Content uploaded by Gaston Bacquet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gaston Bacquet on Jan 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
17
Editors: R. Leonard and B. Garrido
Vol. 10 (2019) University of Reading ISSN 2040-3461
L A N G U A G E S T U D I E S W O R K I N G P A P E R S
Editors: R. Leonard and B. Garrido
Investigating teachers’ role in the process of identity construction in
language learners
Gaston Bacquet
Much of social research in language learning in the past twenty years has been devoted to exploring issues of
identity construction and its sociological implications in terms of mobility and inclusiveness. The purpose of this
research is to explore how language and culture shape a learner’s identity as they immerse themselves into the
world of second language learning, and how teachers can assist learners in the process of identity construction
within a classroom setting. It first provides a rationale for the study; it then provides an overview of the literature
in the areas of identity construction and learner culture and finally, it presents the reader with the research question
the study will attempt to answer and the conclusions reached thus far. This is a working paper and as such it does
not claim to provide a full overview of these issues but merely to present the findings made up to this point.
1. Introduction
1.1.Background
How the notions of identity and culture are linked to learners’ sense of investment and
empowerment, especially in contexts where a sense of an autonomous self can be suppressed
for social, religious or cultural reasons, form an important part of this thesis. There are a large
number of studies on these areas and how they relate to language learning: Norton (1997, 2000,
2013, 2015), Norton and Davin (2015), Ushioda (2011), Dörnyei (2005), Dörnyei and Ushioda
(2011); some of these have been pivotal in the development of identity research for the past
twenty years and have laid the foundation upon which further research has been done: and yet,
what’s missing is the HOW. Norton (1995) proposed her ‘Classroom-Based Social Research’,
in which learners become ethnographers of sorts under the encouragement of teachers; Brunton
& Jeffrey (2013) examined some of the factors that might lead to empowerment with foreign
students in New Zealand (2013) and more recently Diaz, Cochran & Karlin (2016) conducted
a study in American classrooms to investigate the impact of teachers’ behaviour and
communication strategies on students’ achievement and feeling of empowerment. Such
research has provided a wealth of insight and suggested remedies, but they have come short in
providing any definite answers as to how to implement them or as to the outcomes they might
yield.
In light of the above, this research seeks to understand issues of socio-cultural identities and
thus make a significant contribution to knowledge in this area by attempting to provide some
answers to the above through investigating the type pf pedagogical interventions needed to
assist language learners in the process of identity construction in order to achieve further social
inclusion. It will also have applied relevance for those working with diverse student groups,
especially taking our present social context into consideration: we live in a highly mobile
world, with large communities of migrants relocating to wealthier, more developed countries
which are also culturally different and, each posing their own particular set of challenges for
these communities.
18
1.2.Why language learning in particular?
In his book Language and Identity, John Edwards (2009) suggests that identity is a summary
of all our individual traits and characteristics, and that it defines our uniqueness as humans.
Unlike others after him, however, he also suggests that this uniqueness does not come arise
from possessing components that are strictly our own, but rather from he called ‘a deep and
wide of human possibilities’.
Amongst these possibilities, and because it is central to the human condition, we find
language. Some researchers have deemed it of such importance so as to call it inseparable from
identity and intrinsically linked to the human condition and self-development, while others
have found evidentiary support to link language learning and the construction of one’s identity
(Norton, 1997; Joseph, 2004; Edwards, 2009). What is certain is that as arbitrary as languages
are, they provide individuals with a sense of belonging and community; since the early 20th
century researchers have noted how certain groups use their language to protect themselves
from outside influence and even to be able to maintain their traditions and culture (Morris,
1946; Steiner, 1994). It follows then that a common language (a lingua franca) serves as a
means by which to bridge a gap between communities that might be otherwise isolated from
each other. Not only English is at play here as the international language for business and
diplomacy, but there is also the case of Arabic all across the Middle East and North Africa, and
Chinese throughout the Malay peninsula all the way to Singapore. In both of those cases the
religious and cultural implications are broad and have repercussions in employment, social
mobility and more importantly, social and cultural integration, as this paper will later explore.
These issues are relevant because in the end, this integration and a certain degree of shared
identity hypothetically allows for more effective communication. How is a person going to
overcome the challenge of sharing such identity when available research suggests that that
ingroup members are ‘liked more’, seen as ‘more similar to self’, or ‘likely to try harder’ than
outsiders? (Billig and Tajfel, 1973; Ellemers at all, 1999; Haslam, 2001; Kane, 2010).
2.Literature review and conceptual framework
2.1 What is identity and how does it relate to language learning?
Because without our language, we have lost ourselves. Who are we without our words?
(Melina Marchetta, 2008)
In trying to explain ‘identity’ beyond the broadness of the dictionary definition in light of the
available social research up to that point, political scientist James Fearon dissected years of
former literature and presented us with a new analysis of the word. In his paper “What is
Identity (And how we now use the word)?”, he defines identity as: ‘(a) a social category,
defined by membership rules and (alleged) characteristic attributes or expected behaviors, or
(b) socially distinguishing features that a person takes a special pride in or views as
unchangeable but socially consequential (or (a) and (b) at once). In the latter sense, “identity”
is modern formulation of dignity, pride, or honor that implicitly links these to social
categories’(1999:2).
He further elaborated on this definition by suggesting that broadly speaking, identity is both
a set of individual attributes that prompt us to action, as well as a social category designated
by labels, such our nationality, sexual orientation and family role. It also orients and structures
behaviour, be it because of the social norms that rule an individual’s existence or be it because
of a sense of self-respect (individual identity). This is actually a foundational aspect of second
19
language learning and a key tenet of this research.
Taking the above one step further and linking these notions to the field of language learning,
Norton defined identity as ‘how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how
that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands
possibilities for the future’ (2005:5). This last point, she argues, is particularly important when
connecting the concept of identity as it relates to language learning, since one of the most
powerful motivations in language learners is the idea of a ‘desirable future identity’; in the
words of Heller (1996:10), it is through language that ‘a person gains access to a powerful
social network that give learners opportunities to speak’. Norton (2000) further argued that
identity is a dynamic rather than a stable trait influenced by relationships and by unequal
relations of power. We can see then that there seems a common thread and an agreement that
from the perspective of post-structuralist researchers, identity is not rigid; it can be shaped,
reshaped, abandoned, re-acquired, aspired to and negotiated. This viewpoint is also shared by
Omoniyi and Tabouret-Keller (1997); the former defined identity as a ‘dynamic process shaped
by social action’ (2006:12) and the latter theorized that identity is continuously created and re-
created depending on the individual’s social, historical, economic and institutional
circumstances. He further elaborated in this notion of the individuals’ renewal of identity as it
becomes influenced their ‘social interactions, encounters and wishes’ (Tabouret-Keller,
1997:3).
This poststructuralist approach, however, is disputed by Block (2006:35), who claims that
so much emphasis on the social / external aspect of identity construction neglects the
importance of the self and what Elliot called ‘the ambivalence of identity’ (Elliot, 1996:8).
According to them, ambivalence is a state natural to human beings which is brought about not
so much by the environment as by ‘life trajectory and individual choices.’ Additionally,
poststructuralists seem to ignore the root and origins of the concept of identity, which lie in the
early works of Sigmund Freud and William James; it was them who addressed identity issues
as more psychological than simply social. A wealth of research by Norton (2000), Hall (2003),
Kanno (2003), Toohey (2000), Pavlenko et al (2001), and Schechter and Bayley's (2002), has
shown that the individual choices mentioned above can be (and usually are) influenced by the
social structures in place, thus creating a seemingly inseparable bind between them, which was
best explained earlier by Fearon even before such research was made available. It can be
concluded then that there is enough evidence to say that identity is neither a purely internal
psychological construct nor an entirely social one, but a composite of both. An important part
of this study relates to how these social structures (and the inequality contained within) can be
offset through empowering learners and help them navigate the complexity of the structures in
place.
If we look at the identity in relation to language learning, we can see that this a particularly
important issue: second language users are not only continuously involved in negotiating and
reshaping their identity based on external social constructs and internal processes, but they are
also exposed to unequal relations that become evident depending on nationality, background,
sexual orientation, religion, membership and language background. And this gains importance
if we consider that, at least from a sociolinguistic perspective, learning truly takes place when
participating in communicative events.
History has given us countless examples of languages being imposed on citizens as a way
of differentiating ‘us’ and ‘them’. Instances of this existed in ancient Greece (who identified
non-Greek speakers as ‘bar-bar’, an early variation of ‘barbarian’) and in recent French history
as described in detailed by Tabouret-Keller (1997); an even closer example is that of Myanmar,
a country where there are more than a hundred languages spoken by their different ethnic
groups, and yet the military government imposed the use of Burmese as a lingua franca;
Burmese is the language spoken by the Bamar majority, and thus, from the linguistic point of
view, other smaller groups find themselves not being able to identify themselves as part of
those but rather as Burmese. The individual identity has yielded to the national one and social
20
constraints have prevailed where both should coexist (South and Lall, 2016).
2.2. Language learning and culture learning: an indelible connexion.
There is a generally agreed upon definition of culture as a system or pattern that defines and
establishes the boundaries and range of what is considered acceptable behaviour and what the
behavioural expectations are for a specific group, so that its members can associate effectively
(Galloway, 1992; Lado, 1964; Richmond, 1992). It is also a commonly agreed notion in
Sociocultural Theory that learning is a social process, and it would be hard to imagine an
immigrant into a foreign country, for instance, who could associate effectively without
knowing the target language to some degree as well. It can be argued then that there is an
intricate and intrinsic connection between the two. According to Pourkalhor and Esfandiari
(2017), Kramsch (1993) and Damen (1987), all of whom made the same claim, cultural
knowledge is socially acquired and the patterns, behaviours and shared elements of a culture
are transmitted and applied through language, which in turn becomes a mean to communicate
and transmit the culture itself.
In a world where social mobility has become the norm, classrooms are becoming
increasingly multi-cultural and diverse; this means learners bring with them their own
language, communication skills and culturally rooted knowledge, or their cultural capital, as
Yasso (2005) described it in her paper ‘Community Cultural Wealth’. And this diverse racial,
ethnic and cultural diversity means that language teachers must be able to recognize how
different learners will use this capital and act accordingly. This leads us to ask why it is
important to understand the notion of culture in language learning, which is an issue that has
concerned social researchers for the past 20 years and one of the questions Tyrone Howard
tried to answer in a 2018 paper titled ‘Capitalizing in Culture’. His research focused on multi-
cultural classroom in the United States, and it illustrates why this is something that should be,
from this researcher’s perspective, at the forefront of the language teacher’s reflection and
practice and why it is an important part of this research project. Much research has been done
there on the issue of multi-culturalism, and a great deal of the information gathered can be used
to generate further discussion, elicit reflection and invite teachers to make informed choices
that foster and nurture each learner’s individual culture. Gay, for instance, provides great
insight into the types of examples teachers give in a classroom and illustrates it by describing
an instance of a teacher praising the achievements of Asian-Americans while deploring the
‘underachievement’ of African Americans (2010). Howard (2018) tells of an African-
American child who gets confused with his teacher’s instructions, uttered not as a directive but
as a question to someone used to a much more direct use of the language. Here then we have
two examples from a monolingual, multi-cultural classroom, and it is not difficult to see how
this can be easily compounded in a multi-lingual classroom where both culture AND language
are different from one learner to the next; so, at observing this, we are reminded of Norton,
who argued that a speaker’s ability to become an actual social participant is contingent to their
ability to negotiate the aforementioned relations of power and the conditions under which they
are granted (or refused) the right to speak (in Darvin, 2015).
We have examined the notion that there is an intricate connection between language and
culture, but what exactly do we mean but accessing the target culture in order to achieve further
social inclusion? And what is the role of educators on this matter?
In their 2003 report on intercultural learning for the University of South Australia,
Liddicoat, Papademtre, Scarino and Kohler claimed that intercultural language learning is
comprised of five principles:
1. Active construction
2. Making connections
3. Social interaction
21
4. Reflection
5. Responsibility
They further claimed that these principles should inform teaching practices and guide
teachers’ choices and decisions (Liddicoat, Papademtre, Scarino and Kohler, 2003).
In order to achieve that, they further suggest approaching culture as a ‘practice’ rather than
a ‘competence’: whereas the latter consists mostly on learning facts about a specific culture,
the former is a highly variable, negotiable, context-sensitive action. In other words, culture
becomes experiential. From this, we can determine that educators should aim, from this
researcher’s perspective, at developing an intercultural point of view that would allow the
learners to remain true to their own roots and background while attempting, through language,
to understand the target culture as much as their own. It would seem logical to assume that only
then integration might be begin to take place.
2.3. Constructing identity in language learning:
So far, this paper has examined what identity is and the importance of becoming familiar with
both the learner and the target culture in attempting further inclusion. What this researcher
finds lacking is the presence of more definitive answers to the more pressing question “how do
we assist language learners on the process of de/re/constructing their identity?”
As we have discussed, identity is an evolving and not a static construct; moreover, it is not
in isolation but through our interactions with others that our identity is negotiated and shaped
and that it is mostly through language that these interactions take place (Weedon, 1997).
Although both Norton (1995) and Weedon have established the need for teachers to become
actively involved in assisting students in the process of identity construction neither offers
concrete answers that are transferable to other contexts: my experience in Asian countries has
proven time and time again that, for instance, Japanese or Saudi students are highly unlikely to
engage, as they suggest, in self-directed efforts to socialize in English outside the classroom,
to say nothing of them keeping journals or reflecting on their identity struggle (because struggle
they do). Although it has been my empirical observation that pedagogical practices can be and
are often transformative, the question remains how and which ones. Pennycook (2012) argues
for what I believe to be the first of these practices, which relates to our mindset as language
teachers. He states: ‘We do not actually 'speak languages,' we are not in fact 'native speakers'
of things called 'languages'’ (Canut, 2007). Rather, we engage in language practices, we draw
on linguistic repertoires, we take up styles, we partake in discourse, we do genres’ (Pennycook,
2010: 98). If we are to agree with him, then it becomes necessary to move away from the native
/ non-native speaker paradigm and to aid learners in the process of communicating, negotiating
and availing themselves of opportunities to construct their identities through the
aforementioned discourse.
A study by Lovaas (2014) drew on these notions in an examination of how L2 speakers may
construct identity, arguing in favour of Pennycook’s “resourceful speaker” concept, which he
defined as ‘both having available language resources and being good at shifting between styles,
discourses, and genres’ (2012: 99). She investigated how two women, Natalie (teacher) and
Ana (student), both bilingual users of English and Spanish, were able to constantly shift their
identities as the conversation veered into certain areas, keeping a record of how they effectively
navigated styles, discourses and genres as it suited the conversation. This, then, brings us to a
second pedagogical practice of value: encouraging learners to draw on their linguistic
repertoire to renegotiate their identity (even if a temporary one); by doing this, Lovaas argues,
the learner is validated as a resourceful speaker and the balance of power shifts, with the
exchange becoming more balanced and the participants having asserted their identity through
their interaction.
A third dimension concerning identity construction is the notion of power dynamics in the
22
classroom, or to look at more simply, how valued learners feel at different stages of their
interactional process, both by fellow learners and by teachers. Here we come to a key term,
what Pierre Bourdieu (1977) labelled as ‘linguistic capital’; this can be explained as the
accumulation of a person's language resources and the role these resources play in navigating
pre-existing social power dynamics. In his seminal work Language and Symbolic Power
(1991), he also claimed that languages form a wealth of sorts; the same way a language benefits
and affords possibilities to the members of that linguistic community, the opposite can be said
to be true: for those outside of the group belonging to the linguistic majority, there are reduced
possibilities of access thus creating an unequal relation of symbolic power. This inequality
present in language has a wide range of repercussions; looking deeply into this issue from the
perspective of language learners and drawing on Bourdieu’s earlier theories on cultural capital
and cultural reproduction, Cromley and Kanno (2013) found evidence ranging from
documented poor external perception and stigmatization of the speaker to lack of access and
attainment in education, and this brings us to the dimension of empowerment, and it connects
with the process of identity construction
2.4. Empowerment in Language Learning
“…Empowerment is a multi-dimensional social process that helps people gain control over
their own lives. It is a process that fosters power (that is, the capacity to implement) in
people, for use in their own lives, their communities, and in their society, by acting on issues
that they define as important.” (Czuba & Page, 1991:1)
To understand what empowerment really means as far as language learners are concerned and
why it is important, it is first necessary to go back to 1981, when Julian Rappaport proposed
his empowerment model while examining what he called ‘the paradoxical nature of social and
community problems’ (1981:2). He exemplifies this by situating freedom and equality: the
more freedom you give people in a group, he claims, the more power the strong will be able to
accrue and exert, to the detriment of the seemingly weaker members. Hence freedom is
annihilated.
Language learners are faced with very particular challenges, in that, as we have examined
before, the lack of linguistic capital has a direct impact in the degree of social belonging (or
freedom) they experience; there is an inherent inequality because of this lack of resources, and
that is why a key to this research is finding ways to empower learners in the unequal world
they find themselves in. In a paper that attempts to define both power and empowerment,
Czuba and Page claim that power ‘does not exist in isolation but within the context of a
relationship’ (1999:1). And this is the crux of the matter: these relationships, naturally though
not always intentionally unequal, are also changeable and then it follows that so is the power
that pervades them. And empowerment is the process by which they change once people are
equipped, both socially and motivationally, to take affirmative action in regard to the existing
balance of power. Empowerment, in the context of classroom learning (such as what this study
is trying to investigate), has a number of other dimensions: following up on an early paper by
Shulman, McCormack and Luechauer (1993), Frymier et al (1996) established three of them:
that being empowered means to feel motivated, competent about what one is doing and that
our actions have an impact. We can see how each of these dimensions has a prevalent presence
in language learning and easily be related to the process of communicating in another language.
There are two things these studies have in common: one, is that empowerment is
consistently linked to teachers’ attitudes and behaviour as well as situational factors both in
and out of the classroom; the other is that because of that very reason, the teacher’s role is key
in helping learners become more empowered by developing and using strategies that can help
build self-confidence , and thus self-esteem, both of which are indelibly connected to our sense
of self.
23
In establishing a conceptual framework for this study, which seeks to find ways in which
teachers can assist students in their process of identity construction as language learners, it is
important to note that in this researcher’s opinion such assistance is intricately connected with
actively engaging in practices that allow learners to feel empowered. Social inclusion in the
way of understanding not only a second language but the target culture must be accompanied
by the learners ability to have an impact and to implement measures that achieve that inclusion,
and exactly how this could be achieved is discussed in the section ‘Conclusions’ below.
3. Research question
Investigating the type and degree of pedagogical interventions needed to facilitate the
conditions I have described above, both in the process of identity construction and the degree
to which such process assists learners in gaining further social inclusion forms an important
part of this study, and it is here where I intend to make a clear contribution to knowledge; the
available research sheds some light on these questions but they all have limitations in either
scope, context or both: Norton’s suggested classroom-based social research might not
necessarily be feasible in places where there are limited opportunities to speak the target
language, for instance; teachers’ attitudes and behaviors, such as the ones reported on the other
studies, are likely to change according to context: Asian classrooms in the Middle East,
Southeast Asia and East Asia differ from those in Western countries, as do teacher-student
relationships. Moreover, while Norton’s suggestions had a practical approach, other
aforementioned studies focused on attitudes and behaviors. Hence my decision to explore this
area further and attempt to make a further contribution to this area by incorporating these
different perspectives into a single in-class ethnography. Students will keep journals and use
posters, presentations and digital stories to reflect on issues of individual and national identity,
culture and empowerment, and tell their own experiences as language learners. Focus groups
will be conducted mid-course to gather data, assess progress, evaluate available information
and make changes or adjustments to the course as needed.
Another important aspect of this study is its focus on John Dewey’s ideas regarding the
participation of learners in their own education provision. He argued that ‘…absence of
participation tends to produce lack of interest …(sic) resulting in lack of responsibility’ (1937:
314). Much of this study relates to aiding learners gain their own voice, become empowered
and be able to offset inequalities, and guiding them towards such participation is essential; for
Luff and Webster (2014), such participation translates as opportunities for engagement fostered
through the development of positive relationships and partnerships; exactly what type of
opportunity and exactly how these positive relationships are fostered fall within the research
question below concerning the type of pedagogical intervention needed. I also make additional
suggestions on how to further learner participation in the last section of this paper; these
suggestions are rooted in the belief that democratic participations and engagement are an
essential part of the project.
Hence, the question this study will attempt to answer is: What kind of pedagogical
interventions are needed in order to help language learners in the process of identity
construction, so they are able to offset unequal conditions of power and gain further social
inclusion?
4. Conclusions
In light of the above, what can first be concluded is the intricate connection between language
and culture and how they shape each other to allow the transmission of acceptable behaviour
patterns; that learning a language invariably involves becoming acquainted with the target
24
culture, that teachers must remain aware and respectful of both of these in individual learners
since both are also intricately connected with the learners’ sense of identity.
Additionally, and extrapolating from the aforementioned studies on the type of pedagogical
interventions that can further assist in the process of identity construction through
empowerment, some possible ideas are developing positive relationships with language
learners, based on collaboration rather than imposition, so as to help offset the existing power
structure of the classroom in which teachers are seen as hierarchically superior due to their
greater linguistic capital (Diaz, Cochran and Karlin, 2016); exhorting learners to become active
participants in learning activities by shifting the power flow towards them: this includes the
learners themselves making choices regarding their own educational input when applicable,
and having an equal voice in the classroom. Examples of this can be negotiated grading, having
focus groups, and collaborative language learning projects in which the teacher is just another
participant, such as shared research, posters, digital storytelling and group writing (Brunton
and Jeffrey, 2014), and finally encouraging and supporting language learners’ efforts to engage
in learning activities outside the classroom as well, in order to help them become more
autonomous and agents of their own learning process, such as finding opportunities to socialize
with others, recording their personal experiences, gaining exposure to the language they are
learning through music, videos, films and books, and keeping journal entries with the outcomes
of these for personal reflection, written in their second language (Dörnyei, 2005; Ushioda,
2011).
References
Bayley, R. & Schechter, S. R. (eds) (2003). Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Block, D. (2006). Multilingual Identities in a Global City: London Stories. London: Palgrave.
Bourdieau, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. International Social Science Council, 16 (6), 645-
668.
Bourdieau, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brunton, M., & Jeffrey, L. (2014). Identifying factors that influence the learner empowerment of international
students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43 (B), 321–334.
Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56.
Dewey J (1937). Democracy and educational administration. School and Society, 45, 457–67.
Diaz, A., Cochran, K. & Karlin, N. (2016). The Influence of Teacher Power on English Language Learners' Self-
Perceptions of Learner Empowerment, College Teaching, 64 (4), 158-167.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005), The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in Second Language
Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawarence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Edwards, J. (2009). Language and Identity: An introduction (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group
self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29 (2-3),
371-389.
Elliot, A. (1996), Subject to Ourselves: Social Theory, Psychoanalysis and Postmodernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Fearon, J. D. (1999). What Is Identity (As We Now Use the Word)? California: Stanford University. URL:
http://www.stanford.edu/~jfearon/papers/iden1v2.pdf.
Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M. and Houser, M. L. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure.
Communication Education, 45, 181–199.
Galloway, V. (1992). Toward a cultural reading of authentic texts. Languages for a multicultural world in
transition, 87-121.
Gay, G. 2010. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2nd ed. Multicultural Education
Series. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hall, J. K. (2002), Teaching and Researching Language and Culture. London: Longman.
25
Haslam, I. (2001). The Link Between Leadership and Followership: How Afforming Social Identity Translates
vision into Action, Personality and Social Psychology, 27 (11) 1469-1479.
Howard, T. C. (2018). Capitalizing on culture: Engaging young learners in diverse classrooms. YC Young
Children, 73 (2), 24-33.
Joseph, J. (2004). Language and Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kane, M. (2010). Validity and Fairness, Language Testing, 27 (2) 177-182.
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating Bilingual and Bicultural Identities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lado, R. (1964). Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lovaas, D. (2014). Resourceful Speaking in Language Learning: Constructing L2 Identity in Discourse and
Interaction (master’s dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder: Colorado. URL:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e9b3/831a569e894a7a66b3d8be2ca1b8cbd02551.pdf
Luff, P. & Webster, R. (2014). Democratic and participatory approaches: Exemplars from early childhood
education, Management in Education, 28 (4), 138-143.
Morris, C. (1946). Signs, Language and Behavior. Oxford: Prentice-Hall.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, Identity, and the Ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (3), 409-429.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity in Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change. London:
Longman.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and Language Learning. Essex: Multilingual Matters.
Norton, B. (2015). Identity, Investment and the Faces of English Internationally. Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 38 (4), 375–391.
Omoniyi ,T. & White, G. (eds.) (2006). The Sociolinguistics of Identity New York: Continuum.
Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it? Journal of Extension, 37 (5), 24–32.
Pavlenko, A. and Blackledge, A. (eds.) (2004). Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Settings. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. (2012). Language and Mobility. Essex: Multilingual Matters.
Pourkalhor, O. & Esfandiari, N. (2017). Culture in Language Learning: Background, Issues and Implications.
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 5 (1), 23-32.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 9, 1-25.
Richmond, A. (1992). Mass culture of cyanobacteria. In Photosynthetic prokaryotes (181-208). Springer: US.
Shulman, G., McCormack, A., Luechauer, D. & Shulman, C. (1993). Using the journal assignment to create
empowered learners: An application of writing across the curriculum. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 4, 89-104.
South, A. & Lall, M. (2016). Language, education and the peace process in Myanmar, Contemporary Southeast
Asia, 38 (1), 128-153.
Steiner, H. (1994). An Essay on Right, Oxford: Blackwell
Tabouret-Keller, A. (1997), 'Language and identity', in F. Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics.
Oxford: Blackwell, 315-26.
Tara J. Yosso (2005) Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth,
Race Ethnicity and Education 8 (1), 69-91.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at School. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives, Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 24 (3), 199-210.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Author Bio
Gaston Bacquet has taught ESL in Chile, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the Czech Republic and
Myanmar; he currently teaches Integrated Studies at a high-school in Japan. He received a
master’s in TESOL from University College London and is currently pursuing a PhD in
Education at the University of Reading under the supervision of Prof. Carol Fuller and Dr.
Anna Tsakalaki. His research focuses on the role of teachers in the process of identity
construction in second language learners. Contact: g.bacquet@pgr.reading.ac.uk
