Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.801-828
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2020
Received 29 Oct 2020 Revised 20 Nov 2020 Accepted 15 Dec 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.20..202012.801

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Language Ideologies in ESL Class and International Students’ Critical Language Awareness

Jung Sook Kim
Daegu University


Copyright 2020 KASELL
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Although diversity is promoted on campuses, international students in higher education have been negatively perceived in terms of their cultural and linguistic difference. The ambivalence of diversity discourse merits a more nuanced exploration of ideologies that entail various forms of discrimination and inequality. Informed by critical discourse studies, this article investigates the manifestation of raciolinguistic ideologies in an English as a second language classroom at a university and illuminates how those ideologies influence international students’ identities. The findings of this study relate to moments of discursive conflict involving the use of a discursive device, language disclaimer. The language disclaimer represents a critical juncture at which the subtle workings of raciolinguistic ideologies are made visible by the international students’ critical language awareness of those ideologies. This article highlights the students’ critical reflexivity and the discursive strategies they deployed for identity negotiation in opposition to dominant ideologies. In doing so, it aims to challenge and change the raciolinguistic ideologies permeating all layers of society.

Keywords:

language ideologies, critical language awareness, critical discourse analysis, language disclaimer, identity negotiation

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A5B8070580).

References

  • Achugar, M. 2015. Theme: Critical language awareness approaches in the Americas: Theoretical principles, pedagogical practices and distribution of intellectual labor. Linguistics and Education 32, 1–4. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.07.003]
  • Alim, H. S. 2005. Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting issues and revising pedagogies in a resegregated society. Educational Researcher 34(7), 24–31. [https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034007024]
  • Alim, H. S. 2007. Critical hip-hop language pedagogies: Combat, consciousness, and the cultural politics and communication. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 6(2), 161–176. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15348450701341378]
  • Allport, G. W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Ashavskaya, E. 2015. International teaching assistants’ experiences in the U.S. classrooms: Implications for practice. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 15(2), 56–69. [https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i2.12947]
  • Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. (M. Holquist, Ed., M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
  • Barker, M. 1981. The New Racism: Conservatives and the Ideology of the Tribe. London: Junction Books.
  • Blackledge, A. 2005. Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.15]
  • Chen, Y.-W. 2014. “Are you an immigrant?”: Identity-based critical reflections of teaching intercultural communication. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 138, 5–16. [https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20092]
  • Chiang, S.-Y. 2016. “Is this what you’re talking about?”: Identity negotiation in international teaching assistants’ instructional interactions with U.S. college students. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 15(2), 114–128. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2016.1137726]
  • Chiang, S-Y. 2019. Instructional authority and instructional discourse. In S. S. Looney and S. Bhallas, eds., A Transdisciplinary Approach to International Teaching Assistants: Perspective from Applied Linguistics, 63-81. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788925556-005]
  • Chouliaraki, L. and N. Fairclough. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Chun, C. W. 2016. Addressing racialized multicultural discourses in an EAP textbook: Working toward a critical pedagogies approach. TESOL Quarterly 50(1), 109–131 [https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.216]
  • Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
  • Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London, UK: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078]
  • Flores, N and J. Rosa. 2015. Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review 85(2), 149-171. [https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149]
  • Gorsuch, G. 2012. International teaching assistants’ experiences in educational cultures and their teaching beliefs. TESL-EJ 16(1), 1–26.
  • Greenbank, P. 2003. The role of values in educational research: The case for reflexivity. British Educational Research Journal 29(6), 791–801. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000137303]
  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
  • Hatch, J. A. 2002. Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Difference in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Holliday, A. 2017. Native-speakerism. In J. I. Liontas, ed., The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. John Wiley & Sons. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0027]
  • Hornberger, N. H. and D. C. Johnson 2007. Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly 41(3), 509-532. [https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00083.x]
  • Hymes, D. H. 1974. Ways of speaking. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer, eds., Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, 433–451. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611810.029]
  • Jenkins, J. 1998. Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language? ELT Journal 52, 119–126. [https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.2.119]
  • Kang, O. and M. Moran. 2019. Enhancing communication between ITAs and US undergraduate students. In S. S. Looney and S. Bhallas, eds., A Transdisciplinary Approach to International Teaching Assistants: Perspective from Applied Linguistics, 82-99, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788925556-006]
  • Kerschbaum, S. L. 2014. Toward a New Rhetoric of Difference. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
  • Kim, J. 2017. Translingual identities of international graduate students and monoglossic language ideologies in a U.S. university ESL classroom. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 33(3), 3–31. [https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2017.9.33.3.3]
  • Kim, J. 2020a. Discursive construction of otherness: A critical discourse analysis of news media representations of international students. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 28(2), 65-93 [https://doi.org/10.14353/sjk.2020.28.2.03]
  • Kim, J. 2020b. The diversity discourse and language ideologies around international teaching assistants. Critical Discourse Studies 17(4), 412-428. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1661860]
  • Kim, J. and E. Richardson. 2018. Transnational students and language use. In S. Nero and J. Liontas, eds., TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. John Wiley & Son. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0301]
  • Kubota, R. 2002. Marginality as an asset: Toward a counter-hegemonic pedagogy for diversity. In L. Vargas, ed., Women Faculty of Color in the White Classroom: Narratives on the Pedagogical Implication of Teacher Diversity, 293-308. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Kubota, R. and D. Fujimoto. 2013. Racialized native speakers: Voices of Japanese American English language professionals. In S.A. Houghton and D. J. Rivers, eds., Native Speakerism in Japan: Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education, 196–206. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847698704-018]
  • LeGros, N. and F. Faez. 2012. The intersection between intercultural competence and teaching behaviors: A case of international teaching assistants. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 23(3), 7–31.
  • Lippi-Green, R. 1997. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.
  • Maxwell, J. A. 2012. A Realist Approach for Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human Relations 55(1), 89–118. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702551004]
  • Mosley Wetzel, M. and R. Rodgers. 2015. Constructing racial literacy through critical language awareness: A case study of a beginning literacy teacher. Linguistics and Education 32, 27–40. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.03.014]
  • Motha, S. and M. M. Varghese. 2018. Rewriting dominant narratives of the academy: Women faculty of color and identity management. Race Ethnicity and Education 21(4), 503-517. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248826]
  • Mutua, C. N. 2014. Opposite worlds, singular mission: Teaching as an ITA. TL New Directions for Teaching and Learning 138, 51–60. [https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20096]
  • Norrick, N. R. and A. Spitz. 2008. Humor as a resource for mitigating conflict in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 40(10), 1661–1686. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.001]
  • Olivo, W. 2003. “Quit talking and learn English!”: Conflicting language ideologies in an ESL classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 34(1), 50–71. [https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2003.34.1.50]
  • Pavlenko, A. and A. Blackledge. 2004. Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596483-toc]
  • Pennycook, A. 2001. Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600790]
  • Preece, S. 2016. An identity transformation?: Social class, language prejudice and the erasure of multilingual capital in higher education. In S. Preece, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity, 366–381. London: Routledge
  • Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Rodgers, R. 2011. Critical Discourse Analysis in Education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Rubin, D. L. 1992. Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates' judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants’, Research in Higher Education 33(4), 511–531. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973770]
  • Seidlhofer, B. 2005. Standard future of half-baked quackery? In C. Gnutzmann and F. Intemann, eds., The Globalization of English and the English Language Classroom, 159–173. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Shuck, G. 2006. Racializing the nonnative English speaker. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 5(4), 259–276. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0504_1]
  • Shohamy, E. 2014. The weight of English in global perspective: The role of English in Israel. Review of Research in Education 38, 273-289. [https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X13509773]
  • Subtirelu, N. C. 2017. Students’ orientations to communication across linguistic difference with international teaching assistants at an internationalizing university in the United States. Multilingua 36(3), 247–280. [https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2016-0061]
  • Tannen, D. 2007. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987]
  • Urciuoli, B. 2016. Neoliberalizing markedness: The interpellation of “diverse” college students. Journal of Ethnographic Theory 6(3), 201–221. [https://doi.org/10.14318/hau6.3.016]
  • Vessey, R. 2015. Corpus approaches to language ideology. Applied Linguistics 38(3), 277–296. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv023]
  • Woolard, K. A. and B. B. Schieffelin. 1994. Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23, 55–82. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415]
  • Yep, G. A. 2014. Talking back: Shifting the discourse of deficit to a pedagogy of cultural wealth of international instructors in US classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 138, 83–91. [https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20099]

Kim, Jung SookResearch Professor, Center for Multiculturalism and Social PolicyDaegu UniversityEmail: jskim8015@gmail.com