Content uploaded by Gaston Bacquet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gaston Bacquet on May 05, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
WHY LANGUAGE LEARNING?
In his book ‘Language and Identity’, John Edwards
(2009) suggests that identity is a summary of all our in-
dividual traits and characteristics, and that it denes our
uniqueness as humans. Unlike others after him, however,
he also suggests that this uniqueness does not arise from
possessing components that are strictly our own, but rath-
er from what he called “a deep and wide range of human
possibilities”.
Amongst these possibilities, and because it is central to
the human condition, we nd language. Some researchers
have deemed it of such importance so as to consider it in-
separable from identity and intrinsically linked to the human
condition and self-development. Others have found eviden-
tiary support to link language learning and the construction
of one’s identity (Drummond & Schleef, 2016; Edwards,
2009; Joseph, 2004; Norton, 1997).
Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.2p.10
What is certain is that as arbitrary as languages are, they
provide individuals with a sense of belonging and communi-
ty; since as the early as the 20th century researchers have noted
how certain groups have used their language to protect them-
selves from outside inuence and even to be able to maintain
their traditions and culture (Dzvinchuk & Ozminska, 2018;
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.
International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies
ISSN: 2202-9478
www.ijels.aiac.org.au
ABSTRACT
Much of social research in language learning in the past twenty years has been devoted to
explore issues of identity construction and its sociological implications in terms of mobility and
inclusiveness. There are a large number of studies on the areas of culture and identity, and how
they relate to the investment and empowerment of language learners (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei &
Ushioda, 2011; Norton, 1997, 2000, 2013, 2015; Norton & Davin, 2015; Ushioda, 2011). Some
of these have been pivotal in the development of identity research for the past two decades and
have laid the foundation upon which further research has been done: Norton (1995) proposed her
Classroom-Based Social Research, in which learners become ethnographers of sorts under the
encouragement of teachers; Brunton and Jerey (2014) examined some of the factors that might
lead to empowerment with foreign students in New Zealand (2013), Diaz, Cochran, and Karlin
(2016) conducted a study in American classrooms to investigate the impact of teachers’ behavior
and communication strategies on students’ achievement and feeling of empowerment, and more
recently Howard (2018) investigated the impact of teachers’ attitudes in the construction of socio-
cultural identities in African-American students. Such research has provided a wealth of insight
and suggested practices, but in this researcher’s opinion they have come short in providing any
denite answers as to how to implement them or the outcomes they might yield. The purpose of
this paper is to shed new light on how the aforementioned dimensions of identity construction,
empowerment and investment can result in greater social inclusion for second-language learners.
The paper analyzes each dimension separately, provides a theoretical background that links them
to language learning, and then discusses some possible implications for teachers and researchers
on how to further recruit students’ investment and enhance their sense of empowerment and
inclusion.
Key words: Classroom-based Research, Empowerment, Identity Construction, Inclusion,
Language Learning, Mobility, Pedagogy of Inclusion
Can the Dimensions of Identity, Investment and Empowerment Increase Social Inclusion for
Second-language Learners? – Moving Towards the Creation of a Conceptual Framework
Gaston Bacquet*
Kanto-Gakuin Mutsuura Junior and Senior High-School, UK, University College London, UK
Corresponding author: Gaston Bacquet, E-mail: gbacquet@gmail.com
ARTICLE INFO
Article history
Received: February 19, 2019
Accepted: April 04, 2020
Published: April 30, 2020
Volume: 8 Issue: 2
Conicts of interest: None
Funding: None
Can the Dimensions of Identity, Investment and Empowerment Increase Social Inclusion for Second-language
Learners? – Moving Towards the Creation of a Conceptual Framework 11
LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL INCLUSION
To understand what social inclusion is, let us begin by
grasping its opposite. The UN ‘Report on the World Social
Situation’ (2016) denes social exclusion as “a multidimen-
sional phenomenon not limited to material deprivation; pov-
erty is an important dimension of exclusion, albeit only one
dimension” (p.17). When we talk about social exclusion we
mean to describe any context or situation in which an indi-
vidual is unable to fully take part in the life of their commu-
nity, be it socially, culturally, politically or economically. By
contrast, social inclusion is
a process which ensures that those at risk of poverty and
social exclusion gain the opportunities and resources
necessary to participate fully in economic, social, po-
litical and cultural life and to enjoy a standard of living
that is considered normal in the society in which they
live. It ensures that they have greater participation in
decision making which aects their lives and access to
their fundamental rights (Commission of the European
Communities, 2003, p. 9).
In other words, social inclusion seeks to improve the con-
ditions of individuals so they are more able to participate
fully in the life of the society they belong to.
Let us explore the role of language in such process. Some
scholars (Grin & Vaillancourt, 2000; Kymlicka & Patten,
2003; Laitin & Reich, 2003; Patten, 2001, Skutnabb-Kangas,
2008) consider languages a human right to be recognized as
an individual asset, while others view them as human capi-
tal which might enhance a person’s possibilities to improve
their job prospects (Grenier, 1982; Lazear, 1995; Pendakur
& Pendakur, 2002; Warman, Sweetman, & Goldman, 2015).
Regardless of this seeming dichotomy, however, what is
clear that both of these notions fall under the concept of so-
cial inclusion, since language knowledge has the potential to
help the learner gain greater opportunities and access, thus
enabling them to participate more fully in their societal life.
The February 2018 “Statement for a Multilingual World”
issued by the Salzburg Global Seminar, gives some inter-
esting numbers I think worth exploring. For instance, in a
number that illustrates how multi-lingual our world really
is, there are 7,097 languages in the world; yet about one-
third of them are endangered and only 23 dominate and are
spoken by more than half of our planet’s population. There
are also 244 million people who are considered internation-
al migrants, of whom more than 20 million are refugees (a
number that has continued to increase since 2000) who are
in need of access to jobs, schools and opportunities but who
also face stringent language requirements in order to qualify
for such access.
The statement also points out the need for targeted pol-
icies that can improve social cohesion in order to achieve
further social and political diversity, given a recent shift to-
wards denying the right for communities to maintain their
linguistic identity.
A report by Lo Bianco (2017) on multi-ethnic conict
in Thailand and Myanmar, two countries with a history of
language-based conict, illustrates how language is being
used to defuse conict through a method he calls “facilitated
dialogue” (p. 2), in which a facilitator assist the parties
involved in achieving a higher degree of understanding
through a structured program of sharing views and collabo-
rating through language.
Because inclusion depends largely on understanding, it is
important to also grasp that how teachers conduct themselves
with students can shape the level of that understanding learn-
ers are able to achieve; two pedagogical interventions that
can be explored in this study are further clarity in explain-
ing, as detailed by Dachyshyn (2008), and assisting learners
in ways that are both encouraging and non-discriminatory,
since students, as I have detailed, are already in a position of
disadvantage and inequality.
THE DIMENSION OF IDENTITY
In trying to explain ‘identity’ beyond the broadness of the
dictionary denition 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 anal-
ysis of the word. He denes identity as:
(a) a social category, dened by membership rules and
(alleged) characteristic attributes or expected behav-
iors, 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 dig-
nity, pride, or honor that implicitly links these to social
categories. (1999, p. 2)
He further elaborated on this denition by suggesting that
broadly speaking, identity is both a set of individual attri-
butes that prompt us to action, as well as a social category
designated by labels, such our nationality, sexual orientation
and family role. Fundamentally, Fearon’s ideas on identity
is that it orients and structures behavior, be it because of the
social norms that rule an individual’s existence or be it be-
cause of a sense of self-respect (individual identity). This is
actually a foundational aspect of second language learning
and a key tenet of this research.
Early on, Norton (1995) presented us with her theory on
investment: a social construct which she used to explain the
learner’s relationship between the language learner and the
social world; each learner brings their individual resources:
education, languages, culture, money and material posses-
sions, and they invest in the language learning process with
an understanding that these resources will increase in the fu-
ture in the form of access, jobs and social mobility.
She later linked these notions to the process of identi-
ty construction in one of her most seminal works and in it,
dened identity as ‘how a person understands his or her re-
lationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed
across time and space, and how the person understands possi-
bilities for the future’ (Norton, 2000, p.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, it is through
language that ‘a person gains access to a powerful social net-
work that give learners opportunities to speak’ (Heller, 1996).
12 IJELS 8(2):10-15
We can see that there seems a common thread and an
agreement that from the perspective of post-structuralist
researchers (which I share) identity is not rigid; it can be
shaped, reshaped, abandoned, re-acquired, aspired to and
negotiated
This viewpoint is also shared by Tabouret-Keller (1997),
Omoniyi (2006) and Mahboob (2017); the rst dened iden-
tity as a ‘dynamic process shaped by social action’ (p.12),
while the second theorized that identity is continuously cre-
ated and re-created depending on the individual’s social,
historical, economic and institutional circumstances. He fur-
ther elaborated in this notion of the individuals’ renewal of
identity as it becomes inuenced their “social interactions,
encounters and wishes” (p. 3). Mahboob, on the other hand,
explored how embedded ideologies impact the process of
identity construction as learners become more aware of con-
icting cultural features in the language learning journey: as
these ideologies become more visible, so does the learner’s
own sense of self becomes shaken.
This poststructuralist approach, however, is disputed
by Block, who claims that so much emphasis on the social/
external aspect of identity construction neglects the impor-
tance of the self and what Elliot called ‘the ambivalence of
identity’ (Block, 2006, p.35, Elliot, 1996, p.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, poststruc-
turalists seems 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 is-
sues as more psychological than simply social.
A wealth of research by Norton (2000), Toohey (2000),
Bayley and Schechter (2003), Hall (2003) and Kanno (2003),
has shown that the individual choices mentioned above can
be (and usually are) inuenced by the social structures in
place, thus creating a seemingly inseparable bind between
them, which was best explained earlier by Fearon even be-
fore such research was made available. It can be concluded
then that there is enough evidence to say that identity is nei-
ther 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 in-
equality contained within) can be oset through empowering
learners and help them navigate the complexity of the struc-
tures 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 nego-
tiating 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 na-
tionality, background, sexual orientation, religion, member-
ship and language background. And this gains importance if
we consider that, at least from a sociolinguistic perspective,
learning truly takes place when participating in communica-
tive events.
Although both Norton (1995) and Weedon (1997) es-
tablished early on the need for teachers to become ac-
tively involved in assisting students in the process of
identity construction neither oers 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 eorts to socialize in English
outside the classroom, to say nothing of them keeping jour-
nals or reecting 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 rst
of these practices, which relates to our mindset as language
teachers:
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
(Pennycook, 2010), we draw on linguistic repertoires,
we take up styles, we partake in discourse, we do genres.
(p. 98)
A study by Lovaas (2014) drew on these notions in an
examination of how L2 speakers may construct identi-
ty, arguing in favor of Pennycook’s “resourceful speaker”
concept, which he dened as ““both having available lan-
guage resources and being good at shifting between styles,
discourses, and genres” (p. 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 eectively 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 assert-
ed their identity through their interaction.
An even third dimension concerning identity construction
is the notion of power dynamics in the classroom, or to look
at more simply, how valued learners feel at dierent stages
of their interactional process, both by fellow learners and by
teachers. Here we come to a key term, what Pierre Bourdieu
(1977) labeled as “linguistic capital”; this can be explained
as the accumulation of a person’s language resources and
the role these resources play in navigating preexisting social
power dynamics.
In his seminal work “Language and Symbolic Power”,
Bourdieu (1991) claimed that languages form a wealth of
sorts; the same way a language benets and aords possi-
bilities to the members of that linguistic community, the op-
posite can be said to be true: for those outside of the group
belonging to the linguistic majority, there are reduced pos-
sibilities of access thus creating an unequal relation of sym-
bolic power.
This inequality present in language learning has a wide
range of repercussions, from documented poor external per-
ception and stigmatization of the speaker to lack of access
and attainment in education; drawing on Bourdieu’s earli-
er theories on cultural capital and cultural reproduction,
Can the Dimensions of Identity, Investment and Empowerment Increase Social Inclusion for Second-language
Learners? – Moving Towards the Creation of a Conceptual Framework 13
Cromley and Kanno (2013) looked deeply into this issue
from the perspective of language learners.
We can see the connection between empowerment and
identity construction in the following statement by Czuba
and Page (1991, p. 1):
… 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 dene as important.
This brings us to the next dimension.
THE DIMENSION OF EMPOWERMENT
To understand what empowerment really means as far as
language learners are concerned and why it is important, it
is rst necessary to go back to 1981, when Julian Rappaport
proposed his empowerment model while examining what
he called ‘the paradoxical nature of social and communi-
ty problems’ (1981, p. 2). He exemplies 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 chal-
lenges, 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 nding ways to empower learners in
the unequal world they nd themselves in.
In an inuential paper that attempts to dene both power
and empowerment, Czuba and Page claim that power “does
not exist in isolation but within the context of a relationship”
(1999, p. 1). And this is the crux of the matter: these rela-
tionships, naturally though not always intentionally unequal,
are also changeable and then it follows that so is the pow-
er that pervades them. And empowerment is the process by
which they change once people are equipped, both socially
and motivationally, to take armative action in regards to
the existing balance of power.
Empowerment, in the context of classroom learning
(such as what this study is trying to investigate), has a num-
ber of other dimensions. Following up on an early paper by
Shulman, McCormack, Luechauer, and Shulman (1993), lat-
er researchers (Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996; Houser
& Frymier, 2009) established three of them: that being em-
powered 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 lan-
guage learning and easily be related to the process of com-
municating in another language. Finn and Schrodt (2012)
dissected and expanded on this by suggesting that empow-
erment can be enhanced and augmented through pedagogi-
cal practices that promote a deeper understanding between
teachers and students.
There are two things these studies have in common:
one, is that empowerment is consistently linked to teachers’
attitudes and behavior 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 strate-
gies that can help build self-condence, and thus self-es-
teem, both of which are indelibly connected to our sense
of self.
In establishing a conceptual framework for this study,
which seeks to nd ways in which teachers can assist stu-
dents in their process of identity construction as language
learners, it is important to note that in this researcher’s opin-
ion such assistance is intricately connected with actively en-
gaging in practices that allow learners to feel empowered.
Social inclusion in the way of understanding not only a sec-
ond language but the target culture must be accompanied by
the learners’ ability to have an impact and to implement mea-
sures that achieve that inclusion.
CONCLUSION - THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF
INCLUSION
The dimensions of identity construction, investment and em-
powerment, and how their interactions form this suggested
framework can be illustrated using Figure 1:
Considering the above, and in answer to the question
“can teachers assist second language learners achieve greater
social inclusion”, I propose that the dimensions of identity,
investment and empowerment are inextricably linked and
that in order to eectively assist second-language learners
achieve social inclusion should actively engage in the prac-
tices below, all of which are aimed at building and construct-
ing these intersecting dimensions:
a. Assisting learners in gaining greater understanding of
who they, their role as learners and their social context
through regularly used questionnaires and semi-struc-
tured journals that help them reect on their feelings and
attitudes regarding themselves, others, their classroom
and their communities (Bell, 1999; Cohen et al, 2007,
as cited in Dörnyei, 2007).
b. Developing positive relationships with language learners,
based on collaboration rather than imposition, so as to
help oset the existing power structure of the classroom
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Identity
construction Investment
Inclusion
Empowerment
14 IJELS 8(2):10-15
in which teachers are seen as hierarchically superior due
to their greater linguistic capital (Diaz et al., 2016).
c. Exhorting learners to become active participants in
learning activities by shifting the power ow towards
them (Brunton & Jerey, 2014); this includes the learn-
ers themselves making choices regarding their own ed-
ucational input when applicable, and having an equal
voice in the classroom. Examples of this can be nego-
tiated 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.
d. Encouraging and supporting language learners’ eorts
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 (Dörnyei,
2005; Ushioda, 2011). This includes nding opportu-
nities to socialize with others, recording their personal
experiences, gaining exposure to the language they are
learning through music, videos, lms and books, and
keeping journal entries with the outcomes of these for
personal reection, written in their second language
e. Create a space where greater participation is possible.
Dewey (1937) argued that “…absence of participation
tends to produce lack of interest …(sic) resulting in lack
of responsibility” (p. 314). This model claims that aiding
learners gain their own voice, become empowered and
be able to oset inequalities, and guiding them towards
such participation is essential; for Lu and Webster
(2014), such participation translates as opportunities for
engagement fostered through the development of pos-
itive relationships and partnerships; exactly what type
of opportunity and exactly how these positive relation-
ships are fostered needs to be unearthed by individual
teachers through the aforementioned questionnaires and
journals. What is clear is that at the root of the meth-
odological choices made lies the belief that democratic
participations and engagement are an essential part of
this conceptual framework.
REFERENCES
Bayley, R. & Schechter, S. R. (Eds.). (2003). Language So-
cialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies. Cle-
vedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bourdieau, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges.
International Social Science Council, 16(6), 645-668.
Bourdieau, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
Block, D. (2006). Multilingual Identities in a Global City:
London Stories. London: Palgrave.
Brunton, M., & Jerey, L. (2014). Identifying factors that
inuence the learner empowerment of international stu-
dents. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
43(B), 321–334.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research
methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Commission of the European Communities (2003). Joint
Report on Social Inclusion summarizing the results of
the examination of the National Action Plans for Social
Inclusion (2003-2005). Brussels: COM 773.
Cromley, J.G. & Kanno, Y. (2013). English Language Learn-
ers’ Access to and Attainment in Postsecondary Educa-
tion. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1)89-121
Dachyshyn, D. (2008). Refugee families with preschool
children: Adjustment to life in Canada. In L. Adams
& A. Kirova (Eds.), Global migration and education:
Schools, children and families (251-62). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of
investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Ap-
plied Linguistics, 35, 36–56
Dewey, J. (1937). Democracy and educational administra-
tion. School and Society, 45, 457–67.
Diaz, A., Cochran, K. & Karlin, N. (2016). The Inuence
of Teacher Power on English Language Learners’ Self-
Dörnyei, Z & Csizer, K (1998). Ten Commandments for mo-
tivating language learners, results of an empirical study,
Language Teaching Research 2(3), 203-229Perceptions
of Learner Empowerment, College Teaching, 64(4),
158- 167.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner:
Individual dierences in Second Language Acquisition.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics.
NY: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and Researching
Motivation. 2nd Edition, Pearson: Harlow.Drummond, R.
& Schleef, E. (2016). Identity in variationist sociolin-
guistics. In S. Preece (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of
Language and Identity, (pp. 50-65). London: Routledge
Dzvinchuk, D.I. & Ozminska, I.D. (2018). Nation as a re-
ection of history, memory, language and culture, Hu-
manities Bulletin of Zaporizhzhe State Engineering
Academy, 74, 13-27.
Edwards, J. (2009). Language and Identity: An introduction
(Key Topics in Sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Elliot, A. (1996). Subject to Ourselves: Social Theory, Psy-
choanalysis and Postmodernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Fearon, J. D. (1999). What Is Identity (As We Now Use the
Word)? California: Stanford University. Retrieved at:
http://www.stanford.edu/~jfearon/papers/iden1v2.pdf
Finn, A. & Schrodt, P. (2012). Students’ perceived under-
standing mediates the eect if teacher clarity and non-
verbal immediacy on learner empowerment, Communi-
cation Education, 61(2), 111-130.
Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M. & Houser, M. L. (1996). The
development of a learner empowerment measure. Com-
munication Education, 45, 181–199.
Grenier, G. (1982). Language as Human Capital: Theoret-
ical Framework and Application to Spanish Speaking
Americans, (Ph.D. Thesis). NJ: Princeton University.
Grin, F. & Villancourt, F. (2000). On the nancing of lan-
guage policies and distributive justice. In R. Phillipson
(ed.), Rights to language: Equity, Power and Education.
NYC: Lawrence Elburn Associates, 102-110
Can the Dimensions of Identity, Investment and Empowerment Increase Social Inclusion for Second-language
Learners? – Moving Towards the Creation of a Conceptual Framework 15
Hall, J. K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Language and
Culture. London: Longman.
Heller, M. (1996). Legitimate language in a multi-lingual
school, Linguistics in Education (8), 139-157
Houser, M. & Frymier, A.B. (2009). The role of student char-
acteristics and teacher behaviors in students’ learner em-
powerment, Communication Education, 58(1), 33-53.
Howard, T. C. (2018). Capitalizing on culture: Engaging
young learners in diverse classrooms. YC Young Chil-
dren, 73(2), 24-33.
Joseph, J. (2004). Language and Identity. Basingstoke: Pal-
grave Macmillan,
Kanno, Y. (2003), Negotiating Bilingual and Bicultural
Identities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kymlicka, W., & Patten, A. (2003). Language Rights and
Political Theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguis-
tics 23, 3-21
Lazear, E. (1995). Culture and Language, Working Paper
5249, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Lo Bianco, J. (2017). Resolving ethnolinguistic conict
in multi-ethnic societies. Nature Human Behaviour.
doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0085
Lovaas, D. (2014). Resourceful Speaking in Language Learn-
ing: Constructing L2 Identity in Discourse and Interaction
(master’s dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder:
Colorado. Retrieved at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
e9b3/831a569e894a7a66b3d8be2ca1b8cbd02551.pdf
Lu, P. & Webster, R. (2014). Democratic and participatory
approaches: Exemplars from early childhood education,
Management in Education, 28(4), 138-143.
Mahboob, A. (2017). The power of language in textbooks:
shaping futures, shaping identities, Asian Englishes
19(3), 259-272.
Mooney, A. (2012). Human rights: law, language and the
bare human being, Language and Communication,
32(3), 169-181
Morris, C. (1946). Signs, Language and Behavior, Oxford:
Prentice-Hall
Norton, B. (2015). Identity, Investment and the Faces of
English Internationally. Chinese Journal of Applied Lin-
guistics, 38(4), 375–391.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and Language Learning. Essex:
Multilingual Matters
Norton, B. (2000). Identity in Language Learning: Gender,
Ethnicity and Educational Change. London: Longman.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, Identity, and the Ownership of
English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409-429.
Norton, B. (1995). Social Identity, Investment, and Language
Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31
Norton, B. & De Costa, P. (2018). Research tasks on identity
in language learning and teaching, Language Teaching
51(1) 90–112.
Omoniyi, T. (2006). Hip-Hop through the World Englishes
lens, World Englishes, 25(2), 195-208
Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is
it? Journal of Extension, 37(5), 24–32.
Patten, A. (2001). Political theory and language policy. Po-
litical Theory, 29, 683–707
Pendakur, K., & Pendakur, R. (2002). Language as Both
Human Capital and Ethnicity. International Migration
Review, 36(1), 147–177.
Pennycook, A. (2012). Language and Mobility. Essex: Mul-
tilingual Matters
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy
of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 9, 1-25
Shulman, G., McCormack, A., Luechauer, D. & Shulman, C.
(1993). Using the journal assignment to create empow-
ered learners: An application of writing across the cur-
riculum. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 4,
89-104.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2008). Linguistic genocide in educa-
tion - or worldwide diversity and human rights? New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Steiner, H. (1994). An Essay on Right, Oxford: Blackwell
Tabouret-Keller, A. (1997), Language and identity, In F.
Coulmas (Ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics
(pp. 315-326). Oxford: Blackwell.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at School. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and
identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer As-
sisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199-210
UN DESA (2016). Identifying social inclusion and exclusion,
in Report on the World Social Situation 2016: Leaving
no one Behind: The Imperative of Inclusive Develop-
ment, UN, New York
Warman, C., Sweetman, A. & Goldman, G. (2015). The por-
tability of new immigrants’ human capital: language,
education and occupational skills, Canadian Public Pol-
icy/Analyse de Politiques, 41, S64 – S79
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist
theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
