as well as their more frequent contact with Latin Americans in the USA (George, 2014; Ringer-Hilfinger, 2012). The previously mentioned works demonstrate how heritage speakers of Spanish in an abroad context tend to embark on a process of identity transformation and linguistic realization. Identities refers to how individuals situate themselves and how others situate them; they are dynamic, manifold, intersecting, sometimes contradictory, sociohistorically shaped and ideologically constrained (Blackledge & Pavlenko, 2001; Darvin & Norton, 2015). An individual may be positioned a particular way within a given context, and may choose to resist, contest or negotiate such subject positions (Norton, 2013: 164). According to Block (2007a, 2007b) and Kinginger (2013), the immersion setting has the potential to initiate a negotiation of identities resulting from the destabilization of one’s habitus from encountering difference (Blackledge & Pavlenko, 2001). SA participants may arrive at their destinations and feel positioned – implicitly or explicitly – by the host community in unexpected ways, owing to nationality, gender, race and ethnicity, among others (Kinginger, 2013). In Riegelhaupt and Carrasco (2000) and Jing-Schmidt et al. (2016), local interlocutors judged harshly the language proficiency of heritage learners of Spanish (Lidia) and Chinese (Meryl), while their Euro-American classmates were highly praised for their language abilities. The negotiation of identities occurs in discourse, such as during translanguaging, when multilinguals draw on a range of linguistic resources to negotiate difference and to perform a range of subject positions, at times simultaneously (Creese & Blackledge, 2015). These practices emerge within the ‘translanguaging space’ (Li Wei, 2011), whereby heritage speakers of Spanish in an SA context may develop new understandings of who they are, who they wish to become, and how they are positioned in local and global contexts as US Latinxs and multilinguals, displaying these identities in and through discourse. An SA context may also further develop learners’ critical translingual competence since they may study alongside and interact with new multilingual communities who engage in and embody translanguaging practices. Previous research has shown the complex identity negotiations heritage speakers of Spanish experience abroad. However, none of these studies have employed a translanguaging framework to unpack how heritage

176  Language Learning in Study Abroad

speakers’ discursive practices in an SA context may lead to reflections and reexaminations of their experiences and identities as US Latinxs and multilinguals at home and abroad. As such, this study is guided by the following research questions: as a heritage speaker and learner of Spanish, how does Maria leverage her linguistic repertoire to negotiate, transform and confirm her multiple identities abroad? How does an SA context serve as a translanguaging space? How does Maria develop her critical translingual competence through these processes of identity negotiation and reflection, and the enactment of translanguaging practices? Methodology

Maria was a 19-year-old sociology major from a public university in California. In spring 2015, Maria embarked on a 16-week language and culture program administered by her US university in Córdoba, Spain. Maria was born and raised in California to bilingual Mexican parents. She was English dominant and used ‘Spanish or English or a mix of both’ to communicate with her parents, who mainly spoke to her in Spanish (Pre-program interview). Prior to Spain, Maria had spent time in Mexico visiting family with her parents. According to our pre-departure interview, Maria chose her SA program because it was the only one offered at her university that focused on language acquisition, and she wanted the opportunity to travel around Europe since she had never been. While abroad, Maria took language, history and literature courses in Spanish and English with US peers and lived with a host family. The data used for Maria’s case include: a background questionnaire conducted prior to departure, bi-weekly journals and interviews. The background questionnaire was in English and was completed online. For the bi-weekly journals, Maria was asked to write about language and cultural learning experiences, challenges and differences observed or experienced, and her contact with locals. She had the option to write these journals in English, Spanish or both. The interviews were conducted online, in English and Spanish, and scheduled for before (February 11, 2015), halfway through (April 14, 2015) and at the end of her program (May 30, 2015). A year after her return (May 28, 2016), a delayed post-SA interview was also conducted. All names used are pseudonyms. The qualitative data were coded deductively according to the research questions and then examined for repeating themes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) using the application Dedoose (2018). For the first question on how Maria leverages her linguistic repertoire to negotiate, transform, and confirm her multiple identities, I identified two themes: translanguaging as a communicative tool and translanguaging as a performative one. Translanguaging was identified as instances when Maria employed a combination of language skills, background, personal histories and cultural understanding to interpret and to make meaning. Specifically, I coded for

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  177

instances when Maria engaged in translanguaging during interviews and in her journals, and her discussions and narrations about translanguaging with other interlocutors. In regard to the second question on how the act of translanguaging develops new language practices and/or sustains old ones, I analyzed instances when Maria reflected on her existing and newly developed translanguaging practices, and their significance in regard to her linguistic confidence and her identification as a multilingual and multicultural person. Finally, I examined how these processes of identity negotiation and reflection, and enactment of translanguaging practices developed Maria’s critical translingual competence during, at the end and a year after her SA program. In particular, I accounted for her critical translingual competence through her growing sociolinguistic awareness, self-determination of her language practices, and reflections on Otherness, identity, ideologies, and language use as reported in her journals and interviews. The Case of Maria

During our pre-SA interview, Maria expressed not being confident in her Spanish abilities despite having ‘known Spanish all my life’ (Pre-program interview), having completed a Spanish heritage language course at her US university, and having a pre-SA ACTFL Spanish proficiency level of advanced low. In fact, Maria chose a language acquisition program because she wanted ‘to get over my anxiety of speaking Spanish, [...] to learn formal Spanish and […] to feel connected to my Mexican heritage’ (Background questionnaire). Maria’s lack of self-assurance in her Spanish was also linked to feelings of social anxiety in group settings and to her self-consciousness about how Spanish-dominant interlocutors would react to her and her Spanish. In our pre-program interview, Maria stated that she anticipated being ‘forced to speak Spanish all the time’ while in Spain, which suggested her expectations of the SA environment to be a monolingual, immersive context. Nonetheless, her language practices at home – as reported in her pre-program interview – and abroad combined Spanish and English. Aside from consistently mixing Spanish and English in her journal, Maria described using both languages with her friend and intercambio (‘language partner’), Jorge, whom she met through her SA program. Jorge was a computer programming student who wanted to practice his English in hopes of working in the USA in the future. Maria wrote, I talk to [Jorge] for hours upon horas pero nunca recuerdo en cual idioma hablé más. Nada más hablo como me sale, a veces en English, a veces en Spanish, a veces unas oraciones están en los dos idiomas, nunca me recuerdo exactamente qué fue en Spanish y qué en inglés. I talk to [Jorge] for hours upon hours but I never remember in which language I spoke more. I just speak however it comes out, sometimes in

178  Language Learning in Study Abroad

English, sometimes in Spanish, sometimes a few sentences in both languages, I never remember exactly what was in Spanish and what was in English. (Journal entry, Weeks 9–10)

Rather than categorizing the languages she was using, Maria reported employing her entire linguistic repertoire to communicate and to make meaning. Since Jorge also communicated with her in this way, it encouraged and validated this form of communication that Maria already employed with her parents back home. In fact, Maria described: Before I studied abroad podía escribir un mensaje entero en inglés sin tener the urge to use a frase o palabras […] en Spanish, now, es mucho más difícil NO usar español at all. I have to think about it and actively STOP MYSELF from inserting Spanish. There is something dentro de mí que quiere mezclar los idiomas en vez de nada más hablar en solo un idioma. Before I studied abroad I would be able to write an entire message in English without having the urge to use a phrase or words […] in Spanish, now, it is a lot more difficult NOT using Spanish at all. I have to think about it and actively STOP MYSELF from inserting Spanish. There is something within me that wants to mix the languages instead of only speaking in one language. (Journal entry, Weeks 11–12, emphasis in original)

Her comments suggest that her time in Córdoba and her interactions with Jorge had reaffirmed the naturalness of fluidly fusing and using her entire language repertoire. Maria also expressed an awareness of sociolinguistic variation. During the third and fourth weeks in her journal, she noted ‘the linguistic differences between the Spanish that I learned growing up (what I call California Mexican Spanish) and Andalusian Spanish’. While she consciously decided not to adopt certain Castilian features, such as vosotros, she did incorporate varietal phrases (e.g. me da igual ‘it’s all the same to me’, echar de menos ‘to miss’) and pronunciation (e.g. /s/ deletion word final and before a consonant, as in adios ‘bye’ [áðjo], esta ‘this’ [éta]) that she believed aided her communicative effectiveness with other Andalusian speakers. 3 As the semester progressed, she became more confident about her Spanish abilities and realized that she had the agency to determine how to speak. Maria explained, ‘When I want to say something in the Spanish that I know and then I catch myself, like wait, they don’t say that here. I should use this word so […] the communication is more clear’ (Mid-program interview). In addition, she began describing her language learning experience not in terms of learning Spanish, as she did initially, but rather as adding to her existing language knowledge. Maria refers to her SA experience as one that ‘just expands what I already know because I feel like knowing how people talk in the same language but in different

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  179

parts of the world is really interesting’ (Mid-program interview). She again acknowledges the Spanish that she already possesses and therefore identifies herself as a legitimate Spanish speaker. Additionally, Maria recognizes the sociolinguistic heterogeneity that exists across the Spanish language, and her acquisition and awareness of an additional Andalusian dialect. Furthermore, Maria’s conversations with Jorge and her travels to neighboring European countries forced her to reflect on how her latinidad differed across US, Spanish and European contexts. According to Maria, Jorge ‘doesn’t seem to understand the concept of “Mexican-American,” how can you have two identities if you were born in the US? I understand why he thinks that way, and it’s because he lives in a super homogenous society’ (Journal entry, Weeks 11–12). Despite its diverse linguistic and cultural history, Maria and Jorge interpret Spain as racially, ethnically and linguistically uniform. This may stem from sociopolitical and historical attempts to suppress regional languages and cultural identities (e.g. Basque, Catalan, etc.) in favor of a standardized Castilian and a single, nationalistic ‘Spain’ (Tremlett, 2006), and the Us/Them dichotomy that has permeated Spanish society owing to the influx of migrants (GarcíaSánchez, 2016). The same occurs in the USA, where racially and linguistically minoritized individuals, like Maria, are positioned as Others, a theme that is repeatedly discussed during and after Maria’s abroad experience. She describes spending significant time abroad dissecting, negotiating and determining the identities that she desired to embrace. In the USA, she had often been negatively identified by her ‘Latina-ness’, while in Spain and Europe, her racial and ethnic identities were ambiguous and, according to her, neutral. She wrote, ‘I guess the reason why I am curious about where people think I am from is because in the United States, because I am not white, sometimes I get questions from other people about ‘where I am “really” from. I have gotten used to being an “other” en mi propio país (“in my own country”)’ (Journal entry, Weeks 11–12). In this example, Maria switches to español to reference and possibly emphasize the USA as her country, juxtaposing her Spanish use with the racial discrimination she experiences as a multilingual Latina. While Maria believed she was consistently labeled a ‘foreigner’ in the USA, in Europe, she moved within an in-between space of neither insider nor outsider. In Spain, she recounted how others thought she was Andalusian or Moroccan for her physical features or Latin American because of the way she spoke Spanish. Meanwhile, in France, she was spoken to in Spanish by strangers. This process of identity reflection led her to recognize the advantages and disadvantages of her multilingual and multicultural upbringing, which were heavily characterized by race, language and nationality. Maria did not experience culture shock in Spain compared with some of her SA peers because, as she explained, ‘I was used to stores closing for siesta because they do that in Mexico too.

180  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Additionally, I grew up with Spanish all of my life so there was not much language confusion in that respect’ (Journal entry, Weeks 5–6). Maria viewed her adaptability to Andalusian life as an asset that came from her multilingual and multicultural background. Nonetheless, growing up in an English dominant US context had also made Maria expect English as a lingua franca across the globe. In preparation for a trip to Paris, she described her feelings of anxiety to travel to France. I didn’t know the language, and deep inside me I wish they had all known English. These are horrible beliefs because how dare I believe that the whole world should know English? That is an unbelievable sense of entitlement that I am glad surfaced so that I could combat it immediately. But I know that having that experience is essential to how I interact with others that do not speak English or Spanish now. I was not afraid of going to Morocco this past weekend, even though I know neither Arabic o francés, because I feel more comfortable being uncomfortable, if that makes sense. This is a really important realization for my future traveling experiences, and my language acquisition en español. I think after this, I have loosened up a bit when speaking Spanish, I have lost some of my self-consciousness. (Journal entry, Weeks 11–12)

In the above, she questions her assumptions about the hegemony of English and recognizes the disorienting feeling one may experience when in an unfamiliar language context. According to Maria, encountering such language differences (Arabic and French) have influenced how she relates to others who do not speak English nor Spanish, and also how she views herself and her Spanish. In contrast to the insecurities she described during the pre-SA interview, Maria expresses more confidence about her Spanish language abilities and incorporates this realization into her existing habitus. Following the abovementioned critical reflection, Maria goes on to question how she identifies herself as a result of her SA experience. ‘For now, when people ask, I say I am American but my parents are from Mexico. That’s how I explain my identity to Spaniards and other nonAmericans I meet’ (Journal entry, Weeks 11–12). While this interpretation may be temporary, this statement acknowledges her efforts to position herself as an American with Mexican roots. Maria’s fluid alternations between Spanish and English for communication and expression, as illustrated and described in her journals, suggests how she enacted these identities through discourse. By the end of her SA program, Maria had become more self-assured of her Spanish abilities, her chosen language practices and her identities as a legitimate Spanish speaker, multilingual user, American and Mexican. In her final journal passage, she stated that her ‘fear of speaking in Spanish has definitely lessened to a great degree’ (Journal entry, Weeks 15–16). Additionally, Jorge and his friends had made her feel accepted and appreciated ‘for being tal y como soy, no como

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  181

antes cuando me hacía sentir bad because I just felt so out of place, like how I would feel in the US’ (‘for being just the way I am, not like before when I would feel bad because I just felt so out of place, like how I would feel in the US’) (Journal entry, Weeks 15–16). Her feelings of marginalization may stem from racism and the internalization of the USA as a monocultural and monolingual English-speaking nation, despite its demographic reality, especially in places such as California.4 Indeed, she believed that her newly affirmed identities as American with Mexican heritage and a Spanish/English multilingual post-SA would not align with how she would be positioned in the USA. As such, she was wary of returning home and explained that ‘I really like being able to talk in both languages with people […] that’s kind of why I don’t want to go back to the US because I have to speak in English all the time’ (Post-program interview). Despite her bilingual family and her reports of having Spanish-speaking friends in the USA, Maria presumed that her translanguaging practices with Jorge and his friends in Spain would not be permissible or respected back home. The impact of Maria’s abroad experience in Córdoba had immediate and long-term outcomes. Jorge and his friends had valued her entire cultural and linguistic background, and had allowed her to reclaim and enact her multilingual selves through translanguaging. During our delayed post-SA interview, Maria stated that going abroad had increased her confidence in using Spanish, which ‘brought [my family and I] together more because my younger sister, she’s like 12 or 13. She does not want to speak Spanish at all and I think that has a lot to do with she’s afraid of speaking it’ (Delayed post-SA interview). Like her sister, Maria admitted that she did not want to speak Spanish as a child because she felt out of place. In her words, ‘When I was younger, I was afraid to speak [Spanish] because I grew up in a very white suburban area and I didn’t want to be Mexican […] I always felt like I was different like in a bad way’ (Delayed post-SA interview). When asked to reflect on how Spain had influenced her perspectives on her identity, Maria said, When I was abroad, a lot of the words or the phrases I would use people would tell me that that was Mexican to say […] or like that’s not proper Spanish […] I realized that people can be very close minded [or] afraid of different ways of saying things. […] I just became aware that people can look down on you for the way you speak. (Delayed post-SA interview)

In contrast to her positive journal entries and interviews while abroad, this quote illustrates the critical interpretations of how others, apart from Jorge and his friends, negatively viewed her language use while she was in Spain. Maria’s reflection further demonstrates her growing criticality of how language use (‘Mexican to say’) is imbued with ideological meaning (‘not proper Spanish’), a point that she alluded to while she was abroad but did not seem to fully dissect until a year later. While Maria continued

182  Language Learning in Study Abroad

to recognize the communicative utility of her language practices and to grasp the uniqueness and benefits of her ethnolinguistic and cultural identities a year post-SA, she also recognized how individuals discriminate others based on language. Study abroad had contributed to Maria’s positive and critical perspectives towards Spanish, her language abilities and practices, and her American and Mexican identities, which subsequently influenced her relationship with her family and potentially the intergenerational maintenance of Spanish. Discussion

Maria’s case demonstrates how studying abroad in a predominantly Spanish context can serve as a transformative translanguaging space for heritage speakers of Spanish, leading to the development of critical translingual competence. When she initially embarked on her SA program, Maria was hesitant to claim a Spanish-speaker or multilingual identity; yet, as her time in Córdoba progressed, she indexed such desired selves through translanguaging practices. For Maria, the SA context had been a ‘translanguaging space’ that had invoked reflections of her personal background, beliefs, and language capabilities in the meaning-making process (Li Wei, 2011, 2018). Her interactions with Jorge, someone who embodied and engaged in translanguaging, confirmed the significance and possibility of such practices. Furthermore, Maria developed critical translingual competence through translanguaging and reflecting on her identities in the USA and globally while abroad. First, Maria recognized that her translanguaging practices served to index the fluid subjectivities that she wished to claim, positioning herself as someone who was American with Mexican heritage, and a simultaneous Spanish and English user. Second, Maria developed an awareness of dialectal features of Andalusian Spanish and her own language practices. As the semester advanced, Maria realized that her experiences abroad were adding to her existing Spanish language knowledge and that she had the agency to determine how to use her entire repertoire for her own communicative needs. Third, she learned to employ linguistic variation deliberately – accommodating her lexicon and pronunciation – in order to improve communication with Andalusian interlocutors. Furthermore, drawing on her prior lived experiences and her sojourn abroad, Maria became aware of the USA as a problematic space. Maria was reluctant to return home post-SA because she believed she would have to use English exclusively and that translanguaging was only permissible in certain geographical places like Spain. According to Maria, her multilingual, American and Mexican identities were impossible back home, suggesting that she had internalized perceptions of the USA as an English monolingual and monocultural place, and therefore unwelcoming for

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  183

individuals like herself. Despite the increase in Spanish language education programs and the number of bilingual Spanish speakers, the mainstream US discourse chooses a national identity that distances itself from Spanish (García, 2014; Zentella, 2007). Consequently, bilingual Latinx youth in the USA feel pressured to avoid speaking Spanish to align with this national discourse (Potowski & Rothman, 2011). While she described mixing English and Spanish with her parents and using Spanish with some bilingual friends in her journals and interviews, she never claimed membership in a multilingual community back home. Meanwhile, Maria reported a close rapport with Jorge and his friends, which may explain why she believed her translanguaging practices were permissible in Spain but would not be in the USA. Developing one’s critical translingual competence requires an awareness that the language practices of minoritized groups, such as heritage speakers and non-Castilian Spanish speakers, intersect with race, ethnicity, nationality, class and other social categories to produce systemic inequalities and discrimination (Leeman, 2018). It was not until post-SA that Maria explicitly reflected on the negative judgments she received for speaking California Mexican Spanish in Spain and the underlying implications that she was lesser than because her Spanish was ‘improper’. As Maria’s case illustrates, negotiating one’s identity and developing critical translingual competence is a dynamic and ongoing process that may occur throughout and after a sojourn abroad. It is when heritage speakers of Spanish come into contact with other multilinguals of different backgrounds across contexts and confront aspects of their identity that critical reflections about one’s past and present experiences may begin to emerge. Lastly, this study highlights how the acquisition of an academic variety of Spanish or an appreciation for one’s heritage language may be insufficient for heritage speakers (Leeman & Serafini, 2016). According to Rosa (2016a) and Zentella (2007), language is not the solution because it is not the problem; instead, heritage speakers of Spanish, like Maria, may benefit from reframing their habitus to question why they themselves and others deem their language abilities to be insufficient and why acceptable or proper language use and knowledge is tied to particular types of speakers (e.g. educated and upper classes). Maria had mixed Spanish and English prior to arriving in Spain, but she did not consider this a legitimate language practice nor evidence of Spanish proficiency and therefore chose to ‘acquire’ Spanish abroad. While in Spain, she continued using both Spanish and English simultaneously and reinterpreted her language use positively and as a part of her multifaceted identity. In sum, a sojourn abroad may provide space and opportunity to translanguage, which has the potential to empower and engage heritage speakers through a process of critical reflection. Meanwhile, as an analytical framework, translanguaging shifts the paradigm away from deficit perspectives of heritage speakers and monolingual-like proficiency in SA research.

184  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Pedagogical Implications

There are several implications from Maria’s case for SA programs and language classrooms. First, the act of translanguaging can generate identities of resistance, wherein heritage speakers and learners create and adopt new selves that may have seemed impossible before the SA experience or in the USA – same for L2 learners (Anya, 2017). Maria was also lucky to meet Jorge, which exemplifies the significance of interacting with a multilingual partner who values translanguaging practices. SA programs may want to emphasize critical local engagement with language instructors and partners, and/or living arrangements with hosts who share similar views or reflections about language learning and use. Second, SA and at-home programs may consider developing students’ critical translingual competence by incorporating coursework in sociolinguistic variation, and language attitudes and ideologies; encouraging students to employ their entire linguistic repertoire to learn and make meaning while developing an additional language; and promoting criticality and creativity in learners’ language use before, during SA and upon students’ return. While Maria alluded to this awareness throughout her SA experience – recognizing both her sense of Otherness and her privileges as an English speaker and US passport holder – she also continued to view the USA as a monolingual country and translanguaging as only permissible in certain geographical locations. An important component of critical translingual competence is to recognize how language use is positioned within a broader sociopolitical and sociohistorical context. According to Li Wei (2018), part of becoming multilingual is knowing how to mediate between what is socially and culturally dictated to us and forms part of our habitus, and what we desire to do with language. As such, instructors may wish to address the social meanings attached to different language varieties and practices and ultimately the inequities that underscore them (Leeman, 2018). Third, SA and domestic language programs would benefit from portraying the multilingual reality of the host/target country in which they are situated and of the home country of their participating students. For instance, Spain and Latin America are not strictly monolingual Spanishspeaking, nor do their inhabitants speak a homogenous ‘Spanish’, yet their multilingual realities have been historically ignored in classroom and SA settings (García & Otheguy, 2014). Conclusion

Maria’s case demonstrates the potential of an SA context to serve as a transformative ‘translanguaging space’ that prompts critical translingual competence (Li Wei, 2011). While heritage speakers of Spanish benefit from language awareness and appreciation, and dialect acquisition, they

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  185

would also benefit from a critical understanding of how language imbues social meaning across contexts. The findings also demonstrate the linguistic and personal success that Spanish heritage learners, and possibly all language learners, can have from interacting with multilingual users and communities who value translanguaging practices, questioning the practices of SA programs who intend to immerse learners in strictly monolingual contexts. While this study advances our understanding of the potential impact of a translanguaging space for heritage speakers of Spanish, generalizations from Maria’s single case study are limited. This study would benefit from observational data of Maria’s actual language use with Jorge and other interlocutors. Future work may want to contrast cases and learning contexts using an array of data sources given that heritage speakers of Spanish are a heterogeneous group composed of varying motivations and life experiences (Parra, 2016). That way, we may identify commonalities and differences regarding how Spanish heritage learners translanguage in an SA context and their corresponding interpretations and reactions. Such data may also tell us what happens if heritage speakers do or do not encounter spaces or others who translanguage. Finally, Maria studied in a country with no direct familial or ethnic connections. Spanish heritage learners’ reactions to the SA context may differ depending on those ties and in turn, local hosts may respond differently to them as well. Given the diversity and multilingualism of speakers across the globe and the discrimination that persists toward communities of color, language research and instruction should strive to move away from practices and imaginaries that place monolingualism and standard languages as the norm. Instead, continued research on how diverse groups of speakers interpret and react to various learning contexts would benefit our overall understanding of the complexities of identity and language learning and use. Notes (1) ‘Latinx’ is a gender-neutral alternative to an otherwise feminine or masculine word in Spanish (e.g. latino/a). The term aims to include queer communities of color and acknowledge the plurality of the US Latinx experience. Other similar terminology include: ‘Latin@’ or ‘Latino/a’ (de Onís, 2017). I use the term Latino and Latina to refer to self-identified males and females respectively. (2) Cen Williams (1994) first conceived of the term translanguaging in Welsh (trawysieithu) to describe a pedagogical practice in which students alternate languages for reading and writing or receptive or productive use. (3) Mexican Spanish speakers tend to use ustedes as a formal and informal second person plural form of address, among other differences. See Hualde et al. (2010) for a thorough description of Mexican Spanish. (4) According to the US Census Bureau (2016), approximately 38.6% of California’s racial demographics is Hispanic or Latinx, and about 44.0% of the state’s population speaks a language other than English at home.

186  Language Learning in Study Abroad

References Anya, U. (2017) Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. New York: Routledge. Aparicio, F.R. (2000) Of Spanish dispossessed. In R. Dueñas González and I. Melis (eds) Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement, Volume 1, Education and the Social Implications of Official Language (pp. 248–275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Beaudrie, S.M. and Fairclough, M. (2012) Introduction: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. In S.M. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: The State of the Field (pp. 1–17). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Beaudrie, S.M., Ducar, C. and Potowski, K. (2014) Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill Education Create. Blackledge, A. and Pavlenko, A. (2001) Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. The International Journal of Bilingualism 5, 243–257. Block, D. (2007a) Second Language Identities. London: Continuum. Block, D. (2007b) The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). Modern Language Journal 91, 863–876. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carreira, M. (2012) Meeting the needs of heritage language learners: Approaches, strategies, and research. In S.M. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: The State of the Field (pp. 139–160). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Carvalho, A.M. (2012) Code-switching from theoretical to pedagogical considerations. In S.M. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: The State of the Field (pp. 139–160). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Chang, A. (2017) ‘Call me a little critical if you will’: Counterstories of Latinas studying abroad in Guatemala. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 16, 3–23. Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2015) Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35, 20–35. Darvin, R. and Norton, B. (2015) Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35, 36–56. Dedoose Version 8.0.31, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data  (2018). Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. de Félix, W. and Cavazos Peña, S. (1992) Return home: The effects of study in Mexico on bilingual teachers. Hispania 75, 743–750. de Onís, C.M. (2017) What’s in an ‘x’?: An exchange about the politics of ‘Latinx.’ Chiricú Journal: Latina/o Literatures, Arts, and Cultures 1, 78–91. Fairclough, M. (2014) Spanish as a heritage language. In M. Lacorte (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics (pp. 765–782). New York: Routledge. Fairclough, M. and Beaudrie, S.M. (2016) Introduction. In M. Fairclough and S.M. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom (pp. 1–16). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 2lst Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. García, O. (2014) US Spanish and education: Global and local intersections. Review of Research in Education 38, 58–80. García, O. and Flores, N. (2014) Multilingualism and common core state standards in the United States. In S. May (ed.) The Multilingual Turn (pp. 147–166). New York: Routledge.

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  187

García, O. and Otheguy, R. (2014) Spanish and Hispanic bilingualism. In M. Lacorte (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics (pp. 639–658). New York: Routledge. García, O. and Li Wei (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. García-Sánchez, I.M. (2016) Multiculturalism and its discontents: Essentializing ethnic Moroccan and Roma identities in classroom discourse in Spain. In H. Samy Alim, J.R. Rickford and A.F. Ball (eds) Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes our Ideas about Race (pp. 291–308). New York: Oxford University Press. George, A. (2014) Study abroad in central Spain: The development of regional phonological features. Foreign Language Annals 47, 97–114. George, A. and Hoffman-González, A. (2019) Dialect and identity: US heritage language learners of Spanish abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 4, 252–279. Gorman, L. (2011) Es como si ya nos conociéramos: Spanish heritage learners, identity, and studying abroad in Latin America. Paper presented at the Conference on Spanish in the US, Sacramento, CA. Unpublished manuscript. March 2011. Gramlich, J. (2017) Hispanic dropout rate hits new low, college enrollment at new high. Retrieved April 10, 2018 from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/29/ hispanic-dropout-rate-hits-new-low-college-enrollment-at-new-high/. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2018) Critical language awareness (CLA) for Spanish heritage language programs: Implementing a complete curriculum. International Multilingual Research Journal 12, 65–79. Hualde, J.I., Olarrea, A., Escobar, A.M. and Travis, C.E. (2010) Introducción a la Lingüística Hispánica (2nd edn). New York: Cambridge University Press. Jing-Schmidt, Z., Chen, J.Y. and Zhang, Z. (2016) Identity development in the ancestral homeland: A Chinese heritage perspective. Modern Language Journal 100, 797–812. Kinginger, C. (2013) Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 46, 339–358. Knouse, S.M. (2012) The acquisition of dialectal phonemes in a study abroad context: The case of the Castilian theta. Foreign Language Annals 45, 512–542. Kramsch, C. (2009) The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lambert, W.E. (1974) Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F.E. Aboud and R.D. Mead (eds) Cultural Factors in Learning and Education (pp. 233– 264). Bellingham, WA: Fifth Western Washington Symposium on Learning. Leeman, J. (2012) Investigating language ideologies in Spanish as a heritage language. In S.M. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (eds) Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: The State of the Field (pp. 43–60). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Leeman, J. (2014) Critical approaches to the teaching of Spanish as a local-foreign language. In M. Lacorte (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics (pp. 275–292). New York: Routledge.  Leeman, J. (2015) Heritage language education and identity in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35, 100–119. Leeman, J. (2018) Critical language awareness and Spanish as a heritage language: Challenging the linguistic subordination of US Latinxs. In K. Potowski (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Spanish as a Minority/Heritage Language (pp. 345–358). New York: Routledge. Leeman, J. and Serafini, E.J. (2016) Sociolinguistics for heritage language educators and students: A model for critical translingual competence. In M. Fairclough and S.M. Beaudrie (eds) Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom (pp. 56–79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

188  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Li Wei (2011) Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1222–1235. Li Wei (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39, 9–30. Lipski, J.M. (2014) Is ‘Spanglish’ the third language of the South? In M. Picone and C. Evans Davies (eds) New Perspectives on Language Variety in the South: Historical and Contemporary Approaches (pp. 657–677). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Marijuan, S. and Sanz, C. (2018) Expanding boundaries: Current and new directions in study abroad research and practice. Foreign Language Annals 51, 1–20. Mrak, N.A. (2011) Heritage speakers and the standard: Fighting linguistic hegemony. In A.L. Ortiz-López (ed.) 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 161–168). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Merriam, S.B. and Tisdell, E.J. (2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (4th edn). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Montrul, S. (2013) El Bilingüismo en el Mundo Hispanohablante. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Moreno, K.H. (2009) The study abroad experiences of heritage language learners: Discourses of identity. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, TX. Noguerón-Liu, S. and Warriner, D. (2014) Heteroglossic practices in the online publishing process: Complexities in digital and geographical borderlands. In A. Blackledge and A. Creese (eds) Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy (pp. 181–198). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. Norton, B. (2013) Identity and Language Learning: Extending the Conversation (2nd edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ortega, L. (2013) SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning 63 (Supp. 1), 1–24. Ortega, L. (2014) Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (ed.) The Multilingual Turn (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge. Parra, M.L. (2016) Understanding identity among Spanish heritage learners: An interdisciplinary endeavor. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 177–204). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Polinsky, M. and Kagan, O. (2007) Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1, 368–395. Potowski, K. and Lynch, A. (2014) Perspectivas sobre la enseñanza del español a los hablantes de herencia en los Estados Unidos. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1, 154–170. Potowski, K. and Rothman, J. (eds) (2011) Bilingual Youth: Spanish in English-Speaking Societies. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Quan, T., Pozzi, R., Kehoe, S. and Menard-Warwick, J. (2018) Spanish heritage language learners in study abroad across three national contexts. In C. Sanz and A. MoralesFront (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice (pp. 437–451). New York: Routledge. Riegelhaupt, F. and Carrasco, R. (2000) Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal 24, 405–421. Ringer-Hilfinger, K. (2012) Learner acquisition of dialect variation in a study abroad context: The case of the Spanish [θ]. Foreign Language Annals 45, 430–446. Rosa, J. (2016a) From mock Spanish to inverted Spanglish: Language ideologies and the racialization of Mexican and Puerto Rican youth in the United States. In H.S. Alim, J.R. Rickford andA.F. Ball (eds) Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes our Ideas about Race (pp. 65–80). New York: Oxford University Press.

Translanguaging Space for Heritage Speakers of Spanish  189

Rosa, J. (2016b) Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 26, 162–183. Rosa, J. and Flores, N. (2017) Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society 46, 1–27. Shively, R.L. (2016) Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (ed.) Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 259–280). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Shively, R. (2018) Study abroad. In K. Potowski (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Spanish as a Heritage/Minority Language (pp. 403–419). New York: Routledge. Surtees, V. (2016) Beliefs about language learning in study abroad: Advocating for a language ideology approach. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 27 (1), 85–103. Tremlett, G. (2006) Ghosts of Spain. Travels through a Country’s Hidden Past. London: Faber & Faber. US Census Bureau (2016)  2012–2016 American community survey 5-year estimates (Report No. S1601 and DP05). Retrieved May 22, 2019 from https://factfinder. census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF. Valdés, G. (2015) Latin@s and the intergenerational continuity of Spanish: The challenges of curricularizing language. International Multilingual Research Journal 9, 253–273. Valdés, G., González, S.V., López García, D. and Márquez, P. (2003) Language ideology: The case of Spanish in departments of foreign languages. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 34, 3–26. Williams, C. (1994) Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun Addysg Uwchradd Ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wales, Bangor. Zentella, A.C. (1997) Growing Up Bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Zentella, A.C. (2007) Linguistic (in)security and Latina/o unity. In J. Flores and R. Rosaldo (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Latino Studies (pp. 25–38). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

8 Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad: Sojourners’ Orientations to Linguistic Diversity and Language Hierarchies in Barcelona Brandon Tullock

Introduction

Many students who go abroad to learn a language expect a monolingual immersion experience that will yield linguistic as well as cultural and personal benefits. Empirical research on study abroad (SA), however, has demonstrated that students’ experiences abroad are neither monolingual nor immersive. For example, in studies using surveys to investigate students’ patterns of language use abroad, students report copious amounts of L1 and other non-target-language use (Coleman, 2013; Dewey et al., 2013; Freed et al., 2004; García-Amaya, 2017; Mitchell et al., 2017; Trentman, 2013). Qualitative studies of language learning abroad also problematize conventional beliefs about SA such as the notion of unidirectional immersion (Iino, 2006; Jackson, 2008, 2010; Kinginger, 2004, 2008; Pellegrino Aveni, 2005; Polanyi, 1995; Talburt & Stewart, 1999; Trentman, 2013; Wilkinson, 1998a, 1998b). Syntheses of this burgeoning literature emphasize that learner engagement and interaction in the host community are in fact dialogic and are shaped by a combination of sheer luck, individual agency and complex power dynamics related to aspects of sojourner and host social identities (Block, 2007; Kinginger, 2013; Tullock & Ortega, 2017; Wang, 2010). Scholars working from critical applied linguistic perspectives have recently called for research into the ideologies that allow unrealistic beliefs about SA to persist despite evidence to the contrary (Kubota, 2016; Surtees, 2016). Some antecedents for such an agenda are identifiable in the 190

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  191

SA literature. Critical analyses of SA discourses in guidebooks and print and online advertisements have highlighted pervasive myths, discourses and ideologies related to SA (Allen & Dupuy, 2012; Doerr, 2012; Michelson & Álvarez Valencia, 2016). Qualitative case studies employing ethnographic and narrative methods highlight how students draw on ideologies related to language, language learning and study abroad to make sense of experiences where their expectations are challenged, differences must be negotiated, and identities and ideologies are contested (e.g. Diao & Trentman, 2016; Kinginger, 2004, 2008; McGregor, 2016; Trentman & Diao, 2017; Wilkinson, 1998a, 1998b). Tullock and Ortega (2017) note that within this body of qualitative ethnographic SA research, scholars have begun to investigate SA host contexts where more than two languages or language varieties are in contact, illuminating the dynamics and outcomes of encounters between multilingual sojourners and linguistic diversity in the SA destination, which are mediated by sojourners’ and hosts’ attitudes, beliefs, ideologies and identities (Coleman, 2013; DePalma, 2015; Dervin, 2013; Shiri, 2013; Trentman, 2013). In this chapter I examine the experiences and perceptions of bi-/­ multilingual students learning the majority language in a society with a regionally co-official minoritized language, where both languages can be seen as ‘competing for hegemony in all domains’ (Pujolar, 2011: 367). The participants are students of Spanish on a US-based program in Barcelona, the cosmopolitan capital city of Catalonia, where Catalan and Spanish share co-official status, English is often drawn on as a lingua franca, burgeoning groups of immigrants speak their own languages and the norms of everyday interaction among locals, immigrants and visitors are characterized by fluid language practices. By referring to the sojourners in this study as bi-/multilingual, I acknowledge that students who go abroad to learn a language come from diverse linguistic backgrounds, exhibit varying degrees of bi-/multilingualism, and possess individualized and dynamic linguistic repertoires. Thus, the term bi-/multilingual applies to the full range of cases, including students who grew up in monolingual homes and studied Spanish as a foreign language at school, so-called heritage speakers of Spanish or other languages who grew up bilingually and sought to reacquaint themselves with their home language and study it during college, and those in either case who also have experiences of learning additional languages in formal or informal settings. By focusing on these students’ experiences, I aim to illuminate what happens when personal projects of SA are implemented in a context where multilingualism is highly salient, which confronts students with linguistic diversity and challenges their existing ideologies and beliefs regarding language, language learning and study abroad. I examine the lived experiences of seven sojourners who spent five weeks in Barcelona in a cohort of 20. I will discuss four main themes. First, students responded variably to the multilingual diversity of

192  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Barcelona and to the presence of Catalan in their Spanish SA environment, all struck by Catalan in the linguistic landscape but not all of them orienting to its salience in the aural landscape and interpersonal environment. Second, many sojourners developed implicit or explicit ideas about competing language hierarchies. Third, students expressed ambivalence about the value of English for their learning of Spanish. Many felt their English was part of ascribed tourist or foreigner identity (Kinginger, 2013) that hindered their ability to claim a Spanish speaker identity, yet many also realized that their native English conferred on them some privilege, which they became adept at exploiting to improve their social capital in the SA environment, including for learning and practicing Spanish. Lastly, students interpreted situated encounters with complex patterns of ­language use by drawing on imageries of Catalan as an obstacle, neutral or an affordance; these imageries were fluid but evolved overall for many of the students from initial reliance on familiar monolingual frames of reference (i.e. expecting Spanish-only immersion and assuming that locals expected only Catalan) toward more nuanced, locally-grounded interpretations of multilingualism in Catalonia. The Research Site: The Barcelona Study Abroad (BarSA) Program

The context of the current study is the US-based Barcelona Study Abroad (BarSA) Program, a five-week summer language program for undergraduate students which takes place in Barcelona, Spain. Such shortterm programs are increasingly popular in the USA, where over 63% of outbound sojourners opted for programs of eight weeks or less in 2015/2016 (Institute of International Education, 2017). The BarSA program has been investigated extensively for linguistic outcomes by applied linguist and program director, Cristina Sanz and her collaborators (Bryfonski & Sanz, 2018; Grey et al., 2015; Marijuan, 2015; Nagle et al., 2016; Zalbidea et al., 2017). Using quantitative methods, these researchers have found that, by the end of their five-week stay, BarSA program participants tend to demonstrate robust gains in performance on grammaticality judgment and lexical decision tasks (Grey et al., 2015), pronunciation of stop consonants (Nagle et al., 2016), processing of sentences with non-canonical word order (Marijuan, 2015), and syntactic complexity and accuracy in oral production (Zalbidea et al., 2017). Missing from this body of outcome-oriented research, however, are detailed accounts of program participants’ experiences, practices and perceptions while abroad. Furthermore, by focusing only on Spanish learning outcomes, these studies leave unanswered the question of how the multilingual realities of Barcelona shape students’ experiences abroad. In the current study, I depart from this quantitative tradition and turn a qualitative lens on the program. In doing so, I shift the focus from outcomes to learning processes.

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  193

The BarSA Program was designed to promote intensive exposure to Spanish during the short period of five weeks. This is achieved through a combination of rigorous content-based instruction, extensive fieldwork in the form of excursions and cultural activities, and twice-weekly meetings with language exchange partners. Students spend on average 28–32 hours per week engaged in these Spanish-medium programmatic activities. An additional 10 hours of homework completed in Spanish is also expected. To participate, students must meet a minimum proficiency prerequisite equivalent to six semesters of college-level Spanish. They are also required to comply with a language pledge to speak only Spanish and to minimize contact with English while abroad. Despite the monolingual pledge and intensive hours of Spanish-medium instruction and extracurricular activities, the program involves extensive and focused engagement with multilingualism in the host environment, owing to its strong emphasis on the theme of individual and cultural identity in language, politics and the arts. For example, all students must enroll in three credit-bearing content courses, which are taught by faculty from both the home and host institution. All coursework is completed entirely in Spanish. Students may choose from among four available options: bilingualism, history and politics of national identity (history), Catalan art history (art) and Spanish for business (business). In these courses, especially the bilingualism and history courses, students explore issues related to multilingualism, identity, culture and politics in the Catalan context. The bilingualism course covers psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and educational aspects of bi-/ multilingualism in Spain, the USA and Latin America. Throughout the course, topics and constructs (e.g. bilingual education, codeswitching) are illustrated using examples drawn primarily from the local context of Catalan-Spanish bilingualism. The history course covers Catalonia’s trajectory from antiquity to contemporary times, closely examining ongoing tensions with Spain, especially the growing Catalan sovereignty movement. In this context, students learn about Catalan and Spanish as symbols of national identity, historical shifts in national and regional language policies and their effects, and controversies surrounding Catalonia’s educational model of Catalan-medium instruction. In their courses, the students complete final projects designed to promote engagement with the environment and integration of in- and out-ofclass experiences. In bilingualism, students document and compare the linguistic landscapes of two places such as cities, neighborhoods or areas within the same neighborhood. In history, students consult academic and media sources and interview local students to elicit different stances regarding the Catalan independence movement. Alongside their coursework, students attend twice-weekly guided excursions within Barcelona and around Catalonia. On these excursions, students tour museums, monuments and other cultural sites, accompanied by the same local tour guide, who stresses ‘the streets are your classroom’

194  Language Learning in Study Abroad

as a motto. The excursions follow a chronological and topical order that is intended to promote students’ construction of connections between their course contents and their environment. In addition to receiving historical information about the sites that they visit, students also learn about the sociolinguistic context, and their attention is drawn to ­languages and other symbols of national identity in their surroundings. For example, on visits to museums outside of Barcelona, students are instructed to pay close attention to the visual arrangement of languages on signage. Thus, while in some respects the program upholds a traditional, monolingual approach to language learning (e.g. L1 avoidance via a language pledge), it also positions multilingualism as an affordance for cultural learning in ways that promote interaction with locals and with linguistic and other symbolic artifacts in the social environment. That is, in an interesting paradox, sojourners encounter multilingualism in general and Catalan in particular not only outside the classroom but also inside the official SA curriculum, which teaches them explicitly and enthusiastically about Catalan, though not actually teaching them Catalan, all while promoting the value of monolingual elements such as the language pledge for the sake of bi-/multilingual development. The Sociolinguistic Context: Barcelona

Barcelona is the capital city of the autonomous political community of Catalonia, within Spain and the European Union. While only Spanish (more commonly referred to in Barcelona as castellano/Castilian) is official throughout Spain, both Spanish and Catalan have been co-official in Catalonia since 1979. Catalan, like Spanish, is a Romance language. The two languages share structural similarities owing to their typological closeness and history of extensive contact. However, they are not mutually intelligible and are considered distinct languages by speakers and linguists alike. Visitors to Barcelona will encounter a sociolinguistic situation that is more complex than it initially appears. For example, in contrast to other officially bilingual autonomous communities in Spain, monolingual public signage in Catalan is common (Comajoan-Colomé & Long, 2012). This fact reflects strict language policies enacted by the Catalan regional government with the aim of restoring, supporting and extending the use of Catalan in the wake of linguistic repression of Spanish minority languages during the Franco dictatorship (1939–1975), as well as demographic shifts resulting from two waves of mass labor migration – one from the south of Spain in the mid-20th century and another from other world regions in the early 21st century (Trenchs-Parera & Newman, 2015; Woolard, 2016). According to the most recent Catalan census (Institut d’Estadistica de Catalunya [Idescat], 2013), for about half of the 6.25 million Catalan residents of age 15 or older, Spanish is the language that they learned first, identify with and use habitually, while for about 30% the same can be said of Catalan.

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  195

There are no monolingual speakers of Catalan, and people who grew up in Catalonia with Spanish or another home language are often seamlessly fluent in both Spanish and Catalan, particularly those who were brought up in the Catalan school system since the late 1980s. Catalans exhibit varying degrees of command and use of the two local languages and, increasingly, additional languages, depending on age, educational background and family origin. According to census data, 94% of Catalan residents self-report as being bilingual, particularly when it comes to understanding Catalan (as opposed to speaking, reading or writing it, where the percentages range from 61% to 82%); in addition, a significant portion of them are multilingual in that they report to speak either English (about one-third of residents) or French (about one-fifth of residents) (Idescat, 2013). Finally, as with all metropolises, Barcelona has a substantial presence of migrant languages. According to figures from the Barcelona local government in January 2017, international migrants comprise 17.8% of the population in Barcelona. Of these, most come from Europe (35.9%), followed by the Americas (31.8%), Asia (25.0%), Africa (7.1%) and Oceania (0.2%) (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2017). The fact that most residents are bilingual in Spanish and Catalan, regardless of home language, means that resources from either language may be – and often are – drawn on in communication. The everyday linguistic practices of Catalans can largely be subsumed under what is now commonly referred to as ‘translanguaging’ (Li Wei, 2018). For example, students eventually noticed and reported that a habitual public encounter exchange would start with ‘Bon dia! Cómo estás?’ / ‘Good morning!> How are you?’ Catalans routinely draw on and mobilize resources from both languages, switching between them strategically, alternating between languages depending on individual and perceived interlocutor preferences, and creatively producing new, hybrid linguistic forms to index complex multilingual identities (Pujolar, 2011; Woolard, 2016). Sociolinguists’ descriptions of language practices in Catalan society note that over their large-scale social and historical trajectories, Spanish and Catalan have accrued a variety of indexical meanings and occupy different social positions (Boix & Sanz, 2008; Pujolar, 2011; see review by Trenchs-Parera & Newman, 2015). These authors concur that language choice in Catalonia is bound to an intricate complex of sociopolitical, social class and interpersonal orientations, whereby Spanish is traditionally associated with a Spanish social and political identity, the working class and low-skilled labor, while Catalan indexes a Catalan social and political identity, the middle class and prestigious professions. These associations are by no means straightforward, however, as language and identity in Catalonia are fluid, contested and have shifted considerably in recent years (Woolard, 2016).

196  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Barcelona receives millions of international visitors each year, especially during the summer. According to estimates by the Barcelona city government, the city welcomed a record 14.5 million international tourists in 2017, the year in which data were collected for the current study (La Vanguardia, 2018, 10 January). It is also the home to shorter- and longer-term migrants, the latter having given rise to particularly sizeable communities originally from Latin America and China (see Newman et al., 2008; Trenchs-Parera, 2013). The presence of international visitors as well as shorter- and longer-term migrants influences interactional dynamics between relative newcomers and old-timers in Barcelona. Furthermore, the partially overlapping multilingual repertoires of visitors and local residents of autochthonous, Spanish migrant and transnational migrant backgrounds contribute to the linguistic complexity of the social environment and often give rise to tensions regarding the role of Catalan among other geopolitically more powerful languages, particularly English and Spanish. For example, while Catalan or Spanish may be used amongst autochthonous Catalans, whether from Catalan- or Spanish-speaking origins, Catalans tend to accommodate to Spanish and sometimes English when addressing those perceived as not Catalan (Trenchs-Parera & Newman, 2015). Method The sojourners

This study is part of a wider ethnographic and narrative research into the relationship between multilingualism and SA in the context of the BarSA Program that I carried out in the summer of 2017. In this study, I focus on students’ responses to the multilingual ecology of Barcelona. The data presented here were collected from seven focal participants who were selected from among the full sample of 19 students (16 women and three men) of 20 sojourners in that summer’s cohort who gave informed consent to participate in my research. Demographic information and pseudonyms for the key informants are provided in Table 8.1. Four students identified as straight female, two as straight male and one as gay male. In terms of ethnicity, two of the women were of Hispanic/Cuban background and came from the same home community in Miami; mixed ethnicity was reported by the other two females (both Indian-White, but with different linguistic home backgrounds) and by the gay male student (Korean-White) – and the two straight male students identified as White. In terms of linguistic backgrounds, all were bilinguals or multilinguals. Five of the participants were selected due to their having grown up in homes where they were exposed to another language besides English, including Spanish (the two Hispanic/Cuban females, Caroline and Lucia),

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  197

Table 8.1  Focal participant demographics Pseudonym

Gender/sexual identity

Ethnic identity

Other home languages

Caroline

Female/Straight

Hispanic (Cuban)

Spanish

Lucia

Female/Straight

Hispanic (Cuban)

Spanish

Samantha

Female/Straight

Mixed: Indian-White

German

Shelby

Female/Straight

Mixed: Indian-White

Hindi

David

Male/Gay

Mixed: Korean-White

Korean

Ben

Male/Straight

White

Patrick

Male/Straight

White

Other foreign languages

Portuguese

Latin, French

Hindi (Shelby), German (Samantha) and Korean (David). Lucia and David had also formally studied additional foreign languages (i.e. Portuguese and Latin and French, respectively). I also included Ben and Patrick as two participants who were raised in English monolingual families. My choice to include them (as well as David, making it all three males in the cohort) was additionally motivated by the relative lack of research on males, as opposed to females, in the SA literature (see Brown, 2013). Regardless of their home language background, all students possessed advanced knowledge of Spanish and had completed content-based university courses in this language prior to the sojourn, and none of the students had any Catalan knowledge. Data collection, analysis and design

The data presented in this study were collected from all seven participants using a questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, participant observation and written diaries. First, pre-departure, they completed an online background questionnaire and were interviewed by me either faceto-face or via Skype. Through the questionnaire and interview, I aimed to elicit information regarding their personal and academic background, language learning history and motivation for studying abroad in Barcelona. While the students were in Barcelona, I conducted participant observation during program activities and collected weekly diaries that students composed in Spanish as part of their regular program assignments. Finally, between two to seven months following students’ return, I conducted follow-up interviews, this time focusing on students’ perceptions of their experiences in Barcelona and their evaluation of various program aspects. In the present chapter, I rely mostly on interviews (e.g. Kinginger, 2008) and observational methods (e.g. Wilkinson, 1998a) over other methods for data collection that I also employed, and which have proven useful to other qualitatively minded SA researchers, such as diaries

198  Language Learning in Study Abroad

(e.g. Polanyi, 1995) and micro-analyses of interactions taking place in the SA environment (e.g. Iino, 2006). The data for the seven focal participants were analyzed thematically. To do this, I first transcribed the interviews and compiled all of the data into a common database. Second, I developed a case profile for each participant based on several readings of each participant’s experience as well as comparison across cases. Third, I isolated segments related to the topic of multilingualism in the SA environment and coded these segments thematically. Analysis Variable perceptions of the salience of Catalan in Barcelona

Six of the seven students anticipated encountering Catalan before going abroad. All of them except for Patrick had attended a pre-program orientation where the program director, a Catalan herself, informed the students about the presence of Catalan in Barcelona but also assured them that it would not be an obstacle to their language learning. She explained that while they would see and hear Catalan around them in Barcelona, they would not learn Catalan on the program and no one would speak Catalan with them, as local residents all spoke Spanish and, as a rule, used either Spanish or English with non-Catalans. Many students had learned about Catalan in other contexts as well – from relatives or friends who had visited Barcelona or in their prior Spanish classes in the USA, particularly when their instructors were from Catalonia. Thus, most students were not naive about the presence of Catalan in their SA destination. Nevertheless, as it turns out, their perceptions of situated language use in Barcelona only partially corresponded to their expectations. Upon arrival in Barcelona, the students encountered complex patterns of written and spoken language use that reflect conflicting locally circulating language ideologies and hierarchies that differentially legitimize and valorize the presence of Catalan, Spanish and other languages, especially English (Kroskrity, 2004; Woolard, 2016). Catalan was particularly salient to them in the linguistic landscape. Several months after the program’s end, all of the interviewees could describe ways in which Catalan was meaningfully present throughout the program, and most recalled their first encounter with the language on monolingual or multilingual signage or in ambient spoken language. Many indicated surprise at discovering street signs and supermarket product labels written only in Catalan, and multilingual signs and menus featuring Catalan in a more prominent position than Spanish. For instance, Patrick recalled that upon arrival, ‘I kind of expected to be able to read all the signs around me, and just like looking at the signs I was like, wait this doesn’t seem right.’ David recalled, ‘I definitely do remember seeing written Catalan all

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  199

the time.’ In his memory, Catalan predominated over Spanish in the linguistic landscape: ‘Like everything that I could see [was] in Catalan. [...] I did not see Spanish unless, like, maybe it’s like a really small indented font on the side.’ While all of the students were struck by the presence of Catalan, their perceptions of its prevalence varied widely, especially in the extent to which they reported witnessing locals interacting in Catalan. Ben and Caroline described Catalan as predominant in both the visual and aural linguistic landscape. Caroline recalled, ‘For all I know there’s thousands of people in Barcelona> who, like only interact in castellano, but I like definitely got the vibe that everybody was speaking in Catalan.’ Meanwhile the other five students reported rarely encountering Catalan. This variation in students’ perceptions of Catalan seemed to relate to differences in students’ pre-departure beliefs (Surtees, 2016; Zaykovskaya et al., 2017), their activities while abroad, and the degree and nature of their engagement with the multilingual environment. For instance, Ben and Caroline expressed concerns about Catalans’ willingness to speak Spanish owing to comments made to them before departure by friends from other parts of Spain. In post-sojourn narratives about routine interactions with locals in service encounters, both of them described being acutely aware of which language their interlocutors used with other customers. Patrick, who did not attend the pre-departure orientation and had never heard of Catalan before the program, was less attuned to its presence before departure. In the post-sojourn interview, most of the meaningful experiences and interactions that he described were situated in environments geared more toward international tourists than locals and where Catalan was likely less prevalent than English and Spanish. He also explicitly acknowledged that he might have overlooked Catalan ‘just ’cause it’s a language I don’t know.’ Keen awareness of language hierarchies within multilingualism

While the students’ comments above refer to the general predominance of Catalan in the linguistic environment and to the variable salience of Catalan speakers, many sojourners’ reflections suggested that they were implicitly or explicitly aware of competing language ideologies and hierarchies (Woolard, 2016). For instance, students commented that Catalan seemed more predominant in the smaller cities and towns that they visited on program-led excursions than it was in Barcelona. Some noted variation in patterns of language use in different social spheres. Lucia recalled that at the university, Catalan was the sole language on most signage, the primary language in which local students interacted and the default language of the web platform which the US students used to access their course materials. In her observations both during and after the program, she commented on

200  Language Learning in Study Abroad

the predominance of Catalan in ‘residential’ areas and ‘local’ establishments and associated the preferential use of Spanish and English with ‘touristy’ places: Es interesante notar que en los restaurantes y los lugares más turísticos el orden de idiomas es mayormente castellano, inglés y catalán mientras que en las áreas más residenciales el catalán es siempre primero. It’s interesting to note that in restaurants and more touristy places the order of languages is usually Castilian, English and Catalan while in more residential areas Catalan is always first. (Diary 1)

David detected a mismatch between the foregrounding of Catalan in written signage in public spaces, and its backgrounding in everyday spoken interaction, where he observed service personnel using Catalan with one another as they interacted with clients in Spanish and English. Drawing on his bilingualism class lessons, he attributed the subordination of Spanish to Catalan in the linguistic landscape to regional language policies regulating Catalan use on public signage. Meanwhile, he concluded that locals reserved Catalan for informal situations and preferred to use Spanish or English in formal and professional settings. Catalan speakers would likely contest this latter assumption, as Catalan and not Spanish, has traditionally been associated with professional advantages and social mobility in Catalonia (Frekko, 2013). Nevertheless, David’s observation of a disconnect between monolingual language policies favoring Catalan and locals’ everyday multilingual practices resonates with scholarly observations about the sociolinguistic situation in 21st century Catalonia (Woolard & Frekko, 2013). Other languages in the environment apart from Catalan and Spanish were also acknowledged by the students, including the Spanish regional minoritized languages, Basque and Galician, as well as other prominent world languages, such as Arabic, English, French, German, Hindi, Italian, Korean, Chinese, Portuguese, Tagalog and Urdu. Students encountered these various languages on signage and menus and in the linguistic repertoires of individuals of diverse national and ethnic backgrounds with whom they interacted while in Barcelona, often long-term immigrants. Of the many languages noticed besides Spanish and Catalan, English was particularly salient in comments. All students commented on the frequency of English translations on signage, restaurant menus and museum brochures, and that employees of these establishments often spoke English. Lucia commented that whenever she went to dinner with her peers, ‘They would always like give us the menus in English and we would try to be like, no, we want to read in Spanish-, or in castellano.’ And David remarked that the ultimate measure of students’ Spanish development abroad was ‘whether or not they achieved the part where people stopped responding to them in English.’ Thus, it did not escape their

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  201

attention that English held the status of global lingua franca, used in interactions between locals and international visitors who did not speak Catalan or Spanish and was assumed to be the preferred language of the US students. Ambivalence about English

Kinginger (2010) notes that globalization has augmented the availability of English in SA settings, making it necessary for US sojourners to emphasize their identities as language learners in order to get access to the target language. Some of the students struggled to claim identities as learners and speakers of Spanish when interacting with locals outside the structured program activities, particularly early on in the journey. Many such interactions occurred in the context of service encounters such as ordering food at a restaurant or purchasing groceries at the supermarket. They described numerous instances where locals would respond to them in English or hand them English-language menus or brochures. Many students, such as Samantha, associated such behaviors with being ascribed a tourist identity: It happened in a lot of stores on the Rambla because they’re so used to dealing with tourists that […] if you don’t look Spanish and you don’t look like you know what you’re doing, [...] they won’t even like say hi to you in Spanish, so they’ll just start speaking to you in English. (Postsojourn interview)

Samantha and her peers found it difficult to contest imposed tourist and other foreigner identities (Kinginger, 2013) and complained that their interlocutors would often persist in English, even after they expressed their intention to speak Spanish. Caroline believed such persistence was driven by locals’ desire for expediency: ‘I just think they think it’s more efficient if they speak to us in English, so that way they don’t have to worry about us understanding or misunderstanding.’ Ideological tensions surrounding language choice were also felt in interactions with other cohort members, with whom the students spent a great portion of their time. Echoing accounts of sojourners in other SA contexts (e.g. Pellegrino Aveni, 2005; Wilkinson, 1998b), the students reported a general propensity to default to English, which conflicted with their desire to practice Spanish. All of the focal participants expressed positive attitudes toward the language pledge both before and after the program and considered it to be an important and necessary reminder to resist this temptation for the sake of improving their Spanish. For Samantha, struggling through awkward conversations in Spanish early on in the journey resulted in a ‘weird bond’ among cohort members. Lucia appreciated the language pledge whenever she was in public with her

202  Language Learning in Study Abroad

peers, because speaking in Spanish kept them from being pinpointed as ‘the really annoying Americans’ who were ‘obnoxiously speaking English all the time.’ Ben and Shelby both lamented that other students on the program often violated the language pledge whenever no members of the program staff were around to enforce it. However, all of the students, including Ben and Shelby, admitted that they sometimes used English covertly with their peers in stressful or time-sensitive situations or when they simply became tired of speaking Spanish. Some also resorted to English with visiting relatives and friends and with other international travelers who did not speak Spanish. English is increasingly regarded as a highly valued commodity in the global linguistic market (Cameron, 2012), and this is felt strongly in Spain and Catalonia (Lasagabaster, 2017). While students commented on their native English as a potential obstacle to being able to use their Spanish, many also came to realize that English held a certain prestige in the eyes of their hosts and that their assumed perfect native speaking competence in English conferred on them some privilege, which they became adept at exploiting to improve their social capital in the SA environment. For example, David recalled multiple interactions in service encounters where his interlocutors oriented to him as a language expert, such as when he taught a grateful Ecuadorian taxi driver how to realize the t in little as a flap, rather than a hard t. Also, while some students expressed concern that their required biweekly meetings with language exchange partners (intercambios) felt forced owing to a lack of linguistic reciprocity (i.e. the exchanges were carried out only in Spanish, rather than half in Spanish and half in English), others such as Lucia reported that they learned to leverage their native English competence without necessarily violating the language pledge: The students from Barcelona […] very much liked that we spoke English, because, like, while the conversation was always in Spanish, they would ask us questions like, oh how do you pronounce this in English? and like, you can still help them out on that, […] you can explain in Spanish, […] but the phrase is in English. (Post-sojourn interview)

In some sojourners’ accounts, certain locals seemed to value English over Spanish as a more widely used and politically ‘neutral’ global language. In the post-sojourn interview, Lucia recalled her surprise at hearing this view articulated by some of the local language exchange partners: ‘I remember like talking to people in intercambios and them saying [university students] prefer Catalan and then they prefer English and then Spanish, which I thought was interesting, like amongst younger people.’ Even more unexpectedly, she said, this view was shared by some students whose families were not from Catalonia originally and whose home language was Spanish:

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  203

Like they don’t have […] necessarily a preference towards it, but like on the campus, like as both a political statement but also cause like Catalan is like, for them the most used and like part of their identity, and then English for them was like the like global language. (Post-sojourn interview)

Occasionally, what a student would see as locals’ persistent use of English led to troubling ambiguities. In the following excerpt, Ben describes a situation where a restaurant server’s persistent use of English with him and two of his program peers and her use of Catalan with other customers led him to consider two alternative conclusions: either she was assuming they preferred English because they were Americans, or she was unable or unwilling to use Spanish: I ordered in Spanish and she responded in English, and then I think it was like oh, this is the American table, we’re gonna speak to them in like English, and then I HEARD her actually speaking in Catalan to the next table, so I was like, okay, so I’m not sure of this, because this is not something that I can tell you definitely, but like I feel like her two things were either English or Catalan. It didn’t really seem to be Spanish and Catalan, at least in my experience, but then again, that could have just been because we were Americans and she recognized that immediately, but maybe not, you know? (Post-sojourn interview) Orienting and reorienting to Catalan, or resisting it

The students’ discovery of unexpected language hierarchies and the ambivalent value of English interacted with their learning about the complexities of the Catalan sociopolitical context, where pro-independence sentiment has been gaining momentum among Catalan residents for nearly a decade (Woolard, 2016). Many of the students expressed initial shock regarding the apparent strength of the independence movement. In their classes, they learned about the sociohistorical background underlying the Catalan conflict. They also learned to identify and understand the meaning of various symbols associated with Catalan nationalism, such as the Catalan flag (i.e. la senyera) and various versions of the pro-­independence flag (i.e. l’estelada). The specific timing of the program intensified this learning, as it took place just months before the highly controversial October 1st referendum on Catalan independence. Despite being declared illegal by the Spanish government, over 2.3 million of 5.3 million registered voters would participate with over 92% of them casting a ‘yes’ vote. Thus, during this particular summer while the students were abroad, Catalan and pro-independence flags and symbols hung from thousands of balconies throughout the city and region, vastly outnumbering Spanish flags and other pro-union symbols. On their excursions within Barcelona and around Catalonia, too, the program staff encouraged students to pay

204  Language Learning in Study Abroad

attention to these symbols as well as the hierarchical arrangement of the languages on signage in restaurants and museums in order to gauge national identities and the relative strength of the pro-independence sentiment in different areas of the city and the region. As Kinginger (2008) shows, sociopolitical conditions in the SA host environment can significantly impact students’ interpretations of intercultural encounters and their language learning investments. Students’ growing awareness of the sociopolitical conflict combined with their sense of themselves as temporary visitors and thus outsiders led them to reflect critically on the implications of their interlocutors’ patterns of language use as well as on their own projects of learning and using Spanish in Catalonia. This influenced their attitudes towards the role of Catalan in their SA experience, which can be summarized according to three main orientations: Catalan as an obstacle, Catalan as neutral and Catalan as an affordance. Students drew on these orientations to make sense of situations where they encountered complex patterns of language use. These orientations seemed to be in flux for all participants at least part of the time, and overall, they evolved from initial shock to more embracing attitudes over the five-week sojourn. In some situations, Catalan was oriented to as an obstacle to acculturation and to having friendly and equitable interactions with the locals. Ben, who had wished for a monolingual immersion experience, sensed that locals expected visitors to Catalonia to learn Catalan and thus regarded negotiating a language switch from Catalan to Spanish as ‘uncomfortable’ for all parties. Ben recalled several instances where local interlocutors addressed him in Catalan and responded with what he perceived as hostility when he said that he did not speak Catalan. Patrick viewed the use of Catalan as key in an episode of perceived intense exclusion at a restaurant in Barcelona, where ‘everyone around us was just speaking in Catalan and the menus were only in Catalan, […] so it almost felt kind of like an inside circle.’ As he and his friends waited to be seated, two ladies approached them, said something in Catalan, and appeared to cut in line. Looking back on this experience, Patrick said, ‘I think they knew that we didn’t understand it and just kind of took advantage of that.’ Caroline, a heritage speaker of Spanish with roots in Northern Spain, said that locals sometimes addressed her in Catalan and felt that her inability to respond in kind identified her as an outsider. She recalled several situations in which this left her feeling flustered and momentarily speechless such as when a supermarket clerk addressed her in Catalan while trying to explain how to weigh her produce. In other situations, Catalan was oriented to as neutral. For example, students commented that even in locales such as restaurants and museums where Catalan seemed to take precedence, Spanish translations (e.g. menus, brochures) were always available upon request. Most students reported that on the rare occasions when someone addressed them in

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  205

Catalan, this was easily resolved by continuing confidently in Spanish. Shelby, like Ben and Caroline, was warned by a relative who visited Barcelona while studying abroad that people there would insist on Catalan or English and refuse to speak Spanish. She was pleasantly surprised to find that ‘everyone got really excited when I spoke Spanish, actually.’ She said during the post-sojourn interview that she was neither interested in nor bothered by the presence of Catalan and simply ignored the language wherever she was confronted with it. In contrast, however, some took an interest in Catalan and came to view it as an affordance for cultural learning, as indicated in the following comment by Samantha: Seeing what parts of society are labeled in which language where is just really interesting. How the natives also alternate between the two languages is also something that can’t be fully appreciated without being there. (Post-sojourn follow-up)

While the presence of Catalan initially caused feelings of ambivalence for all the sojourners, most of them could resolve the resulting tension by modifying their beliefs and/or behaviors (Surtees, 2016). Over time, many students shifted from relying on familiar monolingual frames of reference (i.e. expecting Spanish-only immersion and assuming that locals expected only Catalan) toward more nuanced, locally grounded interpretations of multilingualism in Catalonia, and increased their agency in negotiating among new Spanish-mediated and multilingual identities. Occasionally, this involved picking up some Catalan. Catalan learning was most notable in Samantha and David, who specifically attributed their decision to sign up for the BarSA Program in part to their interest in the Catalan language and its role in the Catalan sovereignty movement, which they had learned about in their university Spanish courses. Samantha, one of the Indian-White female students, found that her olive complexion and European style of dress enabled her to pass visibly as a local. She described multiple occasions of being addressed in by someone mistaking her for a local. Initially, she said, ‘It got frustrating when it would take me a second to recognize that someone was speaking Catalan and not castellano, especially when they were talking directly to me.’ She reported that learning to distinguish between the two languages helped her navigate smooth transitions from Catalan to Spanish. David felt that his Korean-White ethnic identity, along with his inability to use Catalan, marked him as an outsider visibly and linguistically. Early in the sojourn, David felt that some locals treated him badly because of his race. However, this view seemed to soften over the five weeks as he observed and interacted with well-assimilated Barcelona residents from immigrant backgrounds and diverse ethnicities. He noticed that many of them mobilized resources from both Catalan and Spanish (and sometimes other

206  Language Learning in Study Abroad

languages), to authenticate their place identities as Barcelona residents. The fluid, multilingual practices of Catalans of immigrant and autochthonous backgrounds resonated with his positive experiences of multilingualism at home growing up. Eventually, as he gained confidence in Spanish, he began opening interactions with ‘Bon dia, no sé catalán, pero…’ (‘Good morning>, I don’t know Catalan, but…>). This elicited warm reactions and praise from locals, including one waitress who responded by buying him a drink. He thus came to see Catalan as a tool for negotiating race and indexing a ‘good visitor’ identity as a learner of Spanish who recognized and respected Catalan culture. Not all students incorporated bits of Catalan into their multilingual repertoires. Some resisted doing so. This was most visible in Ben, who believed that Catalans expected foreign visitors to use Catalan. En route to an excursion at the end of Week 1, the local tour guide prepared the students for the site that they would be visiting. Her comments included a sociolinguistic description of the location. She explained that the site, a relatively isolated rural community, had experienced far less contact with Spanish than Barcelona and other urban centers in Catalonia. She taught the students how to say hello, goodbye and thank you in Catalan and suggested that they might use these expressions to impress locals. Several months after the program ended, Ben voiced fierce opposition to this strategy. His reluctance to use Catalan stemmed mostly from his belief that exposure to Catalan (and any other language) would interfere with his acquisition of Spanish. Throughout and beyond the program, Ben persisted in his orientation to Catalan as an obstacle, saying he probably would have done better somewhere like Madrid, because ‘People just value Spanish a lot more in places where it’s monolingual.’ It is worth noting that for Samantha and David, race and ethnicity contributed to initial experiences which contrasted with one another but resulted in a similar tension, which they drew on Catalan to resolve in satisfactory but different ways. Ultimately, they both seemed to share not only an interest in culture and history, but also a sensitivity to a broad range of possible benefits of SA and language learning, such as gaining in-depth and firsthand knowledge of a society and its people, which perhaps stemmed from their multilingual and multicultural upbringing. Ben, on the other hand, seemed only attuned to SA as Spanish-only immersion, which he understood within a monolingual mindset. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have aimed to illuminate what happens when students encounter a SA destination where multilingualism is not only salient but also highly politicized. The triangulated analysis of the seven focal participants’ pre- and post-sojourn interviews, written diaries and my field notes during participant observation revealed that by confronting

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  207

sojourners with linguistic diversity, multilingual SA experiences can challenge their existing ideologies and beliefs regarding language, language learning, and SA (Surtees, 2016). In the present study, encountering multilingualism led to a number of personal discoveries. SA contexts afford encounters with linguistic diversity, including new accents (e.g. Knouse, 2013), registers (e.g. Bacon, 2002), regional vernaculars (e.g. Shiri, 2013), minoritized languages (e.g. DePalma, 2015) and global languages (e.g. Dervin, 2013). The students in the current study quickly detected various languages other than the target language, Spanish, in the linguistic environment. These included Catalan, the coofficial minoritized language, and English as a global lingua franca. It is a well-attested in the qualitative SA literature that sojourners often hold unrealistic expectations that are challenged by the realities that they encounter abroad, and that this necessitates the recalibration of beliefs and strategic action (Block, 2007; Surtees, 2016). The multilingualism of the host context was, to a certain degree, anticipated by the students, who had been prepared to encounter Catalan in particular. Nevertheless, students’ comments (and reports of comments made to them by others before departure) reflect pervasive monolingual assumptions about SA (Tullock & Ortega, 2017), which were challenged by the multilingual reality that they encountered. A more surprising discovery for the students appears to have been that languages are not randomly present in Barcelona but relate to one another in hierarchies. Students eventually became aware of the complexities of these hierarchies by engaging with and navigating their environment. In situated encounters with hosts, students found Spanish was sometimes subordinated to English, a fact which was related to the status of English as a global lingua franca, their imperfect knowledge of Spanish, their identities as native speakers of English and their role as temporary international visitors to the city. Similar dynamics have been reported in other studies, such as Trentman (2013) for US and European students of Arabic in Egypt, who reported that their access to out-of-class Arabic practice was limited by interlocutors’ tendency to switch to English. DePalma (2015) reports that for a multinational cohort of students learning Galician, a minoritized language, in Vigo, Spain, students found the predominance of Spanish over Galician to be greater than they expected and felt that their interlocutors’ tendency to switch to Spanish as a lingua franca limited their opportunities to practice Galician. A further surprising discovery was the disputed value of various languages according to geopolitical contexts, subgroups and individual identities. Students learned that using and learning a particular language in a particular SA context can enact strong sociopolitical orientations (Diao & Trentman, 2016; Trentman & Diao, 2017). This related especially to Spanish and Catalan and problematized students’ investments in learning and using Spanish in Barcelona. DePalma (2015) notes that the students

208  Language Learning in Study Abroad

in Galicia discovered that the use of Galician was related to sociopolitical motivation and that some of the more successful students were able to create ‘contexts for micro-immersion’ (DePalma, 2015: 430) in Galician by seeking out the company of highly patriotic individuals. The experiences uncovered for the seven sojourners in this study demonstrate that encountering societal multilingualism in a new context, such as SA, fuels numerous discoveries of multilingualism, language diversity and the politics of language choice. In order to develop a fuller account of the possibilities afforded by encounters between sojourners and societal multilingualism in the SA environment, it will be important to examine this phenomenon in other SA host sites and with other program types. Nevertheless, by examining the nuances of one particular sociolinguistic and programmatic context, the present study offers insights that can be highlighted as a contribution to knowledge about SA. First, the findings suggest that encountering multilingualism in the SA linguistic environment gives rise to tensions that are not dissimilar across individual sojourners, but which have multiple possible resolutions. Multilingual SA contexts are not static or shared by all participants; rather, they depend on students’ use of expectations, investments and ideologies to interpret and navigate their environment. Students vary in how they engage with the multilingual environment, and multilingualism can be construed as an obstacle for some, neutral for others, and an affordance for a few. Such heterogeneity in attitudes and ideologies is visible in other SA studies where sojourners exhibit a mixture of positive and negative orientations toward linguistic diversity and multilingualism in the host environment (e.g. Fernández, 2013; Jing-Schmidt et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2017). In this study in particular, students’ responses to Catalan ranged from embracing and using it, to seeing it as an obstacle, to barely noticing it at all. This variation seemed to relate to multiple factors, including sojourners’ backgrounds, identities, investments, ideologies and activities while abroad. Sensing the social capital potentially afforded by identification as an English native speaker or an international visitor with some Catalan knowledge, some students translanguaged through their Spanish, English and newly emerging Catalan repertoires in ways that that enhanced their engagement and hence their access to learning opportunities. This resonates with the findings of Dewey and his colleagues (2013) that US learners of Arabic in Jordan exploited English to gain access to local social networks. The findings of this study also indicate that learners’ interaction with the multilingual context is mediated by program type and design, which has implications for SA program design. In the current study the BarSA program scaffolded students’ interaction with multilingualism in the SA environment by orienting them to relevant aspects of the sociopolitical context in their coursework, prompting them to attend to patterns of language use ‘in the wild’, and providing opportunities for sharing and

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  209

reflecting on their observations. This may have caused them to notice more than they would have in the absence of such interventions. Thus, SA program designers may wish to consider carefully how multilingualism in the SA host site will be included into the official curriculum and ensure there are opportunities for supporting students so that they are better equipped to notice and negotiate multilingual affordances outside the classroom. Likewise, in the current study engagement with Catalan in the environment was mostly optional, and structured program activities such as the weekly exchange sessions in Spanish aimed to compensate for any lack of access to Spanish that students may have experienced. If students had been on a semester-long direct enrollment program where they were taking classes alongside local university students, their experiences might have been quite different. For example, they might have found more engagement with Catalan was necessary. Therefore, when designing SA programs in multilingual sites, the parameter of program length may in itself call for a need to rethink how the curriculum addresses sojourners’ language learning projects. The present study suggests that when sojourners are able to integrate their project of language learning with the multilingual environment as they experience it, this may result in the espousal of more multilingual identities, ideologies and learning trajectories. For some, however, strong investment in a monolingual immersion experience may lead them to resist contact with all languages besides the one they set out to learn, ultimately leading them to disappointment in the SA experience, and perhaps fostering more monolingual identities, ideologies and learning projects as a result. Nevertheless, this study calls into question the traditional monolingual approach to language learning in SA, which regards language use as a zero-sum game and hence advocates strict avoidance of non-target languages. On the contrary, this study shows that the values and affordances of languages are in fact ambivalent, construed variably as obstacles or affordances over time and space by any given learner. References Allen, H.W. and Dupuy, B. (2012) Study abroad, foreign language use, and the communities standard. Foreign Language Annals 45, 468–493. Ajuntament de Barcelona (2017) Informes Estadístics: La Població Estrangera a Barcelona. Retrieved July 29, 2018 from http://www.bcn.cat/estadistica/catala/dades/ inf/pobest/pobest17/pobest17.pdf. Bacon, S.M. (2002) Learning the rules: Language development and cultural adjustment during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 35, 637–646. Boix-Fuster, E. and Sanz, C. (2008) Language and identity in Catalonia. In M. NiñoMurcia and J. Rothman (eds) Bilingualism and Identity: Spanish at the Crossroads with Other Languages (pp. 37–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Block, D. (2007) Second Language Identities. London: Continuum. Brown, L. (2013) Identity and honorifics use in Korean study abroad. In C. Kinginger (ed.) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad (pp. 269–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

210  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Bryfonski, L. and Sanz, C. (2018) Opportunities for corrective feedback during study abroad: A mixed methods approach. The Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 38, 1–32. Cameron, D. (2012) English as a global commodity. In T. Nevalainen and E.C. Traugott (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp. 352–361). New York: Oxford University Press. Coleman, J.A. (2013) Researching whole people and whole lives. In C. Kinginger (ed.) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Comajoan-Colomé, L. and Long, E. (2012) The linguistic landscape of three streets in Barcelona: Patterns of language visibility in public space. In D. Gorter, H.F. Marten and L. Van Mensel (eds) Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape (pp. 183– 203). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DePalma, R. (2015) Learning a minoritized language in a majority language context: Student agency and the creation of micro-immersion contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 18, 426–442. Dervin, F. (2013) Politics of identification in the use of lingua francas in student mobility to Finland and France. In C. Kinginger (ed.) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad (pp. 101–125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dewey, D.P., Belnap, R.K. and Hillstrom, R. (2013) Social network development, language use, and language acquisition during study abroad: Arabic language learners’ perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 22, 84–110. Diao, W. and Trentman, E. (2016) Politicizing study abroad: Learning Arabic in Egypt and Mandarin in China. L2 Journal 8, 31–50. Doerr, N.M. (2012) Study abroad as ‘adventure’: Globalist construction of host–home hierarchy and governed adventurer subjects. Critical Discourse Studies 9, 257–268. Fernández, J. (2013) A corpus-based study of vague language use by learners of Spanish in a study abroad context. In C. Kinginger (ed.) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad (pp. 299–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Freed, B.F., Segalowitz, N. and Dewey, D.P. (2004) Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 275–301. Frekko, S.E. (2013) Legitimacy and social class in Catalan language education for adults. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16, 164–176. García-Amaya, L. (2017) Detailing L1 and L2 use in study-abroad research: Data from the daily linguistic questionnaire. System 71, 60–72. Grey, S., Cox, J.G., Serafini, E.J. and Sanz, C. (2015) The role of individual differences in the study abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language development during shortterm intensive language exposure. The Modern Language Journal 99, 137–157. Iino, M. (2006) Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward a two-way flow of linguistic and cultural resources. In M.A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds) Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 151–176). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Institut d’Estadística de Catalunya (Idescat) (2013) Enquesta d’usos lingüístics de la població. Retrieved May 12, 2019 from http://www.idescat.cat/pub/?id=eulp. Institute of International Education (2017) Open doors data. Retrieved July 28, 2018 from https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data/US-Study-Abroad. Jackson, J. (2008) Language, Identity, and Study Abroad: Sociocultural Perspectives. London: Equinox. Jackson, J. (2010) Intercultural Journeys: From Study to Residence Abroad. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jing-Schmidt, Z., Chen, J-Y. and Zhang, Z. (2016) Identity development in the ancestral homeland: A Chinese heritage perspective. The Modern Language Journal 100, 797–812.

Encountering Multilingualism in Study Abroad  211

Kubota, R. (2016) The social imaginary of study abroad: Complexities and contradictions. The Language Learning Journal 44, 347–357. Kinginger, C. (2004) Alice doesn’t live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity (re)construction. In A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge (eds) Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts (pp. 219–242). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kinginger, C. (2008) Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. The Modern Language Journal 92, 1–124. Kinginger, C. (2010) American students abroad: Negotiation of difference? Language Teaching 43, 216–227. Kinginger, C. (2013) Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 46, 339–358. Knouse, S.M. (2013) The acquisition of dialectal phonemes in a study abroad context: The case of the Castilian theta. Foreign Language Annals 45, 512–542. Kroskrity (2004) Language ideologies. In A. Duranti (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 496–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell. La Vanguardia (2018, 10 January). Ayuntamiento calcula que Barcelona recibió 14,5 millones de turistas en 2017. Retrieved May 31, 2019 from http://www.lavanguardia. com/politica/20180110/434201717970/ayuntamiento-calcula-que-barcelona-recibio145-millones-de-turistas-en-2017.html. Lasagabaster, D. (2017) Language learning motivation and language attitudes in multilingual Spain from an international perspective. The Modern Language Journal 101, 583–596. Li Wei (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39, 9–30. Marijuan, S.S. (2015) El(la) mapping: An integrated account of learning context, feedback and agreement morphology in the processing of OclVS sentences in advanced L2 Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. McGregor, J. (2016) ‘I thought that when I was in Germany, I would speak just German’: Language learning and desire in twenty-first century study abroad. L2 Journal 8, 12–30. Michelson, K. and Alvarez Valencia, J.A. (2016) Study abroad: Tourism or education? A multimodal social semiotic analysis of institutional discourses of a promotional website. Discourse & Communication 10, 235–256. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N. and McManus, K. (2017) Anglophone Students Abroad: Identity, Social Relationships, and Language Learning. New York: Taylor & Francis. Nagle, C., Morales-Front, A., Moorman, C. and Sanz, C. (2016) Improvements in pronunciation during a short study abroad program. In D.M. Velliaris and D. ColemanGeorge (eds) Handbook of Research on Study Abroad Programs and Outbound Mobility (pp. 673–695). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Newman, M., Trenchs-Parera, M. and Ng, S. (2008) Normalizing bilingualism: The effects of the Catalonian linguistic normalization policy one generation after. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12, 306–333. Pellegrino Aveni, V.A. (2005) Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polanyi, L. (1995) Language learning and living abroad: Stories from the field. In B.F. Freed (ed.) Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pujolar, J. (2011) Catalan-Spanish language contact in social interaction. In L. Payrató and J-M. Cots (eds) The Pragmatics of Catalan (pp. 361–385). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Shiri, S. (2013) Learners’ attitudes toward regional dialects and destination preferences in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 46, 565–587.

212  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Surtees, V. (2016) Beliefs about language learning in study abroad: Advocating for a language ideology approach. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 27, 85–103. Talburt, S. and Stewart, M.A. (1999) What’s the subject of study abroad? Race, gender, and living culture. The Modern Language Journal 83, 163–175. Trenchs-Parera, M. (2013) Les vivències sociolingüístiques i el multilingüisme dels joves d’origen xinès a Catalunya. Articles de Didàctica de la Llengua i de la Literatura 60, 28–39. Trenchs-Parera, M. and Newman, M. (2015) Language policies, ideologies, and attitudes. Part 2: International immigration, globalization, and the future of Catalan. Language and Linguistic Compass 9, 491–501. Trentman, E. (2013) Arabic and English during study abroad in Cairo, Egypt: Issues of access and use. The Modern Language Journal 97, 457–473. Trentman, E. and Diao, W. (2017) The American gaze east: Discourses and destinations of US study abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 2, 175–205. Tullock, B. and Ortega, L. (2017) Fluency and multilingualism in study abroad: Lessons from a scoping review. System 71, 7–21. Wang, C. (2010) Toward a second language socialization perspective: Issues in study abroad research. Foreign Language Annals 43, 50–63. Wilkinson, S. (1998a) On the nature of immersion during study abroad: Some participant perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 4, 121–138. Wilkinson, S. (1998b) Study abroad from the participants’ perspective: A challenge to common beliefs. Foreign Language Annals 31, 23–39. Woolard, K.A. (2016)  Singular and Plural: Ideologies of Linguistic Authority in 21st Century Catalonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woolard, K. and Frekko, S.E. (2013) Catalan in the twenty-first century: Romantic publics and cosmopolitan communities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16, 129–137. Zalbidea, J., Issa, B., Faretta-Studenberg, M. and Sanz, C. (2017) Prior L2 experience and grammatical development during short-term study abroad: A comparative study of intermediate and advanced learners. American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL) Conference, Portland, OR, March 2017. Zaykovskaya, I., Rawal, H. and De Costa, P.I. (2017) Learner beliefs for successful study abroad experience: A case study. System 71, 113–121.

9 Research on Language Learning during Study Abroad: What Next? Lourdes Ortega

Introduction

As an educational experience, the activity of studying abroad during the college years has witnessed exponential expansion in countries like the USA and Europe, reflecting a wider trend for international mobility for education purposes across the globe (https://migrationdataportal.org/ themes/international-students). As a research domain, publications on language learning during study abroad have seen commensurate steep growth as well. For example, Tullock and Ortega (2017) uncovered 401 titles between 1995 and 2017, nearly 50% of them published between the years 2010 and 2017 alone. The present collection takes the field of study abroad for language learning into the future of this research domain with two novel steps: (1) by demonstrating the strengths of qualitative investigations; and (2) by advocating for a radically multilingual and translingual approach to understanding the affordances that study abroad makes available to language learners. The book is a most welcome addition that contributes to strengthening both research efforts. In these remarks, written with the benefit of having read all chapters attentively, I would like to reflect on just four themes that have captured my keen attention for the value they add to our ongoing understandings about the workings of studying a language abroad, and for the promise they hold for future research on language learning during study abroad. The Role of Place in Learning Language while Abroad

The first theme that struck me as relatively new in the book is that where study abroad happens can be singularly important because place – and (im)mobilities across places – affects, materially and symbolically, language learning. The present collection offers a kaleidoscope of studies inquiring into study abroad across a wealth of geopolitical contexts. 213

214  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Three studies, by McGregor (Chapter 3), Quan (Chapter 7) and Tullock (Chapter 8), focus on the experiences of Global-North speakers of English enrolled for their regular college degrees in the USA and sojourning in a European location: in various cities in Germany (McGregor, Chapter 3), in Córdoba, southern Spain (Quan, Chapter 7) and in Barcelona, Catalonia (Tullock, Chapter 8). Four more studies by Anya (Chapter 2), Trentman (Chapter 4), Diao (Chapter 5) and Brown (Chapter 6) illuminate Global North to Global South or West to East flows in study abroad. These chapters are also about multilingual sojourners who are first-language or dominant-language speakers of English, if not all from the USA at least all enrolled for their regular college degrees in the USA. They experience their language learning sojourns abroad in very different places associated with less-commonly taught languages: Amman in Jordan and Muscat in Oman (Trentman, Chapter 4), Beijing in China (Diao, Chapter 5), Salvador de Bahia in Brazil (Anya, Chapter 2) and Seoul in Korea (Brown, Chapter 6). Finally, the chapter by Thomas (Chapter 1) contrasts with all others in giving readers a unique peak into study abroad happening within the Global South, when a group of students from Ghana, in western Africa, engage in a study abroad stay to learn Swahili in Tanzania, in eastern Africa. The sense of place that readers will gather from Thomas’s study is surely the most strikingly unique in the book, as the Ghana–Tanzania nexus for language learning during study abroad may be unfamiliar to Western readers. But it is sobering to think that, if in 2017 there were 5.3 million international students worldwide, about 10% of them were from Africa (https://migrationdataportal.org/themes/international-students). This raw number of 530,000 greatly surpasses the raw numbers of international students contributed by the USA, which in 2017 was about 340,000 (https://www.nafsa.org/policy-and-advocacy/policy-resources/ trends-us-study-abroad). Thomas offers a remarkable account of a teacher’s humility and openness to fluid translingual practices, for example, when she tells her Ghanaian students: ‘I am learning English from you. You learn Kiswahili from me’ (Thomas, this volume: 28). One is tempted to wonder if this attitude by the teacher may not be an affordance of place; that is, of multilingual Africa. Be that as it may, Thomas does not directly tackle negotiation of place in her study, simply because the main focus is elsewhere: how the Tanzanian teacher orchestrates exposure for her Ghanaian students not just to Swahili, but to Swahili storytelling ­practices that, through guided repetition and choral co-construction of narratives, socialize them into East African values, ideologies, and cultural practices that will become relevant to Tanzanian society. A similar relative agnosticism towards place can be seen in McGregor’s study, just because once again the research focus is elsewhere: on peer interactions and how they help learners enact translingual practices even amidst the monoglossic ideologies and expectations that contradicted them.

What Next in Study Abroad Research  215

In other studies in the book, place emerges as a shaper of the educational experience of study abroad and of the project of personal transformation that language learning during study abroad experiences is often found to be. This is perhaps clearest in the two chapters by Anya (Chapter 2) and Tullock (Chapter 8) and, more secondarily, in the two chapters by Diao (Chapter 5) and Brown (Chapter 6). In the case of Anya, because Salvador de Bahia is an Afro-Brazilian city (with 84% of 3 million inhabitants being Black), it afforded 22-year old Leti a new space to learn to be Black, different from and more reaffirming than the spaces she was familiar with from her Dominican Republic family background and her northern US Atlantic coast upbringing. In the case of Tullock, quite differently, Barcelona itself was experienced by the seven focal US sojourners in the study as undeniably multilingual, forcing each student to confront their own multilingualism with new eyes, in a journey of placedriven multilingual becoming – or place-driven multilingual denial, in the case of Ben. Among Tullock’s focal participants, Ben was the only one who grew increasingly reluctant to use Catalan in the belief that it would interfere with and worsen his Spanish, to the point of rejecting Barcelona and idealizing Madrid, because ‘People just value Spanish a lot more in places where it’s monolingual’ (Tullock, this volume: 206). In the case of Diao, place emerges as important, if subtly so, because Mae and Zolton’s affluent lifestyle allured them to the international Chaoyang District in Beijing, and in this neighborhood they could frequent bars and shops where English is more spoken than not. Indirectly resonating with Diao’s study, in his chapter, Brown also locates some of the frustration felt by Grace at not being able to prevail with her Korean in places in the city of Seoul that are highly touristic and thus English-filled, such as the shopping district of Myeongdong (see Lee, 2019). Studies of place and language tell us that many megalopolis can be described as multilingual in inequitable, hybrid ways. Diverse research documents this well, for example, for Beijing (Pan, 2010) as much as for other megalopolis in the Global South (Stroud & Mpendukana, 2009) and the Global North (Lou, 2012). An additional insight about place in language learning during study abroad in this collection has to do less with identity renegotiation and more with ideological transformation. Namely, the more visibly multilingual and diverse the place, the greater the opportunity for students to unlearn the one-language-one-nation ideology, or to learn to decouple nation from culture from ethnicity/race from language. This decoupling was the ideological learning that Bella and Juan achieved in their sojourns in Jordan and Oman, respectively, in Trentman’s study (see Chapter 4). As Trentman points out, the engagement with places where language diversity is at the fingertips helps sojourners unlearn to equate language with national maps. This ideological process of decoupling and undoing of learned nationalistic and raciolinguistic ideologies has a potential salutary

216  Language Learning in Study Abroad

effect, although as Tullock (see Chapter 8) observed this will not be necessarily so for all students. Much of this ideological unlearning and new learning will be fostered by exposure to linguistic diversity of all kinds, afforded by the place of sojourn. This exposure will not only invite for fissures of nationalistic and homogenizing ideas of the language being learned but it will also drive the expansion of sojourners’ multilingual repertoires. In previous research, for example, Diao (2017) traced the interesting case of Hasan, a young man born in the USA to a Middle Eastern family, who discovers the social indexical meanings attached in Chinese society to standard Putongua pronunciation, which is rewarded and celebrated, versus Sichuan dialect pronunciation, which is stigmatized and derided. He eventually made the deeply personal choice to reaffirm his Sichuan pronunciation, learned from a beloved nanny growing up, despite the awareness that this would attract linguicism from others. As in Diao’s study of Hasan, other study abroad research supports the claim that the place of the sojourn plays a central role in the development of metalinguistic awareness and in the learning of socially meaningful variation related to not only geography, but also other social markers of identity such as age (among sojourners and their conversation partners, Al Masaeed, 2020), gender (for females from the US deciding whether to sound feminine in Japanese, Ohara, 2001) and class or occupation (for Erasmus college students versus au pairs, Magliacane & Howard, 2019). Race is All-Important in Understanding Study Abroad

A second theme was striking as well as salient in my reading of the research gathered in this collection: that race (and/or ethnicity) is allimportant in understanding the emic experience of learning language while studying abroad and in theorizing study abroad findings. Race itself rises to the fore in many of the chapters, whether the sojourners investigated are youth of color or White youth. And while it seems fair to conclude from the studies in this collection that race always matters in learning language during study abroad, it must be recognized that it does not always matter in the same ways. Moreover, study abroad can spawn positive as well as negative renegotiations of racialized identities by language learners. For sojourners of color with a lifetime of experiences of racialization and racism, a sojourn to a markedly non-White Global South geography can be greatly liberating. For Leti (Chapter 2), her own Black womanhood became a source of enjoyment, celebration, and positive reaffirmation. Indeed, being a Black Dominican person in Brazil was completely different from her experience in Italy, where she always was saliently racialized as different and made uncomfortable – an observation that harks back to the importance of place in understanding study abroad for language

What Next in Study Abroad Research  217

learning. The consequences of Leti’s reaffirming experiences of her racialized identity in Brazil are far-reaching. For example, they create an opportunity for realignment in Leti’s intimate relations to family members, as she becomes much closer to her mom and her belligerent advocacy of Black issues. For Maria (Chapter 7), too, it is liberating to discover that being Mexican-American is not stigmatized by local Spaniards in Córdoba, unlike in her own country (‘en mi propio país’) in the USA. But Maria also feels that her hybrid ethnolinguistic identity as Latina is not understood well, and she learns to accommodate this non-understanding in her newfound explanations of who she is: ‘For now, when people ask, I say I am American but my parents are from Mexico. That’s how I explain my identity to Spaniards and other non-Americans I meet’ (Quan, this volume: 180). When other non-White sojourners are occasionally or regularly able to blend in with locals, this is found to be supportive of experiences of validation and ‘normalization’ of one’s race/ethnicity. Samantha, one of the Indian-White female students shadowed during the five weeks in Barcelona (Chapter 8), found that her embodied identity clues – darker complexion, European taste for dressing – helped her blend in and often pass for local. Conversely, when White sojourners experience racialized expectations for their language use, often for the first time, perceived incongruences between how one looks and how one sounds can lead to feelings of disempowerment. Brown’s recount of Grace powerfully shows this. As White and female, 21-year-old Grace is constrained in her negotiations of access to Korean by the tight connection that Korean society makes between language and ethnolinguistic national identity, and which equates Korean language with Koreanness and English with Caucasian foreigners. This is despite other very favorable conditions that Grace is able to enjoy, related to six months of stay in Seoul with advanced proficiency and already established friendships, including a long-term intimate relationship with her Korean-American boyfriend, whose family in Seoul accepts her into the familial circle. A source of aggravation for Grace was to realize that her Korean-American peer Chloe, despite her lower actual proficiency in Korean, was treated as a more legitimate speaker of the language than she was. The mapping of language and race is so ideologically strong that Grace remembered several times when she had spoken in (perfectly competent) Korean, but her interlocutor had ‘heard’ English: ‘In one instance, when attempting to alert an employee at a café that the café’s dog was trying to escape, Grace’s Korean utterance was met with ‘oh no, sorry, I don’t speak any English’ (Brown, this volume: 158). Grace did agentively craft strategies to find ways around these racialized responses and expectations, and in the end she prevailed in her quest to use Korean and translanguage in Korean as she wanted. But she had to work hard to circumvent the constraints she felt as a consequence of the dominant mapping of language and race.

218  Language Learning in Study Abroad

The Social Exclusions of Study Abroad

A third theme I would like to submit comes not from what I read, but rather from what I did not find, or did not find enough of, in the present collection: we should not lose sight of the fact that the project of studying abroad for language learning is an elite activity reserved for a minority of the college population – in the USA, more specifically, study abroad is reserved to fewer than 10% of all undergraduates (Engel, 2017). Moreover, typically, the students who can afford to become sojourners are White and middle to upper-middle class, most majoring in the humanities, social sciences or business. In fact, only a quarter of those who go abroad in US colleges identify as racial or ethnic minorities (Engel, 2017). Thus, applied linguists, and scholars of language learning during study abroad among them, should not underestimate the impact of remaining silent on the social bias inherent in this research domain. To be sure, the racial disparity in access to and participation in study abroad programs is part of the larger picture of barriers to higher education for racialized and minoritized youth. For example, in 2015 about 46% of White students attained a 4-year college degree, but only 29% of African Americans completed post-high school degrees or certificates and only 21% of Latinx minorities attained any educational degree beyond high school (Lumina Foundation, 2019). It is felicitous, therefore, that the field is beginning to generate studies of the experiences of minoritized students while learning language abroad, as several of the chapters in this book offer. The social selectivity involved in studying (and not studying) abroad goes well beyond race and ethnicity, however. If one thinks of college students who are minoritized because of a physical or cognitive disability, only 8.8% of all study-abroad students have disclosed a disability to their home institutions, an unrepresentative percentage considering that 11% of all undergraduate students in postsecondary degree-granting institutions have a disclosed disability (Johnstone & Edwards, 2019). Among the minority college populations that will likely miss on study abroad experiences, and on the benefits for language learning that are by now so well studied for privileged college youth, are students from families with lower socioeconomic status. They are markedly absent from study abroad as an educational activity. Universities have not been oblivious to these barriers, and Engel (2017) lists several strategies that are being applied, including: the Gilman Scholarship Program to Study Abroad launched in 2001 by the Department of Education and open to US citizen undergraduate students who are receiving Federal Pell grants; the application of federal loans toward study abroad; and faculty-led p ­ rograms that are specifically aimed at low-income and first generation students of color. It seems to me, nevertheless, that language educators and applied linguists are still reticent to grapple with the wealth inequities embedded in

What Next in Study Abroad Research  219

(and reinforced by) education in general, and study abroad educational programs, in particular. I know of some German scholarship that has examined the wealth and class barriers to study abroad in that country (Lörz et al., 2016). But few US-based publications come to mind since the publication, many years ago now, of Kinginger’s (2004) singularly celebrated and oft-cited study of Alice, a working-class college student who found in the study of French a space to reconstruct herself and create new life prospects for a more desirable future, and who managed to participate and wilfully negotiated study abroad as a context for language learning with life-transformative consequences. In this volume, Diao (Chapter 5) charts how while abroad Mae and Zolton perform a lifestyle of affluence learned from their upbringing in transnational families of expats, and how this lifestyle cuts into their ability to achieve the language learning affordances they expected of their study abroad sojourn in China. Hong Kong born, Chinese-White mixed heritage Mae and Hungary born, White cosmopolitan Zolton shared their elite multilingualism, but little more, in the details of their lives before studying abroad. Yet, they both experienced pulls away from improving their Chinese – their official goal in their intensive stay in Beijing. For one, their leisure activities took them to spaces in the city of Beijing where English was more spoken than not. Their investments for job hunting in the corporate world, particularly for Zolton, also consumed much time in events that called for English rather than Mandarin use. Moreover, subtle power and wealth gaps with the officially assigned Chinese roommates resulted in limited access to local social networks for both Mae and Zolton, and to more English and less Chinese spoken with their peers. The focus on classed experiences during study abroad by Diao is a rare exception in the literature, and a welcome stone that will hopefully serve to pave the way to more energetic investigation of the multiple exclusions that function in study abroad, specifically illuminating the relationship between class identity and the project of language learning through study abroad. Raciolinguistics, Intersectionality and Embodied Habitus

The fourth theme is in fact a reflection I would like to put forth, in response to the following question: what theoretical frameworks might be useful in the future, as qualitative researchers of language learning during study abroad continue to generate knowledge about sojourners and their experiences? As already discussed, the present collection offers powerful, diverse evidence that in study abroad one cannot lose sight of one undeniable fact: language learning is shaped by the superposition of complex language hierarchies onto insidious racial hierarchies (or pigmentocracies, a term that Anya uses in Chapter 2, coined by Chilean anthropologist

220  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Alejandro Lipschutz in 1944 and followed by many Latin Americanists). I therefore believe that most if not all of the present authors would agree with me that an ideal theoretical framework that can help move the research forward is raciolinguistics, which has received increasingly theorized attention in applied linguistics with the work of Flores and Rosa (2015), among others. Given that the activities and experiences of study abroad must be considered highly racialized, a raciolinguistic lens onto negotiations of the social construction of race during study abroad holds great promise for making sense of the affordances of sojourns for language learning. In addition, I would argue that it will be necessary in the future to complement raciolinguistics with frameworks that focus more explicitly on intersectionality. Intersectionality was a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. At the time, she opened up a new argument that perhaps today seems obvious to many of us: that Black women cannot be understood in their life experiences and identities by simply separately considering what it means to Black and what it means to be female, and then additively assume we have understood the issues. Instead, it is in the interactions between the two identities, which complicate both, that we must understand Black womanhood. Since then, the imperative to consider multiple intersectionalities has taken ground across research fields in the humanities and social sciences. For language learning during study abroad research, it is poignantly relevant to consider the complex intersectionalities among social identity categories such as class, gender, sexuality, religion and disability. In addition, we need to consider historical and ongoing experiences of colonization and decolonization in a variety of geopolitical contexts, which have to do with place and time, as well as the aspiration to decoloniality, the liberation of the mind-body-world from the inheritance (material, symbolic) of past colonialization, which thus have to do with material wealth and symbolic power (Narayan, 2019). These are all elements of identity that are in constant interplay, fusion, and contestation ‘for all subjects and all communities’ regardless of the distributions of privilege and oppression that they may have struggled with (Narayan, 2019: 1227). Under an intersectionality lens, not only race/ethnicity (i.e. socially attributed skin color), class (i.e. wealth, e.g. household income, education, expected labor market experience) and gender and sexuality (binary and non-binary, normative and non-normative), but also place (e.g. urban or rural upbringings, Global South/North or East/West affiliations) matter – all of them in inextricable combination. And indeed intersectionality has been for long now the preferred theoretical framework to explain a number of social phenomena in Brazil (Kopkin & Mitchell-Walthour, 2020) as well as in other Latin American contexts (Telles et al., 2015), but also in uncountable other geographies all over the globe, including Global North contexts that attract large-scale immigration from the Global South (e.g.

What Next in Study Abroad Research  221

megalopolis such as Stockholm and Barcelona; Hellgren, 2019). That race and ethnicity are socially constructed and inextricably co-indexed with many other dimensions of one’s identity is made quite clear by Anya in her chronicle of Leti’s self-redefinition of Black womanhood (see Chapter 2) and by Quan in her story of the discoveries Mexican-American Maria made in her sojourn in Córdoba, Spain (see Chapter 7). In turn, Diao in Chapter 5, highlights the workings of classed identities and wealth inequities in shaping the language learning affordances of studying abroad. Together with raciolinguistics and intersectionality, a complementary theoretical notion that would serve well in future study abroad for language learning research is embodied habitus, invoked by Quan in Chapter 7. It refers to ways of being in the world that are shaped by socially meaningful (visible, audible) cues to someone’s race, gender, sexuality, ability and so on. The notion blends Bourdieu’s well-known sociological construct of habitus, or lasting but not deterministic dispositions towards thinking, feeling and acting that are guided by accumulated social histories (see Maton, 2012), with interest in embodiment among sociolinguists and anthropologists (Bucholtz & Hall, 2016) and increasingly also among some second language acquisition researchers (Block, 2014). I predict that language learning during study abroad research can make unique theoretical contributions that would benefit other domains of study related to language and learning if researchers examined dynamics of raciolinguistics, intersectionality and embodied habitus when these are co-constructed, negotiated, resisted, disputed and reclaimed by both guests and hosts in their more fleeting or more enduring encounters. Coming Full Circle: Translanguaging

One of the most intriguing and provocative ideas in this collection is the collective suggestion across chapters that translanguaging (García, 2019; Li Wei, 2018) is a natural behavior that all people, including all language students and language learning sojourners, potentially engage in. Three finer related observations emerge from this insight. First, the naturalness and unavoidability of translanguaging holds even in the face of simultaneously held monolingual ideologies and expectations. Second, some students may be better off at translanguaging from the beginning because of their experiences in families and communities that were multilingual growing up. And third, with increased proficiency translanguaging can become more sophisticated and effective, much as we now know that codeswitching is a staple of highly skilled bilingual behavior. All three observations about translanguaging offer promising directions for future research. Undoubtedly, we need more qualitative-interpretive work on the ideologies and practices that translanguaging ends up either challenging or supporting, and the forces and processes of learning that are either unleashed or blocked by translanguaging. The patient

222  Language Learning in Study Abroad

cobbling of such a knowledge base is bound to provide a more robust ground on which to propose and develop pedagogies that support successful practices of translanguaging in the classroom, which all authors in this collection view as beneficial in the personal and institutional projects of language learning – including during study abroad. It will be interesting to see how qualitative researchers of language learning will tackle the complex matter of gleaning evidence of development of translanguaging as multilinguals become increasingly more dexterous in their social practices with language. Concluding: Language Learning through Study Abroad in Times of Pandemic Unrest?

The global pandemic known as COVID-19 erupted into our lives in the early months of 2020, as the present book was being finished. The pandemic has meant international travel and mobility has ground to a halt, and with it the possibility of study abroad during college for many students. A crisis of the ideal of global citizenship that has been embraced in narratives of cosmopolitan education and language education seems inevitable and may shake researchers as much as it has shaken sojourners who had to interrupt their stays and return to their home universities in a hurry. Painfully, but perhaps for the better, the pandemic has also put a spotlight on systemic inequities that seem to point at the common root of racism. As we trade into the second decade of the 21st century, new forms of language learning while not abroad may have to be invented – or perhaps language learning will have to be enriched through the imagination of abroad places that we hope will be reachable again in the not too distant future. Ultimately, however, we can expect continued growth in study abroad as an educational experience and in language learning during study abroad as a research domain. The expectation is fully justified by the vibrancy of (both neoliberal and critical) discourses of internationalization, globalization and transnationalism that aspire to provide lasting justification for the contemporary project of language learning during college life worldwide. We desperately need these and any other justifications at a time when English can be often construed as the only language needed, by elite and by disenfranchised communities alike, and much more so now that the colossal global health crisis of COVID-19 threatens to make the world much less traveled and each community much more inwardly fueled by one-nation-one-language sentiments than ever before. I consider the authors of this collection to be the contemporary leading voices of qualitative, multilingual and critical research into language learning during study abroad. I look forward to seeing how their research programs evolve in the coming years, in response to the present crisis and beyond.

What Next in Study Abroad Research  223

References Al Masaeed, K. (2020) Translanguaging in L2 Arabic study abroad: Beyond monolingual practices in institutional talk. Modern Language Journal 104, 250–266. Block, D. (2014) Moving beyond ‘lingualism’: Multilingual embodiment and multimodality in SLA. In S. May (ed.) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education (pp. 54–77). New York: Routledge. Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2016) Embodied sociolinguistics. In N. Coupland (ed.) Language, Markets and Materiality (pp. 173–198). New York: Cambridge University Press. Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum art 7, 139–167. Diao, W. (2017) Between the standard and non-standard: Accent and identity among transnational Mandarin speakers studying abroad in China. System 71, 87–101. Engel, L. (2017) Underrepresented students in US study abroad: Investigating impacts. See https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Publications/Underrepresented-Studentsand-Study-Abroad (accessed November 17, 2020). Flores, N. and Rosa, J. (2015) Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review 85, 149–171. García, O. (2019) Translanguaging: A coda to the code? Classroom Discourse 10 (3–4), 369–373. Hellgren, Z. (2019) Class, race – and place: Immigrants’ self-perceptions on inclusion, belonging and opportunities in Stockholm and Barcelona. Ethnic and Racial Studies 42, 2084–2102. Johnstone, C. and Edwards, P. (2019) Accommodations, accessibility, and culture: Increasing access to study abroad for students with disabilities. Journal of Studies in International Education 24, 424–439. Kinginger, C. (2004) Alice doesn’t live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity reconstruction. In A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge (eds) Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts (pp. 219–242). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kopkin, N. and Mitchell-Walthour, G. (2020) Color discrimination, occupational prestige, and skin color in Brazil. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies 15, 44–69. Lee, J.S. (2019) Multilingual advertising in the linguistic landscape of Seoul. World Englishes 38, 500–518. Li Wei (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39, 9–30. Lipschutz, A. (1944) El Indoamericanismo y el Problema Racial en las Américas. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Nascimento. Lörz, M., Netz, N. and Quast, H. (2016) Why do students from underprivileged families less often intend to study abroad? Higher Education 72, 153–174. Lou, J.J. (2012) Chinatown in Washington, DC: The bilingual landscape. World Englishes 31 (1), 34–47. Lumina Foundation (2019) A stronger nation 2017 report. See https://www.luminafoundation.org/e3946454-cd89-4a53-ba5a-4b9adff8d957 (accessed November 17, 2020). Magliacane, A. and Howard, M. (2019) The role of learner status in the acquisition of pragmatic markers during study abroad: The use of ‘like’ in L2 English. Journal of Pragmatics 146, 72–86. Maton, K. (2012) Habitus. In M.J. Grenfell (ed.) Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts (2nd edn, pp. 48–64). New York: Routledge. Narayan, Y. (2019) Intersectionality, nationalisms, biocoloniality. Ethnic and Racial Studies 42, 1225–1244.

224  Language Learning in Study Abroad

Ohara, Y. (2001) Finding one’s voice in Japanese: A study of pitch levels of L2 users. In A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller and M. Teutsch-Dwyer (eds) Muiltilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender (pp. 231–254). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pan, L. (2010) Dissecting multilingual Beijing: The space and scale of vernacular globalization. Visual Communication 9, 67–90. Stroud, C. and Mpendukana, S. (2009) Towards a material ethnography of linguistic landscape: Multilingualism, mobility and space in a South African township. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13, 363–386. Telles, E., Flores, R.D. and Urrea-Giraldo, F. (2015) Pigmentocracies: Educational inequality, skin color and census ethnoracial identification in eight Latin American countries. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 40, 39–58. Tullock, B. and Ortega, L. (2017) Fluency and multilingualism in study abroad: Lessons from a scoping review. System 71, 7–21.

Index Note: References in italics are to figures, those in bold to tables; ‘n’ refers to chapter notes.

activity theory 146, 147, 147–148 African Americans 46, 65 African exchange 4 multilingualism and ideology 17–20 study abroad: creating ‘global citizens’ 16–17 African Issues (journal of African Studies Association) 17 Afro-Dominican-American woman learning Portuguese in Brazil 4, 43–44 data and analysis 48–51, 50 findings 51–64 marshaling resources 51–52 sense of place 215, 216–217 social identities 44, 45–46, 48–49, 49 speaking familiar/foreign Blackness 53–64, 57, 65–66, 216–217 study participant and location 47–48 theoretical background 44–47 translanguaging spaces 45–46, 49, 56, 62 concluding thoughts and implications for practice 64–67 Ahearn, L.M. 148, 160 Akan/Twi 19, 20, 30–34 Al Masaeed, K. 216 Anya, U. 48, 67, 101, 125 Anyidoho, Akosua 19 applied linguistics 72 Arabic study abroad 4–5 expectations 97–101, 103–105 mapping language to social function 105–110, 108, 109, 208 method 101–103, 103 multilingual identities and emotional expression 110–114 plurilingualism 98, 100, 101, 110, 111–112, 113, 114, 115–117 results 103–114 sense of place 215–216

translanguaging 99–100, 105–114, 115, 116–117 discussion 114–117 Arievitch, I. 148 authenticity 77–78 Barcelona see multilingualism in study abroad (Barcelona) Beaudrie, S.M. 171 Bellamy, C. 16 bilingualism 172 Blackness 53–66, 67 Block, D. 121, 175 Blommaert, J. 19, 38n4 Bourdieu, P. 134, 172, 221 Brazil see Afro-Dominican-American woman learning Portuguese in Brazil Brower, Lowell 25–26 Brown, L. 148 Cameroon 27 Canagarajah, S. 75 Capps, L. 27 Carrasco, R. 175 Catalan see multilingualism in study abroad (Barcelona) Cenoz, J. 66 China: language use, class and study abroad 5, 121–123 background 125–127 class identity 121, 122, 125–127, 219 data collection 130 English as lingua franca in residential/leisure spaces 133–135 English in transnational corporate workplace 131–133 findings 130–138 global elites 122–123 immersion programs 121–122 participants 129–130

225

226  Index

China: language use, class and study abroad (continued) pedagogical implications 140–141 research context 127–129 researcher 129 sense of place 215 socio-economic segregation 128 theoretical framework 123–124 translanguaging in dorm rooms 135–138 discussion 138–141 class identity see China: language use, class and study abroad codeswitching 45, 79, 99 Coffman, J.E. 16 Correia, M. 15 Council of Europe 66 COVID-19 222 Crenshaw, K. 220 critical multilingualism research 2, 10 critical translingual competence 173–174 Dakubu, M.E. Kropp 19 Darvin, R. 126 De Palma, R. 207–208 Dedoose 176 Dewey, D.P. et al. 208 Diao, W. 98, 126, 164, 216 Dzahene-Quarshie, J. 20 Engel, L. 218 Engeström, Y. 146, 147, 147, 148, 153 English, status of 123–124 ethnicity see race and ethnicity Ewe 19 face-threatening moments 80, 82, 85, 91, 92, 93 Fairclough, M. 171 Fernández, J. 78 Flores, N. 220 Ga 19 The Gambia 17 García, O. 45, 75, 172 Gates Tapia, A.M. 78 Gearing, N. 150–151 gender and sexuality 44–45 Genung, P. 148, 164

George, A. 175 Germany: barriers to study abroad 219 see also L2 learning peer interactions Ghana ‘global citizens’ 16 language 19 teaching of Swahili 15, 19, 20 Ghanaian multilinguals on study abroad in Tanzania: Swahili 4, 20–22 Akan/Twi enters the crosslinguistic space 30–34 Anansesem is also a story of lies 34–36 ethnographic vignettes 22–36 language profiles 21 multilanguage classroom 13–16 re-establishing crosslinguistic awareness 27–30 sense of place 214 story as monolingual cultural activity 22–27, 24 conclusion: ethnolinguistic ideologies and storytelling 36–37 global citizenship 16–17, 222 global elites see China: language use, class and study abroad Gore, J.E. 97 Gorter, G. 66 Guan languages 19 habitus 134, 172, 173, 183, 184, 221 Hao, J. 121 Hausa 19 Heller, M. 6, 76 Henriques, E. 43 heritage languages 67n3 heritage speakers of Spanish 5, 170–171 critical translingual competence 173–174 Maria 171, 176–182, 217 methodology 176–177 pedagogical implications 183 race and ethnicity 179–180, 217 study abroad 174–176 theoretical framework 171–174 translanguaging 171–3, 176–177, 181, 182, 183 discussion 182–183 conclusion 184–185

Language Learning in Study Abroad  227

Hoffman-González, A. 175 Howard, M. 216 Huffmaster, M. 100 identity 6, 44, 220 Igbo 14 Iino, M. 164 immersion programs 76, 121–122 immersive interaction 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 66 indexicality 48 inherited languages 44, 67n3 intersectionality 220–221 Isabelli-García, C. 145, 146 Jing-Schmidt, Z. et al. 175 Kanno, Y. 125–126 Kenya: Swahili 25 Kim, J. 159 Kinginger, C. 74, 126, 175, 201, 204, 219 Knight, J. 16 Korea 5, 145–146 activity theory 146, 147, 147–148 data presentation 154–163 English language ideologies 151–152 friends and acquaintances 156–157 Korean language ideologies 149–151 Korean society at large 157–159 language usage in study abroad 149 race and ethnicity 217 research design 152–154 sense of place 215 temporal development of activity system 159–163 university relationships 154–155 discussion 163–165 conclusion 166 Kramsch, C. 100 L2 learning peer interactions 72–73 authenticity 77–78 Bisa and Flora 82–88 data analysis 81 data collection 79–80 L2 learning and multilingualism abroad 75–76 overlooked and undervalued 73–75 reflexive researcher 80 results 81–90 Sophie, Tucker and Mo 88–90

study methods 78–9, 79 discussion and conclusion 91–93, 214 language acquisition 44, 98, 99 language competence 99 language ideologies 2, 3, 7, 31, 76, 98–99 language inheritance 67n3 language pledges 121–122 languaging 74 Lantolf, J. 147, 148, 153, 164 Leander, K.M. 148, 161 Leeman, J. 170, 173 Leont’ev, A. 148 Leung, C. et al. 67n3 Levine, G.S. 100 Li Wei 45, 46, 124, 172, 184 linguistic repertoires of individuals 2 Lipshutz, A. 220 Lo, A. 159 Lompscher, J. 148 Lüdi, G. 99 McElhinny, B. 6 Magliacane, A. 216 Makalela, L. 18, 37, 100 Makoni, S. 17 Marijuan, S. 170 Meinhof, U. 17 MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages 75 monolingualism 1, 3, 44, 45 bias in SLA 44, 45, 76 language ideologies 2, 3, 7, 31, 76, 98 multiple monolingualisms 76 monolingualism in study abroad 1, 2, 3–4, 10, 76, 149 story as monolingual cultural activity 22–27, 24 see also Arabic study abroad; China: language use, class and study abroad Moore, L. 27 Moreno, K.H. 174 Mori, J. 14, 100–101, 124–125, 149, 164 multilingual approaches to study abroad 3–4, 65–66 future research possibilities 7–8 pedagogical implications 9–11 rethinking multilingual realities 4–5

228  Index

multilingual identity negotiation 6–7, 44, 65–66 Blackness 53–66, 67 multilingual turn 77, 93, 98 multilingualism 1–2, 10, 45, 98–99, 123–125 multilingualism in study abroad (Barcelona) 190–192 ambivalence about English 201–203 analysis 198–206 awareness of language hierarchies 199–201 Barcelona Study Abroad (BarSA) Program 191, 192–194 expectations and realities 97–101 orienting to/resisting Catalan 203–206 perceptions of salience of Catalan 198–199 race and ethnicity 179–180 sense of place 215, 216 sociolinguistic context 194–196 study method 196–198, 197 conclusion 206–209 Myers-Scotton, C. 38n4 Nalkur, P.G. 25 Narayan, Y. 220 narrative inquiry 153 Nigeria: Yoruba language curriculum 14 Nkrumah, Kwame 19 Norton, B. 126 Nyerere, Julius 18 Ochs, E. 27 Ohara, Y. 216 Orientalism 98 Ortega, L. 101, 149, 191, 213 Otheguy, R. 172 Park, J. 151 Pavlenko, A. 153 pedagogical implications 9–11, 140–141, 183 Philp, J. et al. 73–74 place: role of in language study abroad 213–216 plurilingualism 66, 98–99 Arabic study abroad 98, 100, 101, 110, 111–112, 113, 114, 115–117

Portuguese see Afro-DominicanAmerican woman learning Portuguese in Brazil; heritage speakers of Spanish Potowski, K. 124 Pujolar, J. 191 Py, B. 199 Quan, T. 67 race and ethnicity 44, 216–217, 218, 220–221 Barcelona 179–80 Blackness 53–66, 67 Brazil 47–48 heritage speakers of Spanish 179–180, 217 Korea 217 raciolinguistics 219–220 research: what next? 7–8, 213 race is all-important 216–217, 218 raciolinguistics, intersectionality and embodied habitus 219–221 role of place in learning language while abroad 213–216 social exclusions of study abroad 218–219 in times of pandemic unrest? 222 translanguaging 221–222 Riegelhaupt, F. 175 Roger, P. 150–151 Rosa, J. 174, 183, 220 Sanuth, K.K. 14, 100–101, 124–125, 149, 164 Sanz, C. 170 School for International Training (SIT) 16 Second Language Acquisition (SLA) 44, 98 Senkoro, F.E.M.K. 26 Serafini, E.J. 173 Shively, R.L. 146 social exclusions of study abroad 218–219 social identities 44, 45–46, 48–49, 49 social justice 10 societal multilingualism 124 Spanish see heritage speakers of Spanish; multilingualism in study abroad (Barcelona)

Language Learning in Study Abroad  229

Stetsensko, A. 148 storytelling see Ghanaian multilinguals on study abroad in Tanzania: Swahili Surtees, V. 74 Suzuki, W. 74 Swahili 18 in Ghana 15, 19, 20 Tanzania 14, 18–19, 25–26 see also Ghanaian multilinguals on study abroad in Tanzania Swahiliphones 37 Swain, M. 74 Tanzania multilingual language classroom 13–16 Swahili 14, 18–19, 25–26 see also Ghanaian multilinguals on study abroad in Tanzania Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) 98 Thailand local language endangerment 14–15 storytelling 36 Thorne, S. 147 Tossa, W. 36 Train, R.W. 164 translanguaging 7, 8, 9, 98, 99, 221–222 Arabic study abroad 5, 99–100, 105–114, 115, 116–117 in Barcelona 195 in Brazil 45–46, 49, 52, 56, 62 concept 75–76, 124, 171–173 in dorm rooms in China 135–138 face-threatening moments 80, 82, 85, 91, 92, 93

heritage speakers of Spanish 171–173, 176–177, 181, 182, 183 learning peers 81–82, 91 as transformative space 172–173 translingual competence 173–174 Trentman, E. 79, 98, 207 Tsai, M.H. 74 Tullock, B. 101, 149, 191, 213 Twi 19 US study abroad 219 Gilman Scholarship Program 218 see also Afro-Dominican-American woman learning Portuguese in Brazil; Arabic study abroad; China: language use, class and study abroad; heritage speakers of Spanish; Korea; L2 learning peer interactions; multilingualism in study abroad (Barcelona) Valdés, G. et al. 172 Vandrick, S. 139 Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) 93 Vygotsky, L.A. 156 Watson, I. 150 Weinberg, A. 16 Wilkinson, S. 79, 92 Williams, C. 185n2 Willis, T. 67 Woldegiorgis, E.T. 16 Yoruba 14 Zentella, A.C. 183 Zimbabwe: local language endangerment 14–15